© Omer Shafran ! " # $ % & % )*+, ' ( ! " # $ % & % )*+, ' ( ( ( ./ # - 0 10 0 # 5 ( 3 4 ( % 16 1 2 ( 3/ / ( 4 +78+- 9:- ;+:*- +8:7- <<- = / =<- ( / +*+2 / <- >, 2 !"# $ !"% $ & ' 1 ( ? ) + 6 * , )*+*- ):2 % - '( 1@ B '( A C +- /2 1. )2 ‫‪./‬‬ ‫(‬ ‫(‬ ‫‪/ /‬‬ ‫‪% $‬‬ ‫‪#‬‬ ‫תחביר כינויי‪-‬הגוף בג'ודזמו של המאות הט"ז‪-‬כ'‪ ,‬ובפרט בייצוגי ג'ודזמו דבורה כפי שמוצג במבחר דיאלוגים ספרותיים‬ ‫עבודת דוקטור מאת עומר שפרן‪ ,‬בהדרכתו של פרופ' דוד מ' בוניס‬ ‫‪A%‬‬ ‫‪%‬‬ ‫(‬ ‫<‬ ‫‪D‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫‪%‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪/‬‬ ‫(‬ ‫(‬ ‫&‪/‬‬ ‫‪/‬‬ ‫(‬ ‫‪D‬‬ ‫‪/‬‬ ‫‪%‬‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫‪+‬‬ ‫(‬ ‫(‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫‪/A‬‬ ‫‪%‬‬ ‫‪E‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫‪2 ( /‬‬ ‫‪/‬‬ ‫(‬ ‫‪/‬‬ ‫‪%F‬‬ ‫‪%‬‬ ‫‪%‬‬ ‫)‬ ‫‪/ < :/+‬‬ ‫‪:‬‬ ‫‪/ < :/:‬‬ ‫‪%F‬‬ ‫)‪:/‬‬ ‫(‬ ‫(‬ ‫‪1 2‬‬ ‫(‬ ‫‪G‬‬ ‫(‬ ‫‪:/9‬‬ ‫>‪:/‬‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫(‬ ‫‪( %/‬‬ ‫(‬ ‫‪%‬‬ ‫‪/‬‬ ‫<‬ ‫‪( 1/ / :‬‬ ‫‪%‬‬ ‫(‬ ‫<‪/‬‬ ‫‪/‬‬ /? ( /. ( ( <% D / ( % Table of contents Abstract............................................................................................................................... 5 Table of contents................................................................................................................ 7 List of tables....................................................................................................................... 14 Preface................................................................................................................................ 15 List of symbols and conventions........................................................................................ 18 1. Methodology. Pronouns in general................................................................................. 24 1.1 Methodology............................................................................................................ 24 1.2 Terminology: locutive, allocutive, delocutive......................................................... 26 1.3 Certain facts about pronouns, presented in older times........................................... 26 1.4 Pronouns versus nouns?........................................................................................... 27 1.5 Tautological use....................................................................................................... 29 1.5.1 Subject pronoun + inflected verb..................................................................... 29 1.5.2 Casus pendens and tail.................................................................................... 31 2. The analyzed corpora...................................................................................................... 37 2.1 Passages in the rabbinical responsa ostensibly representing speech....................... 37 2.2 Fictional writing ostensibly representing speech..................................................... 38 2.2.1 Novels.............................................................................................................. 38 2.2.2 Salonika satirical dialogues of the Uncle and the Aunt................................... 38 2.2.2.1 The satirical series author and characteristics......................................... 38 2.2.2.2 Social and linguistic diversity in Salonika at the end of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century......................................................... 39 2.3 Other sources........................................................................................................... 42 3. Results, discussion, and conclusions.............................................................................. 43 3.1 Subject pronouns..................................................................................................... 43 3.1.1 Preliminaries.................................................................................................... 43 3.1.2 Subject pronouns in Besprochene Welt transmission...................................... 44 3.1.2.1 Information about the subject in the verb................................................ 44 7 3.1.2.2 Co6occurrence of subject pronoun and verb............................................ 48 3.1.2.2.1 Subtle, mild, up to moderate signalling........................................... 49 3.1.2.2.1.1 The sequence OBJECT/ADVERB–VERB–(optional additional elements)–SUBJECT PRONOUN................................................. 53 3.1.2.2.1.2 The pronoun as a boundary marker......................................... 57 3.1.2.2.2 Explicit, strong signalling – focal or topical.................................... 59 3.1.2.2.2.1 Anteposition of the pronoun before the verb: subject pronoun topicalized................................................................. 59 3.1.2.2.2.2 Postposition of the pronoun after the verb: subject pronoun focalized................................................................................... 61 3.1.2.2.2.3 Further cases............................................................................ 62 3.1.2.2.2.3.1 Cleft sentences................................................................. 62 3.1.2.2.2.3.2 Use of the pronoun for purposes of indubitability........... 63 3.1.2.3 A case of unindicated (non6specified) agency: directive modality by means of infinitive and gerund forms...................................................... 66 3.1.2.4 Conclusion............................................................................................... 70 3.1.3 Subject pronouns in Erzählte Welt transmission............................................. 70 3.1.3.1 Some theoretical aspects.......................................................................... 70 3.1.3.1.1 Semantics of pleonasm (tautology)................................................. 70 3.1.3.1.2 Newton’s Third Law and its relation to syntax............................... 74 3.1.3.2 Lack or presence of a subject pronoun beside the verb........................... 76 3.1.3.2.1 Other observations........................................................................... 91 3.1.3.2.1.1 Use of yo at the beginning of a narration of the self................ 91 3.1.3.2.1.2 The sequence (±i)–VERB–ACTOR, in narrative chaining......... 92 3.1.3.3 Conclusion............................................................................................... 93 3.1.4 On the locutive and allocutive plural forms.................................................... 94 3.1.4.1 Locutive plural (nozotros and others)...................................................... 94 3.1.4.1.1 Formal development of the locutive plural pronoun in Judezmo.... 98 3.1.4.2 Allocutive plural (vozotros and others)................................................... 101 3.1.4.2.1 Formal development of the allocutive plural pronoun in Judezmo. 101 8 3.2 Object pronouns....................................................................................................... 105 3.2.1 Tautological (pleonastic) uses......................................................................... 105 3.2.1.1 Casus pendens......................................................................................... 105 3.2.1.1.1 Casus pendens: the case of a doubled pronoun............................... 105 3.2.1.1.2 Nouns, nominal phrases, and others as casus pendens.................... 108 3.2.1.1.2.1 The topic is unmarked in respect to the syntactic status 110 3.2.1.1.2.2 The topic is marked in respect to the syntactic status – as object....................................................................................... 114 3.2.1.2 Tail........................................................................................................... 117 3.2.1.2.1 Doubled pronoun in Besprochene Welt transmission...................... 117 3.2.1.2.1.1 Subtle or moderate signalling.................................................. 117 3.2.1.2.1.2 Focal signalling........................................................................ 119 3.2.1.2.1.3 The object pronoun is lacking, the prepositional phrase a + PRONOUN is present................................................................. 121 3.2.1.2.2 Nouns, nominal phrases, and others as tail..................................... 123 3.2.1.2.2.1 In Besprochene Welt transmission........................................... 123 3.2.1.2.2.1.1 Tail in questions............................................................... 132 3.2.1.2.2.1.2 Tail in clauses expressing directive modality.................. 133 3.2.1.2.2.1.2.1 Imperative mood...................................................... 133 3.2.1.2.2.1.2.2 Jussive mood............................................................ 134 3.2.1.2.2.1.3 Tail in clauses representing anger, complaint, or criticism........................................................................... 135 3.2.1.2.2.1.4 Tail in clauses in which one wishes to emphasize a fact at least, or expresses alarm, anxiety, agitation at the most 137 3.2.1.2.2.1.5 Tail in clauses purposing to explain or clarify................ 139 3.2.1.2.2.1.6 Tail in a long sentence, in which it signals the rhematic, or, at least, a highlighted clause, representing a cause, a conclusion, a deduction, etc............................................. 141 3.2.1.2.2.1.7 Tail in a protasis (in a conditional sentence)................... 142 3.2.1.2.2.2 In Erzählte Welt transmission.................................................. 143 9 3.2.1.2.2.2.1 Examples having minimal oppositions............................ 143 3.2.1.2.2.2.2 Specific cases................................................................... 151 3.2.1.2.2.2.2.1 Tail at the beginning of a narrative......................... 156 3.2.1.2.2.2.2.2 Tail in clauses representing violent or dramatic events...................................................................... 158 3.2.1.2.2.3 Specific states.......................................................................... 161 3.2.1.2.2.3.1 Tail with fixed syntagms – unconditioned tautology...... 161 3.2.1.2.2.3.2 Tail6pleonasm for purposes of indubitability.................. 163 3.2.1.2.2.3.3 A non6tautological case: the reinforcer ‘todo’................ 164 3.2.1.2.3 Conclusion....................................................................................... 166 3.2.1.3 VERB + REFLEXIVE PRONOUN as medium (middle, medio)...................... 166 3.2.1.3.1 Medium as a self centered mode of action in Besprochene Welt transmission..................................................................................... 170 3.2.1.3.1.1 Self6benefactive...................................................................... 170 3.2.1.3.1.2 A more complete predication................................................. 172 3.2.1.3.2 Medium as a self centered mode of action in Erzählte Welt transmission..................................................................................... 177 3.2.1.3.3 Conclusion....................................................................................... 178 3.2.2 Clitics............................................................................................................... 178 3.2.2.1 Proclisis and enclisis................................................................................ 179 3.2.2.1.1 With an inflected verb..................................................................... 180 3.2.2.1.1.1 Performative............................................................................ 185 3.2.2.1.2 With indeclinable verbal forms: infinitive and gerund................... 187 3.2.2.1.2.1 With no near syntactically related inflecled verb.................... 187 3.2.2.1.2.2 With a near syntactically related inflecled verb...................... 188 3.2.2.1.3 The clitic pronoun which echoes (uttered twice)............................ 191 3.2.2.2 Matters as regards sequence of two clitics.............................................. 192 3.2.2.2.1 me + se, and te + se......................................................................... 192 3.2.2.2.2 The sequence se l ..., instead of le(s) l ........................................... 194 10 3.2.2.3 Dative deixis towards the allocutor, without referring to the specific lexical contents expressed....................................................................... 195 3.2.2.4 The allocutive plural object pronoun os for vos...................................... 197 3.2.2.5 The case of the enclitic sen.................................................................... 198 3.2.3 Conclusion....................................................................................................... 200 3.3 Possessive pronouns................................................................................................ 201 3.3.1 Introductory notes........................................................................................... 201 3.3.1.1 Various multiple meanings of the possession syntactic relation and the 201 attribution syntactic relation.................................................................... 3.3.1.2 On representations of ‘inalienable’ (‘personal6domain’) possession...... 206 3.3.2 The two types of possessive pronouns: a morphological, prosodic, and syntactic account.............................................................................................. 213 3.3.2.1 The more6loaded (long) possessive pronouns......................................... 216 3.3.2.1.1 The absolute state: with no accompanying noun or other element, 216 signifying the possessed.................................................................. 3.3.2.1.2 Need to express the grammatical category of determination.......... 219 3.3.2.1.3 Thematization (occasionally at the beginning of a narrational unit): the construction DEFINITE ARTICLE – POSSESSED – MORE6LOADED POSSESSIVE PRONOUN............................................ 221 3.3.2.1.4 Focalization of the possessor........................................................... 224 3.3.2.1.5 Address or call................................................................................. 229 3.3.2.2 The less6loaded (short) possessive pronouns........................................... 230 3.3.3 Additional topics.............................................................................................. 233 3.3.3.1 The competition with the structure ‘de–PRONOMINAL COMPLEMENT’.... 233 3.3.3.2 Phonetic changes..................................................................................... 239 3.3.3.2.1 The forms nwestro and mwestro...................................................... 239 3.3.3.2.2 Cases of avoidance of the consonant clusters [str] and [tr]............. 239 3.3.3.2.2.1 Syncope and epenthesis: various consonant clusters............... 240 3.3.3.2.2.1.1 Cases of syncope............................................................. 240 3.3.3.2.2.1.2 Cases of epenthesis.......................................................... 242 11 3.3.3.2.2.2.1 Syncopated nweso and vweso, and other variants, for nwestro and vwestro........................................................ 245 3.3.3.2.2.2.2 Epenthesized n /mwéstero (or n /mwéstoro, etc.) and vwéstero (or vwéstoro, etc.), for n /mwestro and vwestro 246 3.3.3.2.3 The form gwestro for vwestro......................................................... 247 3.3.3.3 Modern Judezmo sus (delocutive plural possessor, singular possessed), instead of su............................................................................................ 247 3.3.4 Conclusion....................................................................................................... 254 3.4 Demonstrative pronouns.......................................................................................... 255 3.4.1 Observations.................................................................................................... 255 3.4.2 Selected examples............................................................................................ 257 3.4.3 Conclusion....................................................................................................... 261 3.5 Levels of address..................................................................................................... 262 3.5.1 Preliminaries.................................................................................................... 262 3.5.2 Diversified semantic splits of threefold systems: Judezmo as compared to certain variations of Spanish............................................................................ 263 3.5.3 The allocutive plural forms: Vos, vozotros/ as, and vozós/ ás........................ 264 3.5.4 Kinds of delocutive address in Judezmo......................................................... 264 3.5.5 Matters on the paradigmatic and the syntagmatic levels (axes)...................... 266 3.5.5.1 The paradigmatic level (axis): some aspects of the contrast allocutive singular address–allocutive plural address in the 16th617th6century rabbinical responsa.................................................................................. 266 3.5.5.2 The syntagmatic level (axis).................................................................... 269 3.5.5.2.1 Combining of the spheres................................................................ 269 3.5.5.2.2 Transition or a switch to a more informal way of address.............. 271 3.6 Conclusion............................................................................................................... 274 Bibliography....................................................................................................................... 275 Primary sources............................................................................................................. 275 Secondary sources......................................................................................................... 279 Electronic sources.......................................................................................................... 299 12 Appendix 1. A schematic summary chart of the Judezmo pronouns in the Ottoman Empire from the late 15th through 21st centuries........................................... 302 Appendix 2. Some Ladinokomunita discussions regarding or relating to Judezmo pronouns........................................................................................................ 305 Appendix 3. The findings me se, te se, as opposed se me, se te in certain 19th620th6 century Spanish literary works in Corpus del Español, and interpretations. 310 Acknowledgements............................................................................................................ 316 13 List of tables Table 1. Transliteration of consonants with and without a diacritic.................................. 20 Table 2. Use of Spanish nos otros, mos otros, nosotros, mosotros over centuries – data retrieved from CORDE......................................................................................... 97 Table 3. Spanish ‘We want’ – nos queremos vs. nosotros queremos – data retrieved from CORDE........................................................................................................ 97 Tables 4 and 5. The morphological structure of the less6loaded (short) possessive pronouns and the more6loaded (long) possessive pronouns..................... 214 Table 6. The system of Modern Judezmo delocutive less6loaded possessive pronouns.... 249 Table 7. Analogy between Modern Judezmo and Turkish delocutive possessive pronouns.............................................................................................................. 250 Table 8. Towards symmetry and homogeneity: change in the use of possessive pronouns in Judezmo: singular possessed........................................................... 251 Table 9. Este / ese: shades of meaning.............................................................................. 256 14 ‫‪Preface‬‬ ‫‪To begin with, here is the last will and testament pronounced by Reyna, Yicḥaq‬‬ ‫‪Hakkohén’s wife shortly before her death in the year of 1680 before a group of witnesses. The‬‬ ‫‪text was published in the responsa of Rabbi Aaron ben Haim Abraham Hacohen Perahia of‬‬ ‫)‪Salonika in his Paraḥ Maṭṭé ˀAharón.1 In it, the woman did not use the locutive (i.e. 1st person‬‬ ‫‪subject pronoun but twice, – perhaps a sign of her humbleness and altruism (locutive verbal‬‬ ‫‪forms are below in bold face type):‬‬ ‫טופס שטר צוא']ה[ וزה נסחו‪ :‬ביו ששי שבעה עשר יו לחדש סיו שנת חמשת אלפי ות"מ ליצירה אנחנו ח"מ‬ ‫נכנסנו לב ר את הי רה מ']רת[ ריינה נב"ת אשת הנעלה כה"ר יצח הכה נר"ו ומצאנו אותה חולה מושכבת על‬ ‫מטתה ושאלנו אותה והשיב']ה[ על הי הי ועל לאו לאו וכל דבריה ומילוליה מיושבי'] [ בפיה כשאר בני אד‬ ‫הבריאי ואמרה לנו שהיא מרגשת בכובד חליה והיא רוצה לצוות לביתה ואמרה לנו בב שה מכ הוו עדי צוואתי‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫והריני מצוה בפניכ מחמת מיתה ואמרה בלשו הزה יא שאוי"ש ומו בעוונות דישדי י אزי נו פארי אוטרו י‬ ‫אונה ויز אי אגורה שי"ש אנייוש לי דיש"י אמי מארידו י יריאה י מיגאשטרה גאשטוש פארה אزיר אלגו‬ ‫רימידייו פארה פאריר מי רישפונדייו מי מארידויונו טינגו י גאשטר איל דייו מוש אפיאדרה אישטונסיש לי דיש"י יו‬ ‫נו יאירו י גאשטי"ש נאדה די וואישה אزיינדה גאשטה די לו מיאו י איש מי כתובה ינו יאירו ידאר שי ה‬ ‫שי פאריר ומו לי דיש"י אישטו דישדי אי טונסיש עד היו פואי גאשטאנדו ואנטו לי דימאנדאבה פארה אزיר‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫מיל רימידיוש י שיירטו אשידו מאש די מי כתובה ו י אישטו לו דיגו דילאנטרי ווש אוטרו']ש[ פור י מיש‬ ‫יורשי'] [ מאנייאנה נו לי דמאנדי אלגונ']ה[ וزה פור י אי אישטה אורה אטורגו דילאנטרי די ווש אוטרוש ומו‬ ‫מי מארידו אה גאשטאדו פור מי דיג"ו אי אישטוש רימידייוש מאש די מי כתוב']ה[ אי טודו פוא"י פור מי דיג'ו י יו‬ ‫לי דיש"י י גאשטארה דילו מיאו אי לי רוגי אמי מארידו י לי די אמי אירמנה דייש גסי" פארה שאליר די ספ‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫אי לי רוגי אמי מארידו י שי אוינגה ו מי מאדרי י נו לו מאלדיגה כל הנ"ל צותה מ']רת[ ריינ"ה הנز' בפנינו‬ ‫‪I am indebted to Yaron Ben6Naeh for informing me about this passage.‬‬ ‫‪15‬‬ ‫‪1‬‬ ‫בהיותה שוכב']ת[ על מטת']ה[ וידענו בבירור שמתו אותו חולי נפטר']ה[ לבית עולמה וחיי לכל ישראל שב ת‬ . . . ‫ולראיה חתמנו שמותנו ביו ר"ח תמוز שנת הת" ליצירה ו י וידאל ביטו אלישע בכה"ר יוס! לבית גאלי ו נ"ע‬ ‫ע"כ הגיע טופס השט']ר[ צואה ועידיו ונעת מגו! שטר הצוא']ה[ הנز' אות באות תיבה בתיבה‬ ... veˀamerá ballašón hazzé: “Ya saveš komo baˁavonot, desde ke agora seš anyos, le a|mi marido, ke , no otro ke una vez. I ke me|gastara gastos para azer algún remedyo para parir. Me respondyó mi marido|: ‘Yo|no tengo ke gastar. El Dyo mos apyadrá/6dará.’ Estonses le diši: ‘ no ke gasteš nada de vwesa azyenda. Gastá/a de lo mio, ke es mi ketubbá, ke|no kedar seka sin parir.’ Komo le le esto, desde en6tonses ˁad hayyom fwe gastando kwanto , para azer mil remedyos, ke syerto a|sido mas de mi ketubbá. Kon ke esto lo delantre vos otro[s], porke mis yoreši[m] manyana no le demanden algun[a] koza, porke en esta ora delantre de vos otros komo mi marido a gastado por mi dičo en estos remedyos, mas de mi ketubb[á]. I todo fwe por mi, dičo. Ke le ke gastara de|lo mio. I le ke le de a|mi ermana dyes gasim, para salir de safeq. I le a|mi marido a|mi marido ke se avenga kon mi madre ke no lo maldiga.” Kol hann[izkar] l[eˁel] civvetá ma[rat] Reyna ... ‘... and she said the following words: “You (pl.) well know that, unfortunately (lit., ‘due to the iniquities’), since I got married, I have born a child but once. And six years ago, I told my husband that I wanted him to bear expenses for me, in order to get a medicine which would help me get pregnant. My husband answered me: ‘I have nothing to spend, (or: I don’t have to spend my money for that), God will take pity on us.’ Then I told him: ‘I do not want you to use anything from your property. Use my own, which is my ketubah, because I don’t want to stay infertile.’ When I had told him that, since then until today he has paid whatever I have asked him to, in order to make a thousand medicines, which has been worth more than the value of my ketubah. With these facts in mind, I tell this in front of you, so that my heirs tomorrow should not request anything, because I hereby inform you that my husband has spent the previously6 mentioned (resources) for me for the sake of these medicaments, – more than (the worth of) my ketubah. And all has been for my benefit – (i.e.,) the aforesaid. Because I told him to use up my (ketubah) money. And I asked my husband to give my sister ten gasim (a currency unit), in order 16 to escape doubt. And I requested my husband to come to some understanding with my mother, so that she does not curse him.” All the aforementioned has been appointed by Mrs. Reyna ...’ (Paraḥ Maṭṭé Aharón, Part I, no. 121). This study will try to encompass many important subjects concerning the use of pronouns in Judezmo, mostly as regards their syntax, starting from the 16th century onwards. However, in the nature of things, it would be impossible to treat all aspects of this vast topic, and some issues could not be investigated or touched upon. Furthermore, relative pronouns and the usage of pronouns within relative clauses will not be discussed here, since a comprehensive essay thereon has recently been published by García Moreno (2015). To conclude this section, I would like to say a couple of words uttered by a dear friend of mine, when we were studying linguistics together: “At the moment of speaking, the primary thing in our minds is deictic elements”. 17 List of symbols and conventions First, here is a miscellaneous collection of clarifications: When a place in the rabbinical responsa sources is cited, the number signifies the line number, which is counted from the beginning of the section. When a dictionary entry is referenced, and its page area is divided into columns, the letter a, b, and so forth, beside the page number, indicates the column number. If there is a citation from a Judezmo newspaper, its location is presented as follows: NEWSPAPER NAME VOLUME: ISSUE (YEAR). The sign ‘#’ means ‘a boundary of a syntactic pattern’. When we wish to make it clear that the sign is a graph (i.e., a written character), it goes in between the angle brackets ‘<’ and ‘>’. Wherever examples in English, Spanish, Yiddish, Russian, Polish, French, or Coptic were provided, the original graphic system of those languages was used. Below will be listed the transcription conventions:2 1. If there is a sound or a certain word whose pronunciation we aim to present, the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) will be used, and the sound(s) will be shown in square brackets. 2. The original representation of the exemplified passage or clause, being in Hebrew or other letters, will always be shown. 3. Transcription of the words of Hebrew origin: 3.1 In Judezmo texts: 3.1.1 The words are transcribed as Whole Hebrew3. As a matter of fact – to be more precise –, our transcription expresses a more original phonetic state of Hebrew, used centuries before the rise of earliest Judezmo in medieval Iberia, and much in the way it is represented by Tiberian Masoretes; nevertheless, see below some different conventions we use in this dissertation. However, in utterances drawn from the Satirical Series and in some relatively modern examples, a Merged Hebrew lexeme has been transcribed as one of non6Hebrew origin (see section 4 infra). 2 I thank Professor David Bunis for valuable remarks and improvements regarding the following paragraphs. 3 In Judezmo, as in other Jewish languages, the Hebrew component is found in secular everyday use. Its phonetic realization, adapted to the phonology of the speakers’ native tongue, is defined by Max Weinreich as Merged Hebrew. However, the Hebrew elements pronounced more traditionally in a religious setting sound differently, and are termed Whole Hebrew (Weinreich 1980: 3516354); for critical discussion see Bunis 2013. 18 3.1.2 When written as Whole Hebrew, the letters Gimel (‫)ג‬, Daleth (‫)ד‬, Taw (‫ )ת‬are always transcribed as g, d, t respectively, regardless of having a dagesh or not. In the Satirical Series and some fairly modern examples though (see subsection 3.1.1 above), a Taw (‫ )ת‬at the end of a syllable will be transcribed as θ. On the other hand, we have differentiated the dotted and non6dotted Beth (‫)ב‬, Kaph (‫)כ‬, and Pe (‫)פ‬: b v, k x, p f respectively. 3.1.3 The mobile shva is written as e. The different historical values of a vowel are not distinguished by us. E.g., kamatz ( ָ◌), patach ( ַ◌), and reduced patach ( ֲ◌), – all realized as [a] by Judezmo speakers –, were all three transcribed as a. 3.1.4 Note the following characters: Heth (‫ = )ח‬ḥ, Khaph (‫ = )כ‬x, Teth (‫ = )ט‬ṭ, Taw (‫ = )ת‬t, Sadhe (‫ = )צ‬c, Qoph (‫ = )ק‬q, Kaph (‫ = )כּ‬k. 3.1.5 The accent is marked according to paragraph 4.7 below. 3.2 Of Modern Hebrew utterances: The transcription reflects the predominant contemporary Israeli pronunciation. The glottal stop is represented by ˀ. We have not used accent marks. 4. Transcription of Judezmo and non6Hebrew6origin words, written in Hebrew script4: 4.1 Sin (‫ )שׂ‬and Samekh (‫ )ס‬are not distinguished in our transcription – appearing both as s. However, in medieval Iberia, Samekh (‫ )ס‬could have been an affricate [ts] , while Sin (‫ – )שׂ‬a voiceless apico6alveolar grave sibilant [s̺ ]6. 4.2 A diacritical mark (an apostrophe ('); a varika, i.e. a haček (#); " etc.) beside, above, or near certain consonants, – which does not necessarily appear in the original Hebrew6letter text –, indicates their different phonetic realization. The chart below will demonstrate this: 4 On the Judezmo older and modern orthography, and its phonetic realizations, see Bunis 2005; with special regard to pre6expulsion Jewish Ibero6Romance – Bunis 2004. Several specific observations with respect to the 16th617th centuries – in Shafran 2014. 5 Minervini 1992: Vol. I: §1.2.5: 31635; Bunis 2004: 109; id. 2005: 123, 127, 128, 1306131; Lapesa 1981: §92.5: 374. 6 Lapesa 1981: §92.5: 374. 19 ‫ב‬ b v ‫ג‬ g č [ʧ], dž [ʤ], š [ʃ], ž [ʒ] ‫ד‬ d ð z ž [ʒ] p f s (in older texts) š [ʃ] (in older texts) ! ‫ז‬ " ‫פ‬ # $# ‫ש‬ Table 1. Transliteration of consonants with and without a diacritic 4.3 In this paragraph there will be explanations about the representation of certain Hebrew characters (in the representation of words of non6Hebrew origin): * Aleph (‫)א‬, when not signifying the sound [a], but used as a graphic convention – at the beginning of words starting with a vowel other than [a], or inserted between two vowels in hiatus –, it is not transliterated. * If no diacritic sign is inserted near Beth (‫ – )ב‬older texts do not always insert them –, we have rewritten it either as b or as v, – the choice between the two usually hinging on the modern Judezmo pronunciation. * The corresponding character for Gimel (‫ )ג‬will be g, although in particular texts, in some lexemes, – and in certain phonetic environments –, it would be more precisely transcribed as ɣ (viz., as the voiced velar fricative [ɣ]). * Daleth (‫ )ד‬is transcribed as d, although in some of the texts, in certain lexemes, – and in certain phonetic environments –, it corresponds in speech to ð (viz., as the voiced dental fricative [ð]). If a text includes the special character ‫ד‬," we transliterate it as ð. * He (‫ = )ה‬h. However, at the end of words it is not transliterated, being a graphic convention representing [a]. 20 * Waw (‫)ו‬, if a consonant, is represented as v; if representing a semiconsonant, as w; if a vowel, as o or u. * Zayin (‫ )ז‬is transcribed as z, the way Judezmo speakers utter it. Yet in the Middle Ages it could have represented [dz] – as was represented by <z6/6z6> in Old Spanish.7 * Heth (‫ = )ח‬x. * Teth (‫ = )ט‬t. * The sequence of (‫ לי)י‬and a following vowel, was transcribed as y+VOWEL, although it may not have been pronounced in this manner in the sixteenth6seventeenth centuries, and might have been the palatal lateral approximant [ʎ] in certain lexemes in some texts. * Qoph (‫ = )ק‬k. * We have transcribed Resh (‫ )ר‬either as r or as rr according to the Judezmo equivalents noted by Nehama (1977), and the Spanish equivalents. But actually, in most of the cited texts there is no indication of the alveolar trill, rr, distinct from the r flap – both being denoted by a single Resh. Further, in the transliteration made in the anthology Satirical Series (Bunis 1999b), reflecting the modern Salonika dialect, there was employed mostly the alveolar tap r.8 Accordingly we did so in our citations taken therefrom, and from other modern Salonika texts. * Taw (‫ )ת‬at the end of a word = θ, in keeping with the pronunciation in major population centers such as Istanbul and Salonika. 4.4 Remarks as regards some morphophonetic matters: 7 Minervini 1992: Vol. I: §1.2.5: 31635; Bunis 2005: 163. Interestingly, there are few words in northern Balkan dialects of Judezmo (like the Bosnian and Monastir one), still retaining the original sound [dz], such as podzu, ‘a well’ (in other dialects pozo and podžo) (Quintana Rodríguez 2006: 3886389; (for the Bosnian Judezmo) Romano 1995: 15616; (for the Monastir Judezmo) Luria 1930: 17, 44, 250; Perez & Pimienta 2007: 356c, 360a). 8 The author of this anthology transliterated <‫ >ר‬to r, and <‫ >רר‬to rr. And that is to say, in the Salonika press, one might encounter the graphic use <‫>רר‬, reflecting clearly the alveolar trill, e.g. ‫גיררה‬, gerra, ‘war’; ‫לה אינגליטייררה‬, la Ingletyerra, ‘England’ (Aksyón 11: 3153 (1939): 1); ‫ "גוררו‬, čorro, ‘flood’ (Aksyón 10: 2818 (1938): 3; Bunis 1999b: 545 middle); ‫פייררו‬," fyerro, ‘iron’; ‫אררובאר‬, " arrovar, ‘to steal’ (Aksyón 12: 3214 (1940); Bunis 1999b: 478 bottom – 479 top); ‫טייררה‬, tyerra, ‘earth’ (Mesažero 5: 1596 (1940); Bunis 1999b: 382 middle). 21 preterite locutive (i.e., 1st6person) singular forms, % 4.4.1 As a convention, in such as diši, vidi, etc., the final vowel will be transcribed as 6i, although Judezmo has also a variant e.9 However, we chose to transcribe the form ‫פואי‬, ‘I went’, ‘I was’, as well as ‘he went’, ‘he was’, always as fwe, though there is also the variant fwi, in locutive, in Judezmo.10 In the transcription made in the anthology Satirical Series (Bunis 1999b), reflecting the modern Salonika dialect, the final vowel in such irregular verbs is, instead, e (e.g., diše, ‘I said’). Accordingly we did so in our citations taken therefrom, and from other modern Salonika texts. 4.4.2 & % preterite delocutive (i.e., 3rd6person) singular verbs (dišo, vido, etc.) will be represented as having penultimate stress, although in Judezmo the ultimate6stress variant can also be encountered.11 4.4.3 As a convention, in % preterite singular locutive (i.e., 1st6person) forms of the ar conjugation (such as amí), the last vowel, Yod (‫)י‬, is transcribed as í, though actually in older texts it was, or could be, é.12 4.4.4 ' % preterite plural locutive (i.e., 1st6person) forms of the ar conjugation (such as amimos), ending with ‫ימוס‬-/‫ימוש‬-, will be transcribed as having the affix imos, but actually in older texts it was, or could be, emos.13 4.4.5 As a convention, if the verbal % allocutive (i.e., 2nd6person) ending is <‫>ש‬, it is rewritten as š, corresponding to Modern Judezmo š, despite the fact that in some quoted 9 Bunis 1999a: §10.1.2.2: 198. There is regional divergence – at least in the modern Judezmo dialects: Salonika seems to prefer e, while the Turkish regions prefer i, the latter is seen, e.g., in the Judezmo textbook of Matilda Koén6Sarano (1999) whose family was originally from Turkey: tuvi, ‘I had’ (ibid.: 4), trushi, ‘I brought’ (ibid.: 5), izi, ‘I did’ (ibid.: 14), pudi, ‘I could’ (ibid.: 22), etc. 10 Bunis 1999a: §10.1.2.4: 1986199. 11 Bunis 1999a: §10.1.2.2: 198. 12 Bunis 2004: 110. My choice of transcribing Yod as í corresponds with the documentation in the early vocalized Bible translated by Avraham Asa, Ladino Bible 1739 1745, which may in fact have been used earlier in popular speech. 13 The development of preterite plural locutive of the ar conjugation in Judezmo was as following: kantamos > kantemos > kantimos (Bunis 2004: 110). 22 utterances from older texts, the allocutive plural suffix might have been not š but s14, the latter being represented also by <‫>ש‬. Where the morpheme was indicated by <‫ >ש‬+ diacritic, its reading as š is certain. 4.5 The spacing between words is based on Spanish orthography. When there is no space somewhere in the original text, as it should be in Spanish or contemporary Judezmo romanization, we have placed the sign | separating the two units. 4.6 If the second part of a single graphic unit is carried over to the following line in the original text, we will insert a dash (6) between those two parts, in order to indicate this. 4.7 Accent (stress): If no accent mark (´) is written, we mean that a word ending with a consonant is stressed on the ultimate syllable, and one ending with a vowel, or n or s, is stressed on the penultimate. Any exception to the said principles will carry an accent mark on the vowel of the syllable. 4.8 For forms having two phonetic variants in Judezmo, whose difference is masked in the Hebrew script (e.g., sinyor6senyor, mizmo6mezmo, lingwa6lengwa, vinyeron6venyeron), we chose only one of them when transcribing the word, and used it constantly. It should be noted though, that in fact, some of the texts might have had quite the other variant. Yet in the quotations taken from the Satirical Series (Bunis 1999b), and from other modern Salonika texts, we employed the Salonika variants, as have been transcribed in Bunis 1999b. 4.9 The examples from the Balkans region, undergoing vowel reduction, are transcribed as though they do not have one. 14 Cf. Menéndez Pidal 1904: §107: 1636165; Lapesa 1981: §§96.1696.2: 3936394; §67.3: 259. 23 Chapter 1. Methodology. Pronouns in general. 1.1 Methodology The main methodology applied in this dissertation is that of Structural Linguistics1, within the framework of which a satisfactory amount of written corpora has been collected in order to show the ways in which the language and its syntax are used.2 Several important tactics and guidelines have informed this study. The first is the separation of the 1st and 2nd persons (both called ‘interlocutive’, the 1st is ‘locutive’ and the 2nd is ‘allocutive’, see 3.2 below) the 3rd person (‘delocutive’). Leading scholars in linguistics and humanities have found a fundamental difference between the two, as Joly describes in his article (1994). (Cf. also Benveniste 1971; Shisha.Halevy 1988: 265, 268 [interlocutive. delocutive distinction]). Macro.syntactic3 sensitivity: Secondly, the use of pronouns in narrative, on the one hand, may differ greatly from that in direct speech, in stating one’s opinion, and such, on the other hand. Harald Weinrich has coined the definitions ‘Erzählte Welt’ (= ‘Narrated World’) and ‘Besprochene Welt’ (= ‘The World Spoken About’) for these two kinds respectively, and has tracked how clear the differences are between them in terms of verbal tenses (Weinrich 1971).4 Thirdly, as for the spoken language expressed through the written medium, it is important to note that the text does not (and probably cannot) include all the features of spoken utterances, but only some of them. 5 This principle is called plain style6, which means using only part of the 1 Some canonical and useful key books on Structural Linguistics regarding syntax are: Shaumyan 1965: 11.17, 126. 131; Lepschy 1966; Atajan 1968; Shaumyan 1971: 13.18; Heringer & Strecker & Wimmer 1980: 320.332; Bünting 1984; Shisha.Halevy 1986: §0.2.1.1.§0.2.1.2: 5.6; §0.2.5: 9.11; idem 1988: 261.277; Brinker 1988. A useful Internet site is Morphology and Syntax. 2 Close.to.the.text analysis is suggested, e.g., by John McHardy Sinclair, see his book Trust the Text (2004) and an article in his honour (Stubbs 2009). I thank Professor Ariel Shisha.Halevy for drawing this book to my attention. 3 For macro.syntax, see Shisha.Halevy 1986: §0.2.5: 9.11. 4 See also Niccacci (1990, throughout), calling the former narrative, and the latter – discourse. 5 Oesterreicher 2004: 755.756 (he sees this as ‘mímesis de lo hablado’ (Ibid.: 755)); Bunis & Adar.Bunis 2011: 409. 410; Bürki 2005: 221. I thank Dr. Aldina Quintana and Professor David Bunis for this insight and for a bibliography on this subject. An example of how a real conversation looks in written form, with unfinished sentences, 24 features available – a term taken from classical rhetoric (Greek ἰσχνός, ‘dry’, ‘withered’; Latin infimum, ‘lowest’, humile, ‘low’7), as opposed to grand style (Greek ἁδρός, ‘thick’, ‘stout’, ‘bulky’; Latin supra, ‘on top’, magniloquens, ‘magniloquent’, ‘lofty’8) – creating a wide variety of such features.9 Finally, when talking about the structure of dialogue, it is worth considering how it works: As Shisha.Halevy (2007: 138.140) puts it, ... far from being a mere juxtaposition of clauses, the basic or minimal dialogue ... is a tightly and subtly knit complex, which comprises, in its ideal, classic or most explicit form of “alternating discourse” or ‘Wechselrede’, two recurring substructures or subsystems: the allocutive and the responsive ones. These reveal special kinds of interdependence (and respectively “insufficiency”), and consequent cohesion, ... [with] basic linear succession ... Indeed, dialogue is defined primarily by this design: ... the progressive, dynamic intermeshing of two texts by two different locutors, with the prime cohesive factor between one Allocution, Response unit and the concatenated subsequent one being the fact that one Response forms the allocutive basis – in fact, a thematic base – for another. ... The personal reference in dialogue is inter, or delocutive, but interlocutive pronouns are 10 , in a typical speaker’s,role,switching interchange of locutive (1st,person) and allocutive (2nd,person) reference. ... simultaneous speech, etc., can be read in Grundy 2000: 186.187. Cf. Bunis & Adar.Bunis 2011: 411. A recent fundamental article on the oral / written opposition is Georgíeva Níkleva 2008. Actually, “El diálogo [es] ... estrategia para facilitar el acceso al texto” (Oesterreicher 2004: 755). Somewhat similarly Georgíeva Níkleva 2008: 217: “En toda expresión escrita subjace el diálogo como la forma más natural del lenguaje: siempre alguien (elocutor) se comunica con otro (alocutor) ... . Es el carácter dialógico de todo texto en términos de Bajtin: todo enunciado está dirigido a un receptor.” 6 Oesterreicher 2004: 755. 7 The Forest of Rhetoric, the entry ‘Style: Levels of style’. 8 Ibid., ibid. 9 An interesting statement about the grand style is: “Alas! the grand style is the last matter in the world for verbal definition to deal with adequately. One may say of it as is said of faith: ‘One must feel it in order to know what it is’” (Arnold 1862: 31 [cited by Richard Nordquist at About.com, the entry ‘Grand style’]). 10 My bold emphasis added. 25 Additionally, we would like to point out clearly that in all our analyses shown throughout this study, when Spanish examples are provided, it should be remembered that the Judezmo and the Spanish language systems are totally disparate systems, having evolved separately, and the author of this work never means otherwise. 1.2 Terminology: locutive, allocutive, delocutive In this work, in order to give a deeper meaning to pronouns, I employed the terms ‘locutive’ (= the 1st person, referring to the one speaking – Latin loquī, ‘to speak’), ‘allocutive’ (= the 2nd person – to whom one speaks, Latin ad,, ‘to’ + loquī), and ‘delocutive’ (= the 3rd person – one not participating in conversation, not involved in conversation, Latin de,, ‘off’, ‘away’, ‘aside’ + loquī). This terminology came from the French grammar by Damourette & Pichon (1932.1951: vol. 1: 75: §54)11. Interesting alternative terms12 for persons are included in Tesnière’s Éléments de syntaxe structurale (1959: 115.119, esp. 117.118): ‘ontif’ (= the 1st + 2nd persons, < the Greek participial form of the verb ‘to be’, ‘those being in a conversation, those having a discourse’), ‘autoontif’ (= the 1st person, < αὐτός, ‘self, myself, thyself, etc.’ + ‘ontif’), ‘antiontif’ (= the 2nd person, < ἁντί, as a preposition and in compositions ‘(over) against’, ‘opposite’, etc. + ‘ontif’), ‘anontif’ (= the 3rd person, < ἀ(ν)-, privative ‘not’, ‘without’, ‘wanting’ + ‘ontif’). 1.3 Certain facts about pronouns, presented in older times An interesting topic to begin with is how Grammaire générale et raisonnée de Port, Royal (first published in 1660) explained the emergence of pronouns in language. There it is said that in order to avoid repeating nouns signifying persons or things all the time, pronouns were invented, of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd persons13, as well as demonstratives and reflexives (Arnauld & Lancelot 1803: Ch. VIII: 299.300). 11 Cf. also Creissels 1995: 122, 124. 12 Thanks to Nadine Pavie for bringing this to my attention and helping clarify these terms for me. 13 The 1st person subject pronoun, ‘I’, was introduced, also because it was considered a negative manner to name oneself repeatedly. 26 Stoics have provided us with valuable insights about pronouns. As Bardzell (2009: 30; 117, fn. 23) presents it, the Stoics defined several parts of speech, including proper nouns, common nouns, verbs, conjunctions, articles, and the ‘mean’ (which could refer to adverbs): A common noun or appellative is a part of a sentence signifying a common quality, e.g., man, horse. A name [proper noun] is a part of speech expressing a quality peculiar to an individual, e.g. Diogenes, Socrates. A verb is a part of speech signifying an isolated predicate or an undeclined part of a sentence that can be attached to one or more subjects, e.g. “I write”, “I speak”. A conjunction is an indeclinable part of speech, binding the various parts of a statement together. An article is a declinable part of speech, distinguishing the genders and numbers of nouns.14 It is the latter, that is to say, the ‘article’, ‘ἄρθρον’ (literally ‘a joint’), that Stoics used as a term which embraced not only definite (and, in some languages, indefinite) articles, but also (Harris 1825: Book I: Ch. V: 74, in the footnote (g); Brandenburg 2005: 98, 101).15 Furthermore, as Schmidhauser (forthcoming, taken from the abstract of his article) claims, in the opinion of Chrysippus the Stoic, all ἄρθρον’s are deictic. 1.4 Pronouns versus nouns? Analytically speaking, in many languages, both the noun and its corresponding pronoun share a grammatical entity expressing one or more grammatical categories16, whereas the noun 14 Stoics’ definition reads (Diocles the Magnesian’s words, cited in Shisha.Halevy 1986: §5.1.1.0.1: 142: fn. 5): ἄρθρον ἐστί στοιχεῖον λόγου πτωτικὸν διορίζον τὰ γένη ὀνοtάτων καὶ τοὺς ἀριθtούς, ‘ἄρθρον is a part of λόγος (= imprecisely, ‘a part of speech’), capable of inflexion, determining the genders and numbers of nouns’. 15 As for the meaning of ‘ἄρθρον’, ‘a joint’, it is quite interesting to learn that Harweg (1979: 148 [cited by Lehmann 1980: 194]) reaches the same conclusion: Ein Text ist “ein durch ununterbrochene pronominale Verkettung konstituiertes Nacheinander sprachlicher Einheiten.” (= A text is a succession of language units, established through uninterrupted pronominal chaining). 16 These could be number, gender, person, determination (so conspicuously in Coptic, cf. Shisha.Halevy 1986: §5.1.1.0.1: 142.143), noun class (e.g., Swahili), and more. 27 also has a lexical unit – a satellite (i.e., an attribute), expanding that grammatical entity, the nucleus (i.e., the head).17 When we examine the origins of the word ‘pronoun’ in OED (– after classical Latin ‘prōnōmen’, itself after Hellenistic Greek ἀντωνυμία, ‘pronoun’), we find that both in Latin and Greek, this word consists of the prefixes pro, and ἀντ(ι)- respectively, both admitting more than one interpretation: ‘instead of’ as well as ‘in front of’18. Also in Greek words akin to ἀντωνυμία, we can see this above.mentioned ambiguity.19 Thus, one possibility would see noun and pronoun standing in front of each other, swapping places, with no hierarchy established between the two: None is more essential, important, primary in our thought, at the moment of delivering utterances, than the other. Another possibility is for hierarchy to exist: If so, there would be two more options available: Pronoun – as its name might imply – replaces, is secondary to, noun. Or quite the opposite: Noun, or any other semantically explicit part of speech, is secondary to its pro.form at the moment of delivering some content.20 Alternatively, another possibility may be considered – to 17 We are basing this argument upon the guidelines having been provided by Gideon Goldenberg in his articles “Syntactical relations and typology in Semitic languages” (1987) (in Hebrew; the English translation – id. 1998b), and “Attribution in Semitic languages” (1995: Ch. III, “Adjectives”: 6.11). 18 OED, the entries ‘pro.’, ‘ant(i).’. 19 ἀντονομάζω, ‘to name instead, call by a new name’, ‘to use the pronoun’; ἀντονομασία, ‘use of an epithet, patronymic’, ‘the pronoun, or the use of it’; ἀντωνυμέω, ‘to have an opposite name/denomination’ (Liddell & Scott 1883: 152). 20 This concept was adopted by the late Professor Gideon Goldenberg ‫ז"ל‬. In his classes, he gave an example of an insane person, employing pronouns (or, speaking more exactly: pro.forms) all the time, he, there, then, etc., and avoiding their corresponding semantically explicit forms. Whereas this person’s companion asks him to make things clear: Who is ‘he’? Where is this ‘there’? When is it ‘then’? Cf. this Hebrew example too (from the Internet): ‫ נו את האיך קוראים‬:‫ אבל את מה סבתא!? סבתא שלי‬:‫ אני‬.‫ נו את הזה של הזה‬:‫ את מה סבתא? סבתא שלי‬:‫ אני‬.‫ ליאור תביא לי את הזה‬:‫סבתא שלי‬ . . . ?‫ טוב סבתא טוב איפה זה‬:‫ ;לו! אני‬Cf. also Jespersen 1922: 393, – the following citation may support the discussed point of view: “... one of the most valuable contributions [made regarding the origin of grammatical gender in Indo. European] seems to me Jacobi’s suggestion (1897: 115 ff.) that the origin of grammatical gender [in Indo.European] is not to be sought in the noun, but in the pronoun (he finds a parallel in the Dravidian languages) .. .”. As to what was first, the chicken or the egg, – the noun or the pronoun, – the 19th.century linguist Jacob Wackernagel (2009: 495) states: “The Greek term itself [for ‘pronoun’, ἀντωνυtία] denotes those words of this type which stand in for 28 perceive noun and pronoun as two entirely separate and distinct entities, as Stoics might perhaps say – based on what we saw in §1.3 above.21 1.5 Tautological use Languages, as it appears, tend by nature to have tautological constructions, in which both a pronominal element and its equivalent exist. These phenomena are described in the following sections. 1.5.1 Subject pronoun + inflected verb22 Thus, for instance, we have a subject pronoun required alongside a verb, the latter already itself containing person and number, in the language “assemblage” Icelandic.Welsh.English. Dutch.German.French, as described by Haspelmath (2001: 1500.1501).23 For English and French, for example, this can be easily explained by partial or heavy loss of verbal inflectional morphology, and hence, the need to somehow indicate person and number (see some elaboration on English and French in the following paragraph). But looking at German, where verbal endings are alive and kicking, it is harder to elucidate this fact. As for English, throughout its history the subject pronoun has gradually become obligatory (van Gelderen 2006: 127; id. 2000: 125.147, esp. 125, 146, 147). We have the same development in French as well: Grevisse (1986: 1021: §64224; in the 15th edition (2011): 901: nominal forms. This is a rather empty term, and misleading in that one could infer from it the view that the mere reference to an object provided by the pronouns was more recent than the descriptive denotation provided by nouns – when in fact the pronouns belong to the earliest stage of languages.” 21 A comprehensive linguistic discussion on the nature of pronouns, and their (non).interchangeability with nouns, can be seen in Álvarez Martínez 1989: Vol. I: Ch. I: 11.30. 22 Discussions of Judezmo constructions of this kind will be shown in §3.1.2 and §3.1.3. Furthermore, our study will often provide some relevant Modern Hebrew examples; I am sincerely thankful to the reviewers of my dissertation for having brought to my attention the following relevant research literature related to those examples: Rubinstein 1968, Rosén 1977, Berman 1978, Glinert 1989. 23 Cf. also Latin vs. Vulgar Latin: In the latter, the subject pronouns “came into more and more frequent use. Ego and tu are very common in Petronius.” (Grandgent 1907: 34: §60; cf. Panhuis 2006: §54: 33). 24 (My bold emphasis added): “Au Moyen Âge, le pronom sujet faisait ordinairement défaut, parce que les terminaisons verbales, étant encore sonores, indiquaient suffisamment les personnes grammaticales: 29 §667) suggests the reason for this in French has been the loss of distinction between verbal endings in speech. Kaiser (2009) proposes a combination of four reasons as to why the necessity for subject pronouns beside the verb has arisen in French.25 If we take Russian and Polish for example – two Slavonic languages, – we will find that when using a verb in the present and future tenses, inflected for person and number, a Russian speaker prefers, nevertheless, to add a subject pronoun besides the inflected verb, whereas a Polish speaker refrains from adding one (Karolak & Wasilewska 1977: 35.36). For instance, corresponding to a phrase such as ‘I (don’t) love my (fem.) ...’26 or ‘I (don’t) love children’27, we find in the Russian National Corpus (RNC) and in Polish and English Language Corpora (PELCRA), that the percentage of results that include the pronoun ‘I’ in Russian is about 85%, whereas in Polish it is the lack of the pronoun that constitutes about 85% of the cases. These opposing tendencies may be influenced by past.tense morphology: In Russian, past.tense verbs, (historically participles), do not have person affixes, resulting in the need to add the subject pronoun to the verb, and thus this use could have been introduced – by analogy – with present and future tenses as well. In Polish, however, past.tense verbs do have person affixes, – and thus it would not trigger the same phenomenon that is observed in Russian. (Eneas, [roman du XIIe s., éd. J..J. Salverda de Grave, C.F.M.A., 1925.1929, 2 vol.], 8729.) — (Béroul, [Le roman de] Tristan, [poème du XIIe s., éd. E. Muret, revue par L.M. Defourques, C.F.M.A., 4e éd., 1947], 3175.) — 1937], 676.) — (Floire et Blancheflor, [(XIIIe s.), éd. M. Pelan, Les Belles Lettres, ([Maistre Pierre] Pathelin, [farce du XVe s., éd. R.T. Holbrook, C.F.M.A., 2e éd., 1937], 1390.) — Peu à peu le pronom sujet s'est imposé dans la conjugaison. Il était encore assez souvent omis au XVIe s.: ([Pierre de] Ronsard, [Œuvres complètes, éd. P. Laumonier, S.T.F.M., 1914.1975, 20 tomes], t. XVII, p. 265). — Au XVIIe s., cette omission était un archaïsme, quoiqu'elle fût fréquente encore dans les réponses: (Molière, [Œuvres complètes, éd. R. Bray, T.F., 1935.1952, 8 vol.], Ét., V, 8). — vol.], VIII, 3). — ! 25 (La Fontaine, F. [Fables, éd. F. Gohin, T.F., 1934, 2 " (Molière, Av., V, 3).” Kaiser also shows the same process in Brazilian Portuguese. My thanks to the members of Linguistics Stack Exchange for providing the valuable bibliographical information about French mentioned here. More on French: Adams 1987. 26 ‘... люблю мою/свою ... ’, ‘... kocham/lubię moją ... ’. 27 ‘... люблю детей’, ‘... kocham/lubię dzieci’. 30 Sometimes this doubling could be a matter of fashion rather than logic, or, defining it differently, a matter of grammaticalization. So in spoken Modern Hebrew: Future.tense forms tend to occur with pronouns, but this happens much less so with past.tense forms. The same thing can be observed in Spanish as to the usage of the allocutive pronoun tú with a finite verb in the present indicative, present subjunctive and imperfect indicative: Lehmann (2009: §2.2.2: 154) shows that such usage of tú today is significantly more frequent than in the 16th century. 1.5.2 Casus pendens and tail28 Tautology is likewise present in languages not only in the form of the repetition of a verbal inflectional element’s signified29, but also as coexistence of a subject or object pronoun, or any other kind thereof, and its corresponding noun or pronoun. There are two types: (1) Casus pendens, taken by us from classical grammar, ‘hanging (grammatical) case’, and, possibly, also ‘a “hanging” state’. In Hebrew the term is yiḥud, ‘singling.out’. Another definition, preferred by us, is anticipation30. The explicit element is put at the beginning of a clause, and only afterwards there is the nexus including its resumptive pronoun. (2) Tail – this name has been suggested by some linguists (Lambrecht 2001: 1051b). Among other equivalent terms, there is also echoing, and French reprise31. The explicit element is expressed later in the clause than its correlating pronoun. Thinking intuitively, one might expect that tails would serve as clarifying afterthoughts, however, this is often not the case: As will be illustrated in this study, tail constructions combine a wide variety of functions. Sometimes, though, in the same manner as we have seen in §1.5.1 above, these tautological syntagms (including casus.pendens ones) are “fashionized”.grammaticalized in certain languages, dialects, text sorts, styles32, or under certain 28 Casus pendens and tail in Judezmo clauses, will be presented in connection with object pronouns in §3.2.1. 29 I.e., the Saussurean signifié. 30 Among the terms for such a syntagmatic condition, listed by Lambrecht (2001: 1051b) and Borisova (2005: 5.6), casus pendens, anticipation, (and yiḥud, added by us) have seemed to us the most accurate and suitable. 31 And again, tail, echoing, or reprise have been deemed the most accurate and suitable, in our opinion, among the terms for such a syntagmatic condition, listed by Lambrecht (2001: 1051b) and Borisova (2005: 5.6). 32 Cf. English poetic usage – in ballad style: her mind grew worse and worse, # " $ : Examples drawn from OED, the entry ‘it’, 1.c.: And as grew better. (William Wordsworth , “Idiot boy”, in William Wordsworth (1770 – 1850) and Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772 – 1834), Lyrical Ballads, 1st edition, the year 1798, 31 syntactic restrictions.33 34 – Borisova (2005: 12.20) shows these varying parameters in Romance35 and Balkan Sprachbund languages, which may make extensive use of casus pendens and tail.36 The paragraphs below will exemplify casus pendens and, mostly, tails. Informal spoken French uses tails very naturally and extensively (Vendryes 1921: 102. 10337; Lambrecht 2001; and see examples below). In the following examples (1).(3), taken from p. 177); % & was their field of fame, And Ocean was their grave. (Thomas Campbell (1777–1844), Ye Mariners of England: A Favorite Song Set for the Voice and Pianoforte, Edinburgh: Hamilton's Music Library, the year 1802, p. 13); % shone. (Henry Kirke White (1785–1806), “Gondoline”, in was dark, and Clifton Grove: A Sketch in Verse, with Other Poems, London: Printed by N. Biggs, for Vernor and Hood, the year 1803, p. 39). For subject’s repetition in the history of English (both cases, as casus pendens and as tail), see Visser 1963: Part I: §67.§75: 53.60. 33 Also, in specific syntactic patterns. For example, in Modern Hebrew, if one wishes to say [Proper Name]’s wife, then the construction išt šel (lit., ‘ wife of [ ]) appears. We find by searching, on Google, haiša šel David (lit., ‘the wife of David’), ešet David (lit., ‘wife David’, the construct state), išto šel David (‫ אשתו של דוד‬,‫ אישתו של דוד‬,‫ אשת דוד‬,‫ האשה של דוד‬,‫)האישה של דוד‬, that haiša šel David is very rare, but išto šel David is the widely used syntagm, and ešet David is confined to the Bible, religious books, and discussions referring to these religious sourses. I thank Tomy Safran for causing me to think about this. See also the Coptic example further on, (5).(6). 34 There then arises the philosophical question, whether the condensed clause (i.e., having no tautological constructions), or the casus.pendens/“tailed” one is primary. If the aforesaid view of Professor Gideon Goldenberg ‫ ז"ל‬that pronouns are primary in our thoughts is true, then the tautological presence of pronouns is only natural. On the other hand, Talmy Givón would claim the other way around; we can deduce this from his argument that, historically, clauses having a topic being extraposed at their front or their back, gave birth to subject and object verbal agreement (Givón 1976; Fuss 2005: 6). 35 Cf. also Lapesa 1981: §133.2: 588; for constructions in archaic Spanish – ibid.: §58.4: 218.219. 36 About tail in Semitic languages, see Blau 1958: 189 (medieval Judeo.Arabic, Mishnaic Hebrew, Aramaic), who also refers ibid. to some Arabic dialects of Oman, to Maltese, and to Syriac, – in Rhodokanakis 1911: Vol. II: 205 (including fn. 5); 206. 37 Vendryes finds the same phenomenon in certain native American languages, and states the following regarding them and French, op. cit., ibid.: “... certaines langues américaines dans lesquelles les morphèmes et les sémantèmes sont conçus et exprimés séparément. On réunit d’advance au début de la phrase les indications morphologiques, on donne en quelque sorte un résumé algébrique de la pensée; tout y est, moins les représentations des objets, qui ne viennent qu’ensuite. Pour dire: l’homme a tué la femme avec un couteau, la phrase sera du type: lui elle cela avec || tuer homme femme couteau ... Le français parlé connaît des tours qui sont très voisins de celui.là. On entend dire 32 Louis.Ferdinand Céline’s Voyage au bout de la nuit38 (1935), – a book in which the use of spoken French is not limited solely to the dialogue, – tautological use of subject and object pronouns is found. An English translation (taken from Céline 2006), with my literal analysis in footnotes, is provided after each of the passages: (1) Après, la conversation est revenue sur le Président Poincaré qui s’en allait inaugurer, justement ce matin.là, une exposition de petits chiens ; et puis, de fil en aiguille, sur le Temps où c’était écrit. «Tiens, voilà un maître journal, le Temps !» qu’ me taquine propos. «Y en a pas deux comme lui pour défendre la race française! — , vu qu’elle n’existe pas !» que ’ai répondu , à ce en a bien besoin pour montrer que j’étais documenté, et du tac au tac. — Si donc! qu’il y en a une! Et une belle de race! qu’ insistait , et même que c’est la plus belle race du monde et bien cocu qui s’en dédit!» Et puis, le voilà parti à m’engueuler. J’ai tenu ferme bien entendu (Céline 1935: 12). After a while the conversation turned to President Poincaré, who was due to inaugurate a puppy show that same morning, and that led to Le Temps where I'd read about it. Arthur Ganate starts kidding me40 about Le Temps. "What a paper!" he says. "When it comes to defending the French race, it hasn't its equal." And quick to show I'm well informed, I fire back41: "The French race can do with some defending42, seeing it doesn't exist.” “Oh yes, it does!” he says. "And a fine race it is! the finest in the world, and anybody who says different is a yellow dog!" And he starts slanging me. Naturally I stuck to my guns (Céline 2006: 3). dans le peuple: Elle n’y a encore pas || voyagé, ta cousine, en Afrique ou Il l’a,ti jamais || attrapé, le gendarme, son voleur? ...”. Cf. Borisova 2005: 19: example (19): Je l’ai vu, l’assassin. 38 These examples were presented in Moshe Taube’s course at The Hebrew University. 39 Literally, ‘ insisted, 40 Literally, ‘ is kidding me, 41 Literally, ‘! replied, 42 Literally, ‘! would like it (i.e., defence), ’. ’. , ... having given as good as I got’. " ’. 33 (2) # n’avait jamais eu d’imagination (Céline 1935: 20). The colonel had never had any imagination43 (Céline 2006: 14). (3) ' ’aurais bien donné aux requins à bouffer , , et puis son gendarme avec, pour leur apprendre à vivre; et puis mon cheval aussi en même temps pour qu’il ne souffre plus, parce qu’ n’en avait plus de dos %, tellement qu’il avait $ mal, rien que deux plaques de chair qui lui restaient à la place, sous la selle, larges comme mes deux mains et suintantes, à vif, avec des grandes traînées de pus qui lui coulaient par les bords de la couverture jusqu’aux jarrets. Il fallait cependant trotter là.dessus, un, deux... Il s’en tortillait de trotter (Céline 1935: 25). I’d gladly have fed Major Pinçon to the sharks&& and his MP with him, to teach them how to live; my horse too while I was at it, so he wouldn’t have to suffer any more; the poor fellow didn’t have any back left45 it was so sore, only two plaques of raw flesh under the saddle, as big as my two hands, oozing rivers of pus that ran from the edges of his blanket down to his hocks. I had to ride him all the same, trot.trot… That trot.trot made him wriggle and writhe (Céline 2006: 18. 19). The next two sentences (4a).(4b) show a variation which is in use.46 Sentence (4b) is accepted in the spoken language, however one sometimes refrains from using it in writing47: 43 Literally, ‘' had never had any imagination, ’. However, note that this sentence includes a noun, and a corresponding pronoun (a disjunctive one, though) lui extraposed, and not vice versa (the order presented in this section, i.e., pronoun (...) noun/pronoun). 44 Literally, ‘( 45 Literally, ‘ 46 Taken from a handout of a paper presented by Georg Bossong, “DOM in the Semitic languages”, at The Hebrew would gladly have fed to the sharks, did not have any back left, ) ,( ’. *+’. University of Jerusalem. 47 I am grateful to Nadine Pavie for sharing this information with me. 34 (4a) J’ai apporté le livre à Marie. (Literally, “I brought the book to Marie”). (4b) Je ai apporté, ,,( . (Literally, “I brought , " ( &, ”). In the same manner, a French speaker can say ‘Il est formidable(,) Jean.48’, i.e. being a variant of: ‘Jean est formidable’49. Or ‘Où est.elle(,) Marie?’50 – a variant of ‘Où est Marie?’51 The following example, (5).(6), demonstrates nominal clauses in Coptic52: (5) A tail construction: ⲁⲅⲁⲑⲟⲥ ⲡⲉ ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ INDEF. ART..good He God ‘God is good.’ (Literally, ‘He is good, God.’) (6) A casus.pendens contruction: ⲡⲛⲟⲩⲧⲉ ⲁⲅⲁⲑⲟⲥ ⲡⲉ God INDEF. ART..good He ‘(As for) God, He is good.’ As can be seen in Shisha.Halevy 1988: 172.174, there is no other way of expressing a nominal theme or topic but by using the patterns (5) or (6) above, i.e., by - $ . introducing the pronoun ⲡⲉ ‘he’ (or, respectively, ⲉ, ‘she’, ⲛⲉ, ‘they’), and by adding the noun as an apposition. An analogous phenomenon which behaves in the casus.pendens way (like (6) 48 Literally, “He is wonderful, Jean.” 49 Literally, “Jean is wonderful.” 50 Literally, “Where is she, Marie?” 51 Literally, “Where is Marie?” 52 I thank Professor Gideon Goldenberg and Nadine Pavie for making me think about these types of clauses in Coptic. 35 above) can be exhibited, to a large extent, in Biblical Hebrew as well (Driver 1892: Appendix V: 264.274). 36 Chapter 2. The analyzed corpora 2.1 Passages in the rabbinical responsa ostensibly representing speech The corpora upon which the present study is based, consist of utterances and passages taken from 16th"17th"century rabbinical responsa, and also from a few newer ones. Rabbinical responsa are collections of legal discussions replying to halakhic queries brought before batté din (rabbinical courts). Within those collections reflecting discussions held in the rabbinical courts of the Ottoman Empire, clauses or whole passages in Judezmo may appear. This kind of source gives us a window into older stages of Judezmo, including ostensible conversations in this language, which took place in the rabbinical courts. The responsa literature represents legal examinations performed in various regions of the Ottoman Empire, hence, the language therein too, is geographically heterogeneous. Many responsa passages cited in this work were initially examined by me in connection with my work as research assistant for the project supported by Israel Science Foundation grant no. 1105/11 and directed by Professor David M. Bunis, “Spoken Judezmo (Ladino) as Represented in Written Conversations: Corpus and Linguistic Analysis”. Also, I availed myself of the Global Jewish Database (The Responsa Project) at Bar"Ilan University, which helped me quickly find the Judezmo words, morphemes, etc. in rabbinical responsa. Moreover, the recent valuable study by Benaim (2011) on 16th"century responsa texts was sometimes helpful, and I referred to her work throughout. Therefore, as one of the foci of this research are the said 16th"century rabbinical responsa, it is important to mention three salient Judezmo works written in the 16th century: Meza de el Alma, Séfer Ḥovat Hallevavot, and Séder Našim. (I thank the reviewers of my Ph.D. thesis for this insightful comment). These works will not be part of our corpora, since they do not incorporate representations of spoken language, which is the focus of our discussion. However, we took notice of some particularly relevant topics or instances, which will be demonstrated in our study. 37 2.2 Fictional writing ostensibly representing speech 2.2.1 Novels We also used written sources ostensibly representing the Salonika dialect as spoken in the Modern Period1 of Judezmo. One such source was a 20th"century novel, Ester Matalón, published in Salonika in 1935, by Albert Barzillay. 2.2.2 Salonika satirical dialogues of the Uncle and the Aunt This is another important source, seeking to represent this dialect, as it was spoken in the second half of the 19th century, and the first half of the 20th century: the Satirical Series. 2.2.2.1 The satirical series author and characteristics Besides the corpora described in §2.1 and §2.2.1 above, the central object of our investigation was the written, fictional corpus of satirical dialogues, published in several Salonika Judezmo newspapers in the inter"war period, especially the series named Tio Ezrá i su mužer Benuta, and Tio Boxor i su mužer Džamila, of which an anthology, with scholarly notes, was published by D. Bunis (1999b). Most of these dialogues represent the language of the older, traditional generation of Jews in Salonika, born in the second half of the 19th century, who were only minimally affected by modern Western culture.2 (However, in some of these conversations, we encounter younger characters too.) These humorous texts depict a mature couple – a husband and wife – talking and arguing about various ideas, ostensibly using their everyday spoken language. Given the stylistic and other linguistic features common to all of these dialogues, it seems likely that they were all written by one and the same person – Mošé Cazés.3 That is, we may have here an idiolect, which is an advantage for a linguist, since a language of a person is studied, thereby ensuring uniform and consistent research results.4 1 That is, c. 1811 – present (Bunis 1992: 409"414). 2 Bunis 1999b: 33"34, 40, 62. 3 Bunis 1999b: Ch. 9. 4 Cf. Shisha"Halevy 1972: §0.1.1: 12. 38 The supposed author, Mošé Cazés, was born in Salonika. His father belonged to a more conservative, religious generation, while he – despite his father’s objection – was educated, for some time, in a local secular"oriented branch of the Alliance Israélite Universelle school system, thereby becoming more liberal and more detached from religion than the older people. Cazés grew up in poverty. His written works established his reputation as a talented writer and comedian, and he devoted himself to this occupation throughout his life. Cazés’s literary undertaking also encompassed the editing of several newspapers in Salonika in the 20th century. Undoubtedly, his writings reflect magnificent abilities and abundance of creativity.5 2.2.2.2 Social and linguistic diversity in Salonika at the end of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century At the late 15th century, with the arrival of the Jewish émigrés from Iberia, Salonika became one of the major centres of Sephardi Jewry, and one of the few cities in the world that boasted a Jewish plurality population at the beginning of the twentieth century.6 Even after the population exchange between Greece and Turkey in 1923, in Salonika – the second largest city of Greece – Jews represented about one"quarter to one"third of the population.7 During a period of approximately one hundred years, until the Second World War, – when Salonika Jewry met its tragic end at the hands of the Nazis –, Salonika Jews underwent numerous and profound transformations. This is one of the reasons that gave rise to the discussed satirical texts: Couples, who served as its primary characters, could argue about so many things in their changing and vibrant surrounding society; and these pairs were considered outmoded, and thus laughable. The blowing winds of change in Salonika society at the time are readily seen in a passage which appears at the beginning of the memoirs of Saˁadí Becalˀel Halleví (1820 – 1903), published by Rodrigue, Abrevaya Stein, and Jerusalmi in 2012. Halleví was a prominent journalist and publisher in Salonika. He stated the aim of his memoirs in the following prefatory words: 5 On Mošé Cazés’s life and career, see Bunis 1999b: Ch. 9. 6 Ginio 2002: 238; Rodrigue & Abrevaya Stein & Jerusalmi 2012: xiv. The present subchapter will be heavily based on these two sources. 7 Ginio 2002: 239. 39 My purpose in writing this story is to inform future generations how much times have changed within half a century. Nothing resembles our present customs! From clothing worn by men and women to home furniture, even to the design of houses and, needless to say, to eating and drinking, everything has undergone a profound change. Some quite curious habits among young men and unmarried girls are also worth mentioning. To anyone with a vivid recollection of the old days, this is like going from a bygone age into a new one, as one observes the behavior of men and women and youngsters of both sexes. On reading this personal story, some young people may joke about it; others will laugh, and still others will be deeply crushed, concluding, “This is how our ancestors suffered in the olden days due to their ignorance and fanaticism.” Hopefully, this will be obvious from my narrative as it unfolds! ... I started to write this story on May 23, 1881, and on. It is the pure truth.8 It should be noted at this point that the Jewish population in the cities of the Ottoman Empire was not isolated: There were points of contact and convergence between the Jewish and the non"Jewish neighbourhoods; these relations were broad and significant.9 Apart from this outside influence, Salonika constantly reacted to diverse influences along the time axis: There were major changes and severe instabilities. Among these were the importance of the educational reforms driven by the Alliance Israélite Universelle; the rise of regional nationalisms; the Balkan wars (1912"1913); the rise of new nation"states, and population transfers that accompanied them; a major fire (1917); and also the concordant fraying and collapse of Ottoman society in general.10 8 Rodrigue & Abrevaya Stein & Jerusalmi 2012: 3. This is the translation into English, provided ibid. The original text reads as follows (ibid.: 149), the transcription characters are as they appear ibid.: “Prefasyon. El eskopo de dita estorya es por dar a saver a los doroth vinideros komodo trokan los tyempos, de dyentro de medyo sekolo ke non asemeja de el todo a los uzos de agora, tanto en los ombres komo en las mujeres, tanto en las vistimyentas komo en los mobles de kaza, afillú las moradas mizmo. Non kere dicho en el komer i el bever, masimame[nte] los mansevos ilas mosas ke son unas kozas muy kuryozas. El kese akodra de akel tyempo, a ver lo de el tyempo preze[n]te, ande mas el komportamyento delos ombres i mujeres, ijos i ijas, parese vinir de un mundo vyejo a un mundo otro. I los mansevos ke meldaran dita estorya, unos se van a burlar, i otros se van a riir, i otros se les va a dezazer el korason en dizyendo, este modo sufrian muestros padres en los tyempos antiguos, a kavza dela inyoransa i el fanatizmo komo lo veran adelantre de dyentro dela estorya. .. . Dita estorya es empesada a eskrivir del 24 Iyyar 5641 [23 May 1881] i endelantre, i es la pura verdad.” 9 Ginio 2005: 404"405. 10 Rodrigue & Abrevaya Stein & Jerusalmi 2012: xxi, xiv. 40 The Alliance Israélite Universelle, founded in 1860 by the French"Jewish elite, would introduce French Jewish schools across the Levant, offering instruction in French to generations of Sephardic, North African, and Middle Eastern Jews and forever remapping the linguistic and cultural terrain of Jews in these regions.11 Those educated in the Alliance Israélite Universelle establishments, all became fluent in French.12 From their Alliance teachers, young Sephardi Jews absorbed the notion of superiority of European, mainly French, culture. The modernization of Jewish life in the Orient also meant for them the need to modernize their own language. The spectrum of language modernization was vast, stretching from minor alterations of the traditional vernacular of the Jews13 to the total abandonment of what came to be called “Judeo"Spanish in favour of universal modern and respected Western language,” as French, Italian, and Castilian Spanish were perceived, or to the adaptation of a national or state language, such as Hebrew, Turkish or Bulgarian.14 Furthermore, Ginio (2002) has demonstrated, the young generation in Salonika learned to speak Greek in the interwar period, being motivated by the spirit of nationalism. The collapse of Ottoman rule over most of the Balkan Peninsula following the first Balkan War (October 1912 – May 1913) caused major changes, including linguistic transformations, in the lives of local Jewish communities. From a religious minority in an all" inclusive multi"ethnic and multi"religious Ottoman state, the Jews now found themselves to be a minority in national states.15 The local Jewish press reveals a community in confusion and internal conflict.16 To conclude this chapter, the following is an example from a Salonika newspaper, published in the year 1912, – the article was written probably by the very man, Mošé Cazés (§2.2.2.1), who is likely to have created the Satirical Series –, illustrating, in a way, the social 11 Rodrigue & Abrevaya Stein & Jerusalmi 2012: xv. 12 Ginio 2002: 236. 13 About influence of French and Italian on Judezmo, see Bunis 1992: 419. 14 Ginio 2002: 257: fn. 7. 15 Ginio 2002: 238; Rodrigue & Abrevaya Stein & Jerusalmi 2012: xv. 16 Ginio 2002: 241, 243. 41 and lingual large variety within the Jewish society in his city17: ‫לוס גידייוס די סאלוני ו אבלאמוס די‬ ‫ אדה אטיגוריאה די אומבריס טייני סוס מאנירה די אבלאר‬... ‫מיל מודוס אי מאניראס איל גודיאו איספאנייול‬ .‫ אי אדה אונו אי אונו אימפליאה סוס ביירבוס‬... , Los džidyós de Saloniko avlamos de mil modos i maneras el džudeo espanyol ... kada kategoria de ombres tyenen sus manera de avlar ... i kada uno i uno emplea sus byervos., ‘We, the Jews of Salonika, speak Judeo"Spanish that has a thousand kinds and ways ... each category of people has their own way of talking ... and each one employs his particular words.’ (Aksyón 10: 2570 (1938): 2, and ibid.: 10: 2571 (1938): 2; Bunis 1999a: 426"427; 567). 2.3 Other sources In addition to the aforementioned corpora, we also examined examples, often purportedly representing spoken Judezmo, taken from additional sources written in different periods. 17 I thank Professor David Bunis for this quotation and the information therein. For linguistic and social diversity in Salonika, and also the topic of effect produced by the Western culture and languages, see Bunis 1999b: Chapters 2"3 and elsewhere; Bossong 2008. 42 Chapter 3. Results, discussion, and conclusions Chapter 3.1 Subject pronouns 3.1.1 Preliminaries Using the term ‘subject pronouns’, we take the definition ‘subject1’ as a fundamental syntactic relation in many theories of sentence structure across languages2: It is the part of a sentence of which the rest of the sentence is predicated (i.e. about which a statement is made, a question asked, etc.)3. Often it is the actor of the clausal verb. This is a morphosyntactic entity of a clause, and we would like to distinguish the ‘subject’ from the term ‘theme’ as developed by the Prague school: Unlike the ‘subject’, which is morphosyntactic, the ‘theme’, – in the manner characteristic of the ‘subject’ as well, or: ‘that part of a sentence which indicates what is being talked about’, ‘the basis of the statement’4 – is functional, it surpasses the limits of form and syntax – it might be any component in the sentence.5 We would like to point out, that we have not used the prosodic point of view, i.e., tónico vs. átono (clitic), in reference to pronouns6, as a dividing criterion in the dissertation, for it is hard, at times, to determine the prosodic status of a pronoun, as could be the case of, e.g., yo, or 1 From classical Latin subiectus, ‘situated under or at a lower level, situated close at hand, that may be brought under the operation of a faculty or sense, open or exposed (to some, usually harmful, influence), liable, having an inferior or subordinate status, submissive, placed under (a category or head)’ (OED, the entry ‘subject’, adj. and adv.). 2 OED, the entry ‘subject’, noun. 3 Ibid., ibid. 4 OED, the entry ‘theme’. 5 And the ‘rheme’ is what is said about the ‘theme’. On these topics: Bünting 1984: 1529153; Brinker 1988: 44947; Cohen 2009: 1319132; cf. also Creissels 1995: 2149221; 2309232. Sometimes the theme9rheme are formally (explicitly) expressed in language. There are languages which have a stronger tendency to do so, – see about this Lehmann et al. 2004: 13914. Further discussion, and other names for ‘theme’ and ‘rheme’ suggested by linguists, – see Goldenberg 1971: 37: fn. 3; Shisha9Halevy 1986: §2.0.2.0.1: 69971. 6 We mean that some Spanish or Judezmo researchers call the subject pronoun ‘tónico’, and the object pronoun – ‘átono’, (‘clitic’). 43 tu. Also, the terms belonging to the grammatical category of case, nominative9accusative9dative, would not be suitable for this chapter, i.e., the denotation of subject pronouns as ‘nominative pronouns’ would be slightly artificial and awkward, since Judezmo (and Spanish) nouns do not have case endings, and mainly because within the Judezmo (and Spanish) pronominal system, pronouns are not necessarily inflected for case: We have a “post9prepositional” form – as the complement of a preposition –, which has nothing to do with case.7 The pronouns and the pronominal morphemes – and most conspicuously, the subject pronouns and pronominal morphemes, on account of their frequent thematicity – are anchored in the information flow.8 Pronouns are deictic by nature9, and their signified10 is anchored by means of deixis.11 In the following subsections §3.1.2 and §3.1.3 we will discuss all sorts of subject pronouns, whereas §3.1.4 will seek to review the locutive and allocutive plural forms specifically. 3.1.2 Subject pronouns in Besprochene Welt12 transmission 3.1.2.1 Information about the subject in the verb In most of the verbal inflected forms themselves, the subject is explicitly expressed. The exceptions to this are the following ambiguous forms, being the same in singular locutive and delocutive: KANTABA13, KANTE, KANTARA, KANTASE, KANTARIA, and KANTARE. In 7 For loss of case in Romance and other languages, cf. Narrog & Heine 2011: 515. 8 All the more when the pronominal substance is expressed twice: both as part of the verb and as a pronoun beside it. On the term information flow in the linguistic literature, see Kim & Shin 1994: 464. For anchoring in the information flow, see Ortega Gil 2001: 266, 267, 273. 9 About deixis, – see Weinreich 1963: 1239127, 1569157. 10 I.e., the Saussurean signifié. 11 Cf. Morphology and Syntax, §3.4, ‘Sprechsituation und Deixis’: §2, ‘Deixis’. Cf. Weinrich (1968: Ch. I: 33936), who characterizes the pronominal elements, repeated so frequently in our utterances, as the axis, the pillars on which human verbal communication rests. 12 See §1.1. 13 In the course of this study, I shall prefer using the Judezmo typical representative – delocutive singular – form of a verbal tense (the way it is put into practice in GRAE) and not its name, e.g., we shall write KANTÓ, and not 44 these latter cases, a subject pronoun tends to be added to the verb, in order to avoid ambiguity.14 However, we sometimes find, both in older15 Judezmo texts and newer ones, that the subject pronoun is not inserted, and the person of the verb is made known by the context.16 This fact can be seen by examining the 20th9century novel Ester Matalón (see §2.2.1). Below, I have collected pretérito de indicativo. This is done so both for the purposes of clarity, and since the name of a tense often does not stand in correlation with its functions. One is freed from the bond between the tense and its roles, however, when applying these typical forms. These are the conventional labels: KANTA = presente de indicativo, KANTAVA = imperfecto de indicativo, KANTÓ = pretérito de indicativo, KANTARÁ = futuro de indicativo, KANTARIA = condicional, KANTE = presente de subjuntivo, KANTARA and KANTASE = imperfecto de subjuntivo, KANTARE = futuro de subjuntivo. I shall also use KANTANDO, = gerundio. 14 Indeed, in some following Judezmo examples to be seen in this subchapter, without yo the verb could be interpreted as delocutive (e.g., items (4), (6), (7)). For Spanish: Álvarez Martínez 1989: Vol. I: 37: §2.3.1.1; Lehmann 2009: §1: 147. There exist further cases of ambiguity: For instance, the delocutive singular verbal form, in every tense, which might have a double meaning when a masculine and a feminine signified are both provided in the context. Occasionally, we may see el or eya added, inter alia for disambiguation. E.g., ‫אי לי טורנימוש אפריגו טאר שי‬ ‫דישו אילייא אלגונה וزה‬, i le tornimos a|pregun9tar si dišo eya alguna koza, ‘and we asked him again, whether she said something.’ (Maharšax, Part IV, no. 89, 16917). The written – but not always the oral (Professor David Bunis – personal correspondence) – form ‫( פואי‬the KANTÓ tense) may be interpreted as locutive (‘I went’, ‘I was’) or delocutive (‘(s)he went’, ‘(s)he / it was’). Accordingly, a clarifying pronoun may be added, cf. Raˀanaḥ, no. 20, 34: ‫פואי יו‬. 15 E.g., cf. Paraḥ Maṭṭé ˀAharón, Part I, no. 121, 10914: ‫יא שאוי""ש ומו בעוונות דישדי י אزי נו פארי אוטרו י אונה ויز אי‬ ‫אגורה שי"ש אנייוש לי דיש"י אמי מארידו י יריאה י מיגאשטרה גאשטוש פארה אزיר אלגו רימידייו פארה פאריר מי רישפונדייו מי‬ ‫מארידויונו טינגו י גאשטר איל דייו מוש אפיאדרה‬, Ya saveš komo baˁavonot, desde ke kazí, no parí otro ke una vez, i agora seš anyos le diši a|mi marido, ke keria ke me|gastara gastos para azer algún remedyo para parir. Me respondyó mi marido|: “Yo|no tengo ke gastar. El Dyo mos apyadrá/9dará.”, ‘You (pl.) well know that, unfortunately (lit., ‘due to the iniquities’), since I got married, I have born a child but once, six years ago. I told my husband that I wanted him to bear expenses for me, in order to get a medicine which would help me get pregnant. My husband answered me: “I have nothing to spend, (or: I don’t have to spend my money for that), God will take pity on us”. 16 For Spanish – Lehmann 2009: §3: 1569165; §4: 166. 45 all of the singular locutive KANTAVA forms from pages 26935. In items (1) to (3), we observe lack of the subject pronoun17, and its presence in the remaining sentences18. (1) ‫ איס אי גיניראל גואדראדה די אונה מאנירה מויי‬,‫ נינייה או מוزיר‬,‫ י לה טור ה‬,‫ דישי‬,‫ריאיאה‬ .‫סיבירה‬, “Kreia”, diše, “ke la turka, ninya o mužer, es en dženeral gwadrada de una manera muy severa.”, “I believed”, said I, “that a Turkish female, be it a girl or a woman, was watched over very closely.” (Ch. 6: 27 top). (2) In this sentence, it is understood that the actor of the verbs is locutive, because in the sentences prior to this one, the locutor spoke constantly about himself. ‫נו לו פואידיאה אל אנסאר סי‬ .‫ מיס דוס פייزיס אי אונה ונדורייה‬,‫אביאה ידאדו אימוביליزאדו‬, “... No lo pwedia alkansar si avia kedado imobilizado, mis dos pyezes en una kondurya. ...”, “... I could not achieve this, if I had stayed inert, having my both feet in one shoe. ...” (Ch. 6: 27 middle). (3) ‫ סי ייزו י‬.‫ טיניאה אונה מאנ ו אלטה אופינייו דילוס טור וס‬,‫ טי לו גורו‬,‫אנטיס די ונוסירלה‬ ‫ פארה אزירמי‬,‫ אונה מוزיר אי ס יزה‬,‫ טודאס לאס ואליטאס אי סיפסייונאלאס די איסטה زאאידי‬19‫אפריסייארה‬ .‫אונה אידיאה דיל ראפינאמיינטו די איסטי פואיבלו‬, “... Antes de konoserla, te lo džuro, tenia una manko alta opinyón de|los turkos. Se kyižo ke apresyara20 todas las kwalitás eskepsyonalas de esta Zaidé, una mužer ekskiza, para azerme una idea del rafinamyento de este pwevlo. ...”, “... Before I met her, I swear, I had thought less highly of Turks. It had been necessary that I should 17 Cf. also the delocutive form without a pronoun in (12). In these items (1)9(3) and (12), with the subject pronoun not inserted, the person of the verb is educed from the immediate context, such as diš , ‘said I’, beside kreia in (1), or džur ‘I swear’, beside tenia in (3), however, there is still a soft gradation of ambiguity, in which the unambiguous extreme is the one having a pronoun inserted, whereas the mentioned kreia and tenia are “just a touch” ambiguous. 18 Even though in some of the sentences (4) onwards, logic suggests that the utterance could also do well without the addition of a pronoun (e.g., see (10), (11)), we still cannot try to find the motivation for its occurrence in terms of information structure, because the verb forms in these examples do not have their overt actor (which might be locutive singular or delocutive singular), hence the speaker’s natural desire to attach the pronoun. 19 A KANTARA form. 20 A KANTARA form. 46 see all the exceptional qualities of this Zaide, a refined woman, in order to make me become aware of the delicacy of this people. ...” (Ch. 6: 28 middle). (4) ... ‫ אי ביינדו י ייו טומאבה לה וزה אל סירייו אי מי דישו‬,‫ איל סי סונריאו‬, El se sonrió, en vyendo ke yo tomava la koza al seryo i me dišo ... , ‘He smiled, seeing that I took the thing seriously, and said to me: ...’ (Ch. 6: 29 middle). (5) ‫ ייו אביאה אר ילאדו אי איל מיزמו אפארטאמינטו אונה אודה סיפאראדה ו‬,‫לה מאנייאנה מיزמו‬ .‫א ילייה די פרידייר פור או אליزו איס ורו‬, La manyana mezmo, yo avia arkilado en el mezmo apartamento una udá separada kon akeya de Fredyer por un kaležón eskuro., ‘In that same morning, I had rented, in the same apartment, a room separated from Fredier’s by a dark corridor.’ (Ch. 7: 31 top). (6) ‫ פרידייר אבריאו‬,‫ אי ואנדו ייו איסטאבה פרונטו‬,‫ייו מי אינ אל אבה לה פיز י מי ביניאה איסטריגה‬ !‫לה פואירטה אי דיزיינדומי אדילאנטרי‬, Yo me enkalkava la fez ke me venia estreča, i kwando yo estava pronto, Fredyer avrió la pwerta en dizyendome ‘Adelantre!’, ‘I tightened the fez which was narrow, (pinching my head), and when I was ready, Fredier opened the door, saying Come on!’ (Ch. 7: 31 bottom). (7) .‫ פרידייר סי אריסטאבה ברוס אמינטי אי ייו גא יאבה מי אביסה ו סו איספאלדה‬... , ... Fredyer se arestava bruskamente i yo čakeava mi kavesa kon su espalda., ‘ ... Fredier abruptly stopped, and I hit my head against his back.’ (Ch. 7: 32 middle). (8) ‫סוביטאמינטי ומו ייו טיניאה לוס אוزוס פי סאדוס אה לה פואירטה בידי אונה טראפירי ה גי ה‬ ... ‫אברירסי‬, Subitamente komo yo tenia los ožos fiksados a la pwerta vidi una traperika čika avrirse ..., ‘Suddenly, having my eyes fixed on the door, I saw an opening being unblocked ...’ (Ch.7: 32 bottom – 33 top). (9) .‫ייו נו דובדאבה מאס י איסטי נו איבה ונסינטיר אה דארמוס סוס טריزורוס‬, Yo no duvdava mas ke este [lalá] non iva konsentir a darmos sus trezoros., ‘I had no more doubt that this one [i.e., lala9official] would not consent to give us his treasures.’ (Ch. 7: 33 bottom). (10) ... ‫ייו מיראבה פרידייר אי לו י בולטי לה ארה‬, Yo mirava Fredyer en lo|qué bolte la kara ..., ‘I was observing where Fredier might turn his face to ...’ (Ch. 7: 34 top). 47 (11) .‫ לייו אינספי טאבה לא סאלה‬,‫ ו אונה אדמיראסייו די אינ אנטו‬, Kon una admirasyón de enkanto, yo inspektava la sala., ‘Full of admiration, I examined the room.’ (Ch. 7: 34 top). (12) ‫ איס פור היי י אילייה בה‬:‫ מיס אוزוס סי אביא פי סאדו אי איסטה פואירטה אי ייו פינסאבה‬... .21‫ ואנדו סוביטאמינטי אפאריסיאה‬, ‫ ביניר‬, ... mis ožos se avian fiksado en esta pwerta i yo pensava: “Es por ey ke eya va venir”, kwando subitamente aparesia22., ‘... I kept my eyes set on this door, and thought: “This is where she is going to come from”, when she suddenly appeared.’ (Ch. 7: 34 middle). (13) .‫ ייו מי אינ ורבאבה‬,‫ ידאנדו מאס אטראס‬, Kedando mas atrás, yo me enkorvava., ‘Staying behind, I bowed.’ (Ch. 8: 35 middle). 3.1.2.2 Co9occurrence of subject pronoun and verb Excluding the case of disambiguation described in §3.1.2.1 above, the verb inflection referring to the actor and an overt pronoun, signal the signified23 of the actor twice24. That is to say, agency is strongly marked. The strength of this signalling varies across the spectrum, from very subtle25 to intense, i.e. focal26, or topical27. The most conspicuous opposition to the issue 21 A delocutive form. 22 A delocutive form. 23 I.e., the Saussurean signifié. 24 RAE Grammar 1771 points to Spanish examples where the pronominal elements denoting the actor are displayed, with the help of pleonasm, even three times (I have marked in bold letters these three mophemes): From the basic syntagm Me culp , ‘I blame myself’, one gets the pleonastic extensions and a mí – to me. In the same manner, 25 te alaba a , me culp a se desprecia1 a , yo being analogous to 1o, (Part II: Ch. II: Article IV: 250). Compare Lehmann 2009: §3.5: 164 about Spanish: “hay muchos ejemplos de pronombres en función de sujeto que no son ni enfáticos ni contrastivos ni desempeñan ninguna función de desambiguación. ... Quítanme estos pensamientos la devoción, y suélenme venir cuando yo me llego a las buenas obras (San Juan de Ávila (149991569), ... [año] 1534); los han hecho restaurantes, cabarets, lugares así, donde llegas tú tan a gusto. (Habla Culta [– a spoken corpus], México).” Also, cf. Lapesa 1981: §133.2: 5869587 about some variations in Spanish of the Americas: “En la lengua escrita, él, ella y sus plurales, referidos a cosas, aparecen sin preposición con más frecuencia que en España: ‘Las fumarolas de Cerro Quemado son numerosas y abundantes. Ellas emanan de grietas’; ‘Y el árbol poderoso fue comido/ por la niebla, y cortado por la racha./ Él sostuvo una mano que cayó de repente’.” 48 discussed in this section are verbal forms devoid of any indication whatsoever of the actor, – passives28, infinitives, gerunds29. These are not marked in terms of agency. Further down, various examples are provided. We have arranged them according to the signal’s strength, from little to great, focal or topical. As for the latter, focal instances, it is to be noted that the types of foci were provided by Dik et al. (1980, 1981), Watters (1979), Lambrecht (1994), and others, as well as the pragmatic reasons for the assignment of focus, by Dik (1997). All the aforementioned have been presented in the summaries of Cohen (2009: 132) and Vallejos Yopán (2009: 4049406). The focal examples, viz., those in §3.1.2.2.2.2 and §3.1.2.2.2.3.1, will be classified according to these types. 3.1.2.2.1 Subtle, mild, up to moderate signalling In the following examples, (1)9(6), we would like to bring to your notice some minimal oppositions. As will be seen from the following instances, (1)9(7), the attachment30 of a pronoun does not alter the information structure significantly, but makes the pronominal signified 26 Focus is highlighting, emphasizing a component of a clause, the component may appear in the broader sense, viz., the nexus component –, in contrast to the state of affairs in which this component would be unemphatic, neutral (Goldenberg 1985: 330; Cohen 2009: 132). More on focus, see in Shisha9Halevy 1986: §2.0.2.2.19 §2.0.2.2.3: 71972. 27 Topicalization is thematization of the component of a clause (Goldenberg 1985: 330). For the term theme, see §3.1.1. More on topic, see in Shisha9Halevy 1986: §2.0.2.1: 71; Cohen 2009: 131: fn. 1. 28 That is, the passive form does not inform us of the agent, but rather the patient. See Taube 1997: §4.3.3.3: 2479 248 as to enlightening examples from Modern Hebrew of contrast between the passive and its corresponding indefinite plural delocutive active form, e.g. buca, ‘it was done’, vs. bicˀu oto, lit. ‘they (in indefinite use) did it’. 29 See §3.1.2.3 about infinitive and gerund expressing directive modality. 30 As for a speculation that might arise, whether or not the attachment of a pronoun in the Salonika 19th920th9century examples could have been influenced by the obligatory pronominal attachment in French (see §1.5.1 ;§2.2.2.2), we have not seen any such influence (if there is, it should be very shallow), because in Judezmo – at its various stages – there has always been the split state: instances (some are more explicable, and some are less) where the pronoun is added to a declined verb, along with instances where it is not (again, there are examples being more capable of explanation, but some are less so) – as observed all along the present chapter –, just as it may be seen in contemporary and older Spanish. 49 somewhat more prominent, in one way or another. In footnotes, I shall try to suggest motivations for the attachment in these utterances. (1a)31 .‫ טי פאריסי טודו ו וס אי מו וס‬,32‫ ומו טו סוס פלא ה די גודיزמו‬, EZRÁ: Komo tu sos flaka de džudezmo, te parese todo kokos i mokos., ‘EZRÁ: Since you are bad at practicing religion, everything seems pointless to you.’ (Aksyón 10: 2797 (1938); Bunis 1999b: 394 bottom). (1b) ... ,‫נו סאביס י סוס בייزו אי י ייה פיزיטיס טו מאנסיביز‬, BENUTA: No saves ke sos vyežo i ke ya fizites tu mansevez., ‘BENUTA: You don’t realize that you are old, and that you are done with your youth.’ (Aksyón 10: 2676 (1938); Bunis 1999b: 440 top). (2a)33 ‫אגורה טראיימי אוטראס דוס מואיزי אס אי אוטרו או ופי ו די בינו אי אסינטאטי טו אלאדו די‬ .‫מי אנטארימוס ייאבאש ייאבאש לה די בי אריבינו או אדונאיי‬, EZRÁ: Agora, tráyeme otras dos mwezikas i otro un kopiko de vino i aséntate tu alado de mi, kantaremos yavash yavash la de “Vekarevenu o Adonay.”, ‘EZRÁ: Now, bring me two more nuts, and one more glass of wine, and sit here beside me, we are going to sing the song Vekarevenu o Adonay at our leisure.’ (Aksyón 10: 2797 (1938); Bunis 1999b: 395 top). (2bα) .‫ אי איס ריבילי דוס פאלאבראס אל באלאבאיי‬,‫אסינטאטי או פונטו‬, BENUTA: Aséntate un punto, i eskrívele dos palavras al balabay., ‘BENUTA: Sit a minute, and write a couple of words to my husband.’ (Aksyón 10: 2757 (1938); Bunis 1999b: 506 bottom). (2bβ) .‫אסינטאטי א י אי אלמאטי או פו ו‬, EZRÁ: Aséntate akí i kálmate un poko., ‘EZRÁ: Sit here and calm down a little.’ (El Rizón 12: 39 (1938); Bunis 1999b: 589 middle). (3a) ... ,‫ איל زחות די איל כפור סאנטו נו בו טיניר נינגו מאל‬,‫נו אפוריאיס ברי נינייה‬, BOXOR: No kafurees, bre ninya. El zaxud/9θ de el Kipur34 santo no vo tener ningún mal., ‘BOXOR: Don’t be 31 Said in a “tu9centric” spirit (the term tucentric was employed by Garde (2013: 105: §4.4.1.2, et passim) in the context of interaction and person reference in the Australian language Bininj Gunwok); criticism. 32 Written, probably mistakenly, ‫גודיزמי‬. 33 The insertion of the pronoun here could be due to politeness, and/or intimacy, and/or heedfulness (Professor David Bunis, personal communication). 34 ‫כפור‬, i.e., Hebrew ‘Kippur’. 50 angry, sweetheart! According to the obligation of the holy Atonement, I will have no evil these days.’ (Mesažero 2: 566 (1937); Bunis 1999b: 469 bottom). (3b)35 ... ;‫ ייו נו בו טיניר נינגו מאל ני פיליגרו‬,‫איל زיחו די סו ו בינוטי ה‬, EZRÁ: El zehú de Sukó, Benutika: yo no vo tener ningún mal ni peligro., ‘EZRÁ: According to the obligation of Sukkot, Benunika, I will have no evil nor danger.’ (Aksyón 10: 2797 (1938); Bunis 1999b: 395 top). (4a) ‫ زאטי ייה איסטו אינדיפלאדו אינטירו פור י מי דישאטיס ורנודו‬,‫נו אפוריאיס אסי ביבה בינוטה‬ ... ,‫איסטי אנייו אלה הילה‬, EZRÁ: No kafurees, así biva Benuta. Zatén ya estó endeflado entero por ke me dešates kornudo este anyo a|la keilá36., ‘EZRÁ: Come on, Benuta, don’t get annoyed. By contrast, I am very bitter and disappointed, because you made me look foolish this year in the synagogue.’ (El Rayo de Fwego 1, ser. 2, no. 12 (1934); Bunis 1999b: 387 top). (4b)37 ‫ סי בינדי אה‬,‫די י איס י איסטו אימפוסטימאדו אינטירו ייו פור י או איزנאפ אפילו י נו טייני‬ ...‫ נו סי ונסולא די סוס רי יزאס‬... ‫ מה לוס רי וס‬.‫מורוס אי טאל די אלייודאר אה סו סיר אנו‬, EZRÁ: Deké es ke estó empostemado entero yo, porke un eznaf, afilú ke no tyene, se vende a moros en tal de ayudar a su serkano.38 Ma los rikos ... non se konsolan de sus rikezas..., ‘And this is the thing that makes me mad, because one having a meager income, possessing nothing, will still sell himself to Muslims in order to come to the rescue of his nearest and dearest. But the rich ... are [never] satisfied with what they have accumulated...’ (Aksyón 12: 3202 (1940); Bunis 1999b: 463 middle).39 35 Perhaps, a somewhat egocentric / self9involved / self9reference perspective. 36 ‫ הילה‬, i.e., Hebrew ‘qehillá’. 37 Same suggestion as the one regarding (3b) above. 38 Or: Deké es ke estó empostemado entero yo? Porke un eznaf . .., ‘Why does this make me mad? Because one having a meager income ... ’ (I thank Professor David Bunis for this proposition). As for the lack of the question mark here, we happen upon instances in the Salonika press, in which the questions are not always indicated by means of a question mark, (and it must be interesting to provide insight into what kind of questions appear in those instances). 39 Cf. the addition of yo also in the following example: .‫ איל אבי אה לה טור ה י פאגו ייו‬,‫ סונחולה‬$‫ וزו‬,‫ייה טיניש גוסטאדו‬ .‫אלוס ארדאשיס ליס פלאزיאה מוגו איל אבי פיגו מיאו‬, Ya teneš gostado, kuzum Sunxula, el kavé a la turka ke fago yo. 51 (5) The utterance (Tu) no(n) saves (ke) ... for introducing a proverb, as observed by Alexander (2011: 125): (5aα) ‫נו סאביס אסיגו באס טי פריסייא לה גינטי‬, BENUTA: Non saves: asigún vas, te presyan la džente?, ‘BENUTA: Don’t you know – Clothes make the man?’ (El Rayo 1: 7 (1932); Bunis 1999b: 451 middle). (5aβ) .‫נו סאביס י איל מונדו סי מאניאה מה נו אליי‬, DŽAMILA: No saves ke el mundo se manea ma no kaye., ‘DŽAMILA: You don’t know that the world keeps turning but it doesn’t fall down.’ (Mesažero 3: 638 (1937); Bunis 1999b: 548 bottom). (5bα)40 ...‫טו נו סאביס י די לה אביסה פיידי איל פישי‬, DŽAMILA: Tu no saves ke de la kavesa fyede el peše..., ‘DŽAMILA: You don’t know that the fish’s stink wafts from its head...’ (Mesažero 4: 1143 (1939); Bunis 1999b: 464 middle). (5bβ) . ‫נו סאביס טו י מי ביزינו טינגה ביי אי ייו טאמביי‬, BOXOR: No saves tu41 ke, “Mi vezino tenga byen i yo tambyén”?, ‘BOXOR: Don’t you know that May my neighbour be well, and I, too?’ (Mesažero 5: 1480 (1940); Bunis 1999b: 488 middle). (6a) .‫ י ייריס י טי טומי פארה איל סידיר‬, BOXOR: Ke kyeres ke te tome para el séder?, ‘BOXOR: What would you like me to buy for the ritual feast?’ (Mesažero 5: 1596 (1940); Bunis 1999b: 383 bottom). A|los kardašes les plazia mučo el kavé fečo mio., ‘You’ve already tried, Sunxula sweetheart, the Turkish coffee that I prepare. The friends liked a lot this coffee of my own making.’ (El Rizón 13: 9 (1938); Bunis 1999b: 616 top). 40 In this and the next example, somewhat of a tu9centric view: The locutor’s energies are expended, as it were, in giving some individual attention to the allocutor. 41 The post9verbal position in this clause is most probably because this is a yes1no question (also called a polar question, a total question – GRAE: Vol. II: §42.7a: 3156. For further names, see Tesnière 1959: Ch. 83: §11912: 204; §23924: 206.) (Bunis 1999a: §4.2: 120; for Spanish, see Batchelor 2006: Unit 26: §1.1: 2389239; cf. RAE Grammar 1894: Part II: Ch. V: 215; ibid.: Part IV: Ch. V: 343; GRAE: Vol. II: §42.7c: 3157). An example of a yes1 no question in the 16th9century Judezmo: ‫אי לי דישימוש דישו אילייא אלגונה וزה‬, I le dišimos: “Dišo eya alguna koza?”, ‘And we asked him: “Did she say something?”’ (Maharšax, Part IV, no. 89, 37938). 52 (6b)42 ?‫פארה י ייריס ניפוס טו‬, BENUTA: Para ke kyeres nefús tu?, ‘BENUTA: What do you need identification papers for?’ (El Rayo de Fwego 1, ser. 2, no. 90 (1936); Bunis 1999b: 447 middle). & ‫סיאש &בוס מי שליח ואנדו‬ & ‫ י‬... ‫ייו &בוס דו איסטה תחינה‬ (7)43 ‫ אי לוגאר י איס‬$‫אינטאראריש לשלו‬ . ‫בואיסטארה &בילונטאד‬,& Yo vos do esta teḥinná ... ke seaš vos mi šalíaḥ kwando entarareš lešalom en lugar ke es vwéstara veluntad., ‘I ask you (sg.) this plea ..., for you to be my emissary, when you reach your destination in peace.’ (from Segullot lišˁat nesiˁá). 3.1.2.2.1.1 The sequence OBJECT/ADVERB–VERB–(optional additional elements)–SUBJECT PRONOUN44 In our opinion, one of the particular cases where we find subtle or moderate signalling of the pronoun accompanying the verb, is this syntactic sequence. This focal sequence, emphasizing the object/adverb therein, is characteristic of the Spanish language45, while the sequence OBJECT/ADVERB–SUBJECT PRONOUN–VERB is unaccepted, or regional46. The same is essentially true of this word order in interrogative clauses as well47. It seems that many a time, in such 42 Having interest in the addressee. 43 Maybe, a declarative motivation. 44 To be more precise, this structure – according to our findings – includes the following variations (the order of the constituents, in the following table, is from left to right): (1) OBJECT OR ADVERB VERB 9 SUBJECT PRONOUN (ACTOR) (2) OBJECT OR ADVERB VERB INFINITIVE (complement) SUBJECT PRONOUN (ACTOR) (3) OBJECT OR ADVERB The VERB estar PAST PARTICIPLE (complement) SUBJECT PRONOUN (ACTOR) (4) GERUND The VERB estar 9 SUBJECT PRONOUN (ACTOR) A note: The VERB may be negated, and may be accompanied by clitic object pronouns. 45 GRAE: Vol. II: §40.4i940.4m: 298792989. See also Minervini 1992: Vol. I: §4.5.1: 110. 46 Ibid.: ibid.: §40.4k: 2988. See also Lapesa 1981: §133.2: 587. 47 GRAE: Vol. II: §40.4k: 2988. Also the sequence DIRECT SPEECH–[REPORTING CLAUSE:] VERBUM DICENDI– SUBJECT PRONOUN, probably belongs to the present pattern. E.g., ‫ י טינגו פו וס אבילייוס אי‬,‫ לי דישי ייו‬,‫איסטאס מיראנדו‬ . .. .‫לוס ויידו מוגו בואינו‬, “Estás mirando”, le diše yo, “ke tengo pokos kaveyos i los kuydo mučo bweno. ...”, ‘“You 53 syntagms, the pronoun is added in order to serve as a euphonic counterbalance to the object or adverb that precedes the verb.48 A selection of examples will follow. We have not looked into the functional/information9structure aspects of these examples, but rather, were interested in presenting the extensive use of this syntactic sequence. Furthermore, since it was necessary to confine the broad scope of this study, we did not search for minimal oppositions where the pronoun was absent (of the kind shown in the previous section). Therefore, – all the more when, in some cases, pronoun9less oppositions might not exist at all –, the defining of the semantic/functional role of its insertion in the examples below, was not beneficial in terms of full9value research. (1) ,‫ אוטרה וزה סאביס דיزיר טו די ואנדו טי איסטה אינבאבו אנדו איסטי ופיר די אריבה‬,‫באדאיי י‬ ..., BOXOR: Vadayke, otra koza saves dezir tu de kwando te está enbabukando este kofer de ariva., ‘BOXOR: Of course, one more thing you can say (now against me), since that nonbeliever has been deluding you.’ (Mesažero 5: 1564 (1940); Bunis 1999b: 379 middle). (2) .‫אל ריסחודיס טינגו ייו לאס מיינטיס‬, DŽAMILA: Al resxodes tengo yo las myentes., (Sarcastically:) ‘DŽAMILA: (Just) the Rosh Chodesh is what I am having in my thoughts.’ (Mesažero 4: 1214 (1939); Bunis 1999b: 380 bottom). (3) ... ,‫בואינו איסטאס אימבואילבידו טו ו איל מאמלואיز אי אונפלאנדוטי די טאבא ו‬, DŽAMILA: Bweno estás embwelvido tu kon el Mamloez i unflándote de tabako., ‘DŽAMILA: You are so deeply engrossed in Me’am Lo’ez, and so full of tobacco, to brimming over.’ (Mesažero 5: 1480 (1940); Bunis 1999b: 489 top). can see”, said I, “that I have few hairs, and I take very good care of them. .. .”’ (El Rizón 13: 1 (1938); Bunis 1999b: 596 middle);.‫ איס גיר יزה‬,‫ דיزיאה איל‬,‫ –מי גי ה زאיידי‬, “Mi čika Zayidé”, dezia el, “es čerkeza. ...”, ‘“My little Zaide”, said he, “is Circassian. ...” (Ester Matalón, Ch. 6, p. 28 bottom). 48 I thank Professor David Bunis for deeper insights into this subject. 54 . (4) ‫דישארא‬ ɺ ‫אי מאס גוסטו טיניאה לייו י פ""ואירא אי לו ונטינטארא אל פרוב"י אי אמי י מי‬, i mas gusto tenia49 yo ke fweran i lo kontentaran al prove i a|mi ke me dešaran., ‘and I would more enjoy myself if they rather made the poor content, and left me alone.’ (Magriso, Meˁam Loˁez, Bammidbar, folio 33, page 2, lines 30931; in the scholarly edition – Bunis & Adar9Bunis 2011: 483 top). . (5) ‫ הנز' הדידאל הנز' אי דאנדושילו דיגו טומה אישטו פור דושי אי דישפואיש‬$‫ונת לה בפנינו רבי חיי‬ . ‫ י לו טומו דיגו אילייא אי יו ילו ריסיבו‬, Venatán lah befanenu ribí Ḥayyim hanniz[kar] ha9dedal hanniz[kar], i dándoselo dišo: “Toma esto por qiddušín.”, i despwés ke lo tomó dišo eya50: “I yo ke|ló resivo.51”, ‘And the aforesaid Ribí Ḥayyim gave her, in our presence, the aforementioned thimble, and while giving it to her, he said: “Take this as kiddushin.”, and after she had taken it, she said: “And I hereby receive it.”’ (Maharašdam, ˀEven Haˁézer, no. 34, 32935). Sometimes we find the pronoun playing an additional role, of marking the clausal boundary52. Moreover, note the examples in §3.1.2.2.1.2 below, which also represent the subject pronoun as a boundary marker, not belonging, however, to the syntactic structure presented in this section. Consider the following examples, (6)9(8): (6) .‫אה טי נו טי פואידו דאר אטאנוס ייו‬, A ti no te pwedo dar atanós yo., ‘To you –, I can’t give you explanations.’ (Aksyón 11: 2921 (1939): 5; Bunis 1993b: entry no. 1714). (7) ... ,‫די ואנדו איסטו סינטיינדו ייו י מוס בא אה דאר ריינאדו אה לה גודיריאה ייה נו מי א ודרו‬, De kwando estó sintyendo yo ke mos van a dar reynado a la džuderia ya no me akodro;, ‘Since 49 This form, tenia, being ambiguous (signifying both locutive and delocutive singular), does not belong to the discussion of this section, but we have quoted this example anyway, in order to show the postposition of the pronoun. 50 Here, too, as in the previous item, dišo is ambiguous (which might refer, theoretically, to both Ḥayyim and the fiancee; thanks to Professor David Bunis for pointing this out to me), hence this example also does not fully belong to the discussion of this section, but we have quoted it anyway, in order to show the postposition of the pronoun. 51 Or we have here the e of calling to attention (Spanish he): E yo ke|ló resivo, lit. ‘Behold, I who receive it’, i.e. ‘I hereby receive it.’, ‘I do receive it.’. 52 For the term boundary marker, see Matthews 1997: 41. 55 when I have been hearing that we will be given a state, the Jews, – I can’t remember [already];’ (El Rizón 12: 14 (1937); Bunis 1999b: 525 middle). (8) "...‫ קֶ י י ֹו פּו ְֹר ִטי מֶ ְמאוּאֶ ר ֹו י ֹו‬,‫ "קֶ ה י ֹו פּו ְֹר ִטי‬:... ,‫ עליזים ומבודחים‬,‫הדייגים שרו‬, Haddayyagim šaru, ˁallizim umvuddaḥim, ...: “Ke yo por|ti, ke yo por|ti me|mwero yo...”, ‘The fishermen were singing, cheerful and happy, ...: “That it is for you that I die...”’ (Tor9Raz 1989: 15). The discussed construction in questions: (9) ... ‫מה י סאביס טו די טודו איסטו ואנדו‬, BOXOR: Ma ke saves tu de todo esto kwando ..., (A rhetorical question:) ‘BOXOR: But what do you know about all this if ...’ (Mesažero 5: 1564 (1940); Bunis 1999b: 379 top). (10) ?‫ י דיزיס טו‬, Ke dizes tu?, ‘What would you say about this?’ (Ester Matalón: Ch. 6: 29 bottom). (11) With an “object” of a copula of the verb ser (cf. also examples (14)9(15) below): ‫יי‬ ‫שומוש נוزוטרוש‬, Kyen somos nozotros?, ‘Who are we, [are you able to tell us]?53’ (the year 1621, Mahariṭ, Part II, ˀEven Haˁézer, no. 44, 23).54 The construction KANTANDO–estar–SUBJECT PRONOUN also falls into the present investigated category: (12) ?‫ י טאפאנדוטי לוס אוزוס טי איסטו ייו‬, EZRÁ: Ke, tapándote los ožos te estó yo?, ‘EZRÁ: What, am I covering your eyes?’ (Aksyón 11: 3142 (1939); Bunis 1999b: 465 middle). (13) .‫איספיראנדו ליסינסייה די טי איסטאבה ייו‬, esperando lisensya de ti estava55 yo., ‘I was only waiting for your permission.’ (Aksyón 11: 3106 (1939); Bunis 1999b: 391 top). The clauses that contain a copula of the verb ser function in much the same way: 53 Here, a question verifying the addressee’s awareness, recognition. 54 The scholarly edition of this text is presented in Várvaro & Minervini 2007: 1709172. Thanks to Dr. Aldina Quintana for directing me to this article. 55 This form, estava, being ambiguous (signifying both locutive and delocutive singular), does not belong to the discussion of this section, but we have nevertheless quoted this example, in order to show the postposition of the pronoun. 56 (14) ‫ ומו טי סי ייו אימפיסייונאדו אי ניגרו‬, DŽAMILA: komo ti se yo empesyunado i negro, ‘DŽAMILA: I am like you are, upset and awful’ (Mesažero 5: 1564 (1940); Bunis 1999b: 379 top). (15) .‫איסטי אראל די ניגרו סו ייו‬, ‫ איסטי‬BOXOR: este karal de negro so yo?, ‘BOXOR: am I this awful?’ (Mesažero 5: 1596 (1940); Bunis 1999b: 382 bottom). 3.1.2.2.1.2 The pronoun as a boundary marker56 In the following examples, it is felt that except for the subject’s added indication, the pronoun is also used as a marker of the end of the clause. These examples are not part of the syntactic sequence demonstrated in the foregoing section. In these samples too, we could observe subtle or moderate signalling of the pronoun. Without going into the functional/semantic aspects of the addition of the pronoun (if such exist), we wish to demonstrate here its applicability as a boundary marker. (1) 57‫פיגה‬ * ‫אישטו י'ו טומא'לו פו'ר ידושי די ט'ו‬ ) ‫טידו‬ ) , Te|do esto yo. Tómalo por qiddušín de tu fiža., ‘I hereby give you this. Take it as kiddushin of your daughter.’ (Mahariṭ, Part II, ˀEven Haˁézer, no. 40, folio 52, page 1, column II, the seventh9eighth lines). (2) ‫ לה‬,‫לה מאניאה איס פארה טי פארה י טי א ודריס די ואנדו לייבאבאס מאניאס די מינטישיס‬ ... ,‫טיزירה איס פארה מי ורטאר לאס אונייאס ייו‬, EZRÁ: La mania es para ti para ke te akodres de kwando yevavas manias de mentešés. La tižera es para mi58, kortar las unyas yo., ‘EZRÁ: The bracelet is for you, so that you may remember the times when you were wearing mentešés bracelets. And for me – the scissors, to cut my nails.’ (Aksyón 11: 2934 (1939); Bunis 1999b: 412 middle). (3) ‫ סי בינדי אה מורוס‬,‫די י איס י איסטו אימפוסטימאדו אינטירו ייו פור י או איزנאפ אפילו י נו טייני‬ ...‫ נו סי ונסולא די סוס רי יزאס‬... ‫ מה לוס רי וס‬.‫אי טאל די אלייודאר אה סו סיר אנו‬, EZRÁ: Deké es ke 56 57 For the term boundary marker (translation of German Grenzsignal), see Matthews 1997: 41. The diacritical marks were written above each Judezmo word here, because these two clauses are within a Hebrew text (a rabbinical discussion), and this is a signal that these are non9Hebrew words. 58 Or: ... es para me kortar .... 57 estó empostemado entero yo, porke un eznaf, afilú ke no tyene, se vende a moros en tal de ayudar a su serkano.59 Ma los rikos ... non se konsolan de sus rikezas..., ‘EZRÁ: And this is the thing that makes me mad, because one having a meager income, possessing nothing, will still sell himself to Muslims in order to come to the rescue of his nearest and dearest. But the rich ... are [never] satisfied with what they have accumulated...’ (Aksyón 12: 3202 (1940); Bunis 1999b: 463 middle). (4) .‫ איס י נו מי בו אה מואיריר נונ ה‬,‫ סי נו מי בו אה מואיריר ייו‬,‫מירה בינוטה י אוגאנייו‬, EZRÁ: Mira Benuta ke oganyo, si no me vo a mwerir yo, es ke no me vo a mwerir nunka., ‘EZRÁ: Look, Benuta, if I am not going to die this year, I will never ever die.’ (Aksyón 10: 2784 (1938); Bunis 1999b: 389 top). (5) ‫ נו סאביס י‬...‫ נו פואידו‬,‫ נוגיס סי באלאבאייה אלה אמה‬6 ‫ או‬5 ,‫ייו נו מי לו איסטאבה ימאנדו ייו‬ ... ,‫סו אומברי בייزו‬, EZRÁ: Yo, no me lo estava kemando yo, sinko o seš nočes sin balabaya a|la kama – no pwedo... No saves ke so ombre vyežo?, ‘EZRÁ: [No,] I didn’t mess up. Five or six nights, during which my wife is missing from my life, – I feel like it’s unbearable... Don’t you know that I am an old person?’ (El Rayo 2: 21 (1933); Bunis 1999b: 537 middle). (6) ‫מה ייה טי א ודראס א יאוס טימבלוריס דילה נוגי דיל אינסיירו ואנדו מי טופי דילאנטרי די או‬ .‫ נו סאביאה י פינסאר‬,‫גידייו בארבודו י איראס טו‬, BENUTA: Ma ya te akodras akeos temblores de|la noče del ensyero kwando me topí delantre de un džidyó barvudo ke eras tu. No savia ke pensar., ‘BENUTA: But you surely remember that trembling before the Night of Seclusion, when I found myself in front of a bearded Jew that you were. I didn’t know what to think.’ (Aksyón 11: 3084 (1939); Bunis 1999b: 458 middle). (7) ‫ סי לי פאבלאבאס אה אנרי פילו י ייה פאزי פלאزיר אל מונדו‬.‫ י נו טי ייزיטיס ביניר טו‬,‫ ברי‬,‫אח‬ .‫ נאדה נאדה פור י סוס מוزיר די טיאו יزרה‬,‫אינטירו נו טי איאה אה ידיאר‬, EZRÁ: Ax, bre, ke no te kyižites venir tu. Si le favlavas a Anrí Pilo ke ya faze plazer al mundo entero, no te ia a kidear, nada nada, porke sos mužer de Tio Ezrá., ‘EZRÁ: It’s too bad that you didn’t want to come. If only you had talked to Anrí Pilo, who does favours for the whole world, he wouldn’t have 59 Or: Deké es ke estó empostemado entero yo? Porke un eznaf ..., ‘Why does this make me mad? Because one having a meager income ... ’ (I thank Professor David Bunis for this proposition). 58 begrudged you absolutely anything, because you are Uncle Ezrá’s wife.’ (Aksyón 11: 3067 (1939); Bunis 1999b: 520 top). (8) ‫ מירה ביר לו‬,‫ אונה ביز י ייה איסטאס איסטי אראר די טי ליפסיزלי ו איל‬,‫סיינטי גאמילה‬ .‫ אי גאנארימוס לה ורידיריאה מוزוטרוס‬,‫ לי דארימוס אלה פיزה די שימו מי ונייאדו‬,‫איגארימוס אל סא ו‬, BOXOR: Syente, Džamila: una vez ke ya estás este karar de teklifsizlí kon el, mira ver, lo ečaremos al sako, le daremos a|la fiža de Šimón mi kunyado, i ganaremos la korederia mozotros., ‘BOXOR: Listen, Džamila, since you are this informal with him, look, we will take him in: We’ll join him in marriage to the daughter of Šimón, my brother9in9law, and earn ourselves a marriage broker’s fee.’ (Mesažero 5: 1501 (1940); Bunis 1999b: 569 bottom – 570 top). 3.1.2.2.2 Explicit, strong signalling – focal or topical 3.1.2.2.2.1 Anteposition of the pronoun before the verb: subject pronoun topicalized (1) .‫ לייו חנוכה אינטיינדו ו אزייטי‬,‫ אה מי דישאמי ריزיר ו מי אביסה‬,‫בואינו בינוטה‬, EZRÁ: Bweno Benuta, a mi déšame režir kon mi kavesa. Yo Xanuká60 entyendo kon azeyte..., ‘EZRÁ: Good, Benuta, let me myself decide. I, personally, perceive Hanukkah with oil [i.e., when an oil9 based light, (not a candle), is lit]...’ (Aksyón 11: 3172 (1939); Bunis 1999b: 401 bottom). (2) ‫ איסטוס טיימפוס נו‬,‫ סי סי איסטרוליי איל מונדו‬,‫ י לייו‬,‫ אינטינדיר אה טי‬61‫י מודו י טי די אה אה‬ .‫בו אה زיארה‬, DŽAMILA: Ke modo ke te de a entender a ti ke yo, si se estruye el mundo, estos tyempos no vo a ziará., ‘DŽAMILA: How on earth will I ever make you understand, that I, even if the world is to be destroyed, am not making the ziará (visit to the graves of ancestors) during this period.’ (Mesažero 4: 1083 (1939); Bunis 1999b: 559 middle). (3) ... ,‫טו ואנדו איסטאס דורמיינדו לה אידיאה איסטה אמינאנדו‬, DŽAMILA: Tu, kwando estás durmyendo, la idea está kaminando, ..., ‘DŽAMILA: You, while you are sleeping, your thought is travelling, ...’ (Mesažero 4: 1083 (1939); Bunis 1999b: 559 bottom). 60 ‫חנוכה‬, i.e., Hebrew ‘Ḥanukká’. 61 Superfluous. 59 (4) “Tu ke ečo azes?”, “What is your occupation?” (“You do what?”) (Constantinople, Wagner 1914: Part I: Text VI: 33: line 19). (5) ‫שוש טו איל י לייב’אשטיש אה א יל ג’ידייו אה אישפלאטרו אי מי רישפונדייו ייו נו לו לייב’י שינו‬ ... ‫פ'ולאנו לו לייב'ו‬, “Sos tu el ke yevastes a akel džidyó a Esplatro?”, i me respondyó: “Yo no lo yeví, sino fulano lo yevó, ...”, “Is it you who conveyed that Jew to Split?”, and he answered me: “I didn’t convey him, but So9and9so did, ...” (Mixtam LeDavid, ˀEven Haˁézer, no. 1, 69971). We have the more explicit structure Yo por mi VERB, witnessed in Satirical Series: (6) ... :‫ייו פור מי טי דיגו‬, DŽAMILA: Yo por mi te digo: ..., ‘DŽAMILA: I personally would say: ...’ (Mesažero 4: 1214 (1939); Bunis 1999b: 381 middle). In Spanish, pronouns may be stated in addition to the inflected verb, when some individuals are set off in contrast62, e.g., yo vs. tu, and so on. Judezmo shares this same feature. Examples63: (7) .‫סי ייו סי אלאבאסה טו סוס גוטרה‬, DŽAMILA: Si yo se kalavasa, tu sos chutra., ‘DŽAMILA: If I am (hollow like) a squash, then you are a pumpkin.’ (Mesažero 4: 1290 (1939); Bunis 1999b: 377 bottom). (8) Avram is contrasted with tu: ‫ איל‬$‫חיאוב איס די אלאבאר אל דייו ו גואלייאס? מירה אברה‬ ;«‫ ו גאריפ י סי טומה סאבור; טו איסטאס גריטאנדו ו איל »חוחו‬, ‫ ו חי‬,‫ איסטה מילדאנדו אידיבלה‬,‫ביزינו‬ .‫ייה פאריסי אסיגיאינדו פיררוס י איסטאס‬, BENUTA: Xiuv es de alavar al Dyo kon gwayas? Mira Avram64 el vezino; está meldando edebla, kon xen, kon garip ke se toma savor. Tu estás gritando kon el “xuxu”; ya parese asigiendo perros ke estás., ‘BENUTA: Is there an obligation to praise God with yells? Look how Avram, the neighbour, does it; he prays so politely, gracefully and peculiarly, that one enjoys it. But you are shouting with “woohoo”; it seems like you are chasing dogs.’ (Aksyón 10: 2797 (1938); Bunis 1999b: 394 bottom). 62 Álvarez Martínez 1989: Vol. I: 37: §2.3.1.1; Lehmann 2009: §3.1.1: 156: fn. 5. 63 See also ex. (5) in §3.1.2.2.2.2 below. 64 $‫אברה‬, i.e., Hebrew ‘ˀAvraham’. 60 3.1.2.2.2.2 Postposition of the pronoun after the verb: subject pronoun focalized65 (1) Contrastive661selective67 focus: .‫ מה נו סי סינטידה‬,‫ ייה לו אינגואליי ייו‬,‫סיגורו‬, DŽAMILA: Seguro, ya lo engwayí yo, ma no se sentida., ‘DŽAMILA: (Sarcastically) Sure, [this is because] it is I who implored it. But I’m not heard.’ (Mesažero 2: 566 (1937); Bunis 1999b: 469 bottom). (2) Contrastive1parallel68 focus: .‫ לה אלמה מיאה ייה אינטיינדי‬,‫סי נו אינטיינדו ייו‬, BOXOR: Si no entyendo yo, la alma mia ya entyende., ‘BOXOR: If I myself don’t understand, then my soul surely does.’ (Mesažero 5: 1480 (1940); Bunis 1999b: 489 top). (3) Contrastive1parallel focus: ‫שי אירי יו ו לה נאבי ביי אי שינו ווש רואיגו י מי האגאש' אישטי‬ ‫פלאزיר‬, Si iré yo kon la nave – byen, i si|no – vos rwego ke me hagaš este plazer, ‘Should I travel on the ship – fine, but if not, then I kindly ask you (sg.) to do me this favour.’ (Torat Ḥayyim, Part I, no. 82, 47948). (4) Contrastive1replacing 69 and contrastive1parallel foci: ‫פארה איל נאבלו יא מי דיביש ווש‬ ‫פארה איל מכס אינפינייאווש אי פאגה‬, Para el nablo – ya me deveš vos, para el méxes – enpenyavos, i pagá., ‘As for the freightage – you (sg.) are in my debt (for its cost), as for the customs – provide security, and pay (when needed).’ (Torat Ḥayyim, Part I, no. 82, 50952). 65 For Spanish, cf. Álvarez Martínez 1989: Vol. I: 37: §2.3.1.1, and fn. 25 above. Cf. further pronoun9focalization instances in §3.1.2.2.2.3.1 below, which are, in fact, an individual case of the structure presented here (viz., the order VERB–SUBJECT PRONOUN). 66 In other words, as for the utterer’s assumptions and expectations about the receiver’s (i.e., addressee’s) knowledge, there is the latter’s contrary belief, – the receiver holds strong contrary beliefs (Vallejos Yopán 2009: 405); the utterer provides a contrast to those beliefs. We would like to note that in many cases the focus is weak, when the receiver actually assumes or expects nothing, or would not, in fact, have thought otherwise about the thing stated, but nevertheless the focalization signals the corroboration, or indubitability of it. 67 By selective focus, one selects an item from a set of presupposed possibilities, e.g., Did John buy coffee or rice? John bought RICE (Vallejos Yopán 2009: 406). 68 Parallel focus – Two pieces of information are contrasted within one linguistic unit, e.g., JOHN bought RICE, but PETER bought COFFEE (Ibid.: ibid.). 69 Replacing focus – A specific item in the pragmatic information of the hearer is removed and replaced by another correct item (Vallejos Yopán 2009: 4059406). 61 (5) Contrastive1parallel focus: .‫ אנדי איסטאס טו‬,‫אנדי איסטו ייו‬, EZRÁ: Ande estó yo, ande estás tu., ‘EZRÁ: Both of us are so different! [Literally, ‘Where I am, where you are.’]’ (El Rayo de Fwego 1, ser. 2, no. 12 (1934); Bunis 1999b: 388 middle). 3.1.2.2.2.3 Further cases 3.1.2.2.2.3.1 Cleft sentences70 (a) The pattern #71NOMINAL PHRASE FORMED AS A RELATIVE CLAUSE–COPULA OF THE VERB ser–FOCALIZED SUBJECT PRONOUN# E.g., contrastive1selective focus: ‫ לה אירימה בה פאריסיר פירטו אל‬,‫ דיל ביני ו‬,‫מה אמאנייאנה‬ .‫שורובו אי יינה י מי אליי אמי י לה י סומפורטה אי י סי גורמה סי ייו‬, BENUTA: Ma amanyana, del viniko, la érema va pareser pertukal shurubú i kyina ke me kaye a|mi ke la ke somporta i ke se gorma se yo., ‘BENUTA: But because of the wine (you are drinking now), the bloody tomorrow is going to be awesome, and woe is me, the person that bears and that endures this, is me.’ (Aksyón 11: 2965 (1939); Bunis 1999b: 424 middle). (b) The pattern #COPULA OF THE VERB ser–FOCALIZED SUBJECT PRONOUN–NOMINAL PHRASE FORMED AS A RELATIVE CLAUSE# For instance, (1) Contrastive1selective focus: ‫שוש טו איל י לייב’אשטיש אה א יל ג’ידייו אה אישפלאטרו אי מי‬ ... ‫רישפונדייו ייו נו לו לייב’י שינו פ'ולאנו לו לייב'ו‬, “Sos tu el ke yevastes a akel džidyó a Esplatro?”, i me respondyó: “Yo no lo yeví, sino fulano lo yevó, ...”, “Is it you who conveyed that Jew to Split?”, and he answered me: “I didn’t convey him, but So9and9so did, ...” (Mixtam LeDavid, ˀEven Haˁézer, no. 1, 69971). 70 About the term Cleft Sentence, its other names, and its essence, see Goldenberg 1971: 50951. For more on the cleft sentence see Shisha9Halevy 1986: §2.0.2.2.4: 72973; Taube 2008. The constructions in this section (viz., the order VERB–SUBJECT PRONOUN) are, in fact, an individual case of the structure shown in §3.1.2.2.2.2 above. 71 The sign ‘#’, in this study, means ‘a boundary of a syntactic pattern’. 62 (2) Contrastive1replacing focus: ‫ סוס טו לה י לי אימביزאס‬,‫איל נו דיزי פור י מי טייני ריספי טו‬ .‫אה י מי די איסטאס אטאנוס‬, ‫ אה‬EZRÁ: El no dize, porke me tyene respekto. Sos tu la ke le embezas a ke me de estas atanós., ‘EZRÁ: He wouldn’t say that, because he shows me respect. It is you who teaches him to make these arguments against me.’ (Aksyón 11: 3006 (1939); Bunis 1999b: 436 top). (3) Contrastive1selective focus: ‫ סו מוزיר גאנגה י ייה סאבי י‬,‫ומו סי בה אסינטאר אלאדו די מי‬ .‫סו ייו י לי איבה ייבאר אל מארידו? יינה י מי בינו אי לה אביסה‬, SUNXULA: Komo se va asentar alado de mi su mužer Čančá, ke ya save ke so yo ke le iva yevar al marido? Kyina ke me vino en la kavesa., ‘SUNXULA: How on earth is his wife Čančá going to sit beside me, knowing that it is I who was about to marry him?! It is a real headache for me.’ (El Rizón 12:40 (1938); Bunis 1999b: 591 middle). 3.1.2.2.2.3.2 Use of the pronoun for purposes of indubitability Such use is made in declarations, accurate descriptions, and so on. The formulations explaining tautology (see below, §3.1.3.1.1) in RAE Grammar 1894 are very insightful in this case. The same usage occurs with tautological object pronouns – see §3.2.1.2.2.3.2. (1) ... ‫ראוב תבע את שמעו וטע עליו בלשו زה יו דימנדו י‬, Reˀuvén tavaˁ ˀet Šimˁón, veṭaˁán ˁalav belašón ze: Yo demando ke: ..., ‘Reˀuvén sued Šimˁón, and complained about him, as will be stated next: I lay claim to the following: ...’ (Maharašdam, Ḥošen Mišpaṭ, no. 95, 798). (2) ... ‫ראוב ב יע ב נתחייב לשמעו בכתב ידו בزה האופ אוטורגו יו ראוב ב יע ב ומו‬, Reˀuvén ben Yaˁaqov nitḥayyev leŠimˁón bixtav yadó bezé haˀofen: Otorgo yo, Reˀuvén ben Yaˁaqov, komo ..., ‘Reˀuvén ben Yaˁaqov made a handwritten pledge to Šimˁón, as following: I, Reˀuvén ben Yaˁaqov, confirm that ...’ (Maharašdam, Ḥošen Mišpaṭ, no. 175, 195). (3) ... ‫ היה אומר שאמר יו ריסיבו נزירות שמשו שי מאש דימי פרוביגו אוביירדיש‬$‫ופע‬, Ufáˁam hayá ˀomer šeˀamar: Yo resivo nezirut Šimšón si mas de|mi provečo uvyéredeš ..., ‘And once he claimed that he had said: I receive Samson’s nazirite vows, if two of you have more of my benefit ...’ (Divré Rivot, no. 392, 17918). 63 (4) In the following testimony, the formulation answers to the required exactness of words at an act of betrothal72, or when describing it in retrospect. We can see this both at the level of the subject and object of the verb: ‫ מי‬... ‫דישו‬ ) ‫לייאמימוש אל בעל הדבר יסי לייאמה ראוב אי‬ ‫דישי יו ראוב ייריש י טי לו די אטי אי לו‬ ) ... ‫היגה די שמעו ב' גראנוש‬ * ‫רובו לה‬ ) ‫ויש ומו‬ ) ‫דישו לאה אמי ראוב‬ ) ‫טומאראש פור דושי‬, yamimos al báˁal haddavar ke|se yama Reˀuvén, i dišo: ... Me dišo Leˀá a|mi, Reˀuvén: Veš komo rovó la hiža de Šimˁón b[et] granos? ... Diši yo, Reˀuvén: Kyeres ke te lo de a|ti, i lo tomarás por qiddušín?, ‘... we called the examined person himself, named Reˀuvén, and he testified: ... Leˀá said to me, Reˀuvén: “Do you see how Šimˁón’s daughter has stolen two coins? ...” I, Reˀuvén, said: “Do you want me to give this to you, and you will take this as kiddushin?”’ (Mahariṭ, Part II, ˀEven Haˁézer, no. 38, 39947). In this respect, it is worthwhile mentioning the construction attested, at least, in the 16th9 17th centuries, PRONOUN–ke–VERB (e.g., yo ke lo iva a|tomar.; eya ke se iva., see (5)9(7) below. Such sentences exist in Spanish too, see (8) below). In this syntagm, the actor component is decomposed, detached, unpacked from the verbal complex73, and, thus, is more prominent. The verbal components are, as it were, laid out, spread out, distributed, apportioned, segmented74. The focus is contrastive9selective.75 It should be noted that this focus is by no means strong (cf. a strong focus in the English cleft sentence It is I who ...). 72 Cf. Maharšax, Part IV, no. 38, in the decision section: ‫ וכבר איפסי א‬.. . '‫ לא אמר לה הריני נות כו‬$‫שלא הزכיר מלת לי וג‬ [‫הלכתא ונתפשט המנהג לה ל ושלא לחוש ל דושי] [ בכה]אי["ג]וונא‬, that he did not utter the word to me, nor did he say I hereby give, and so forth ..., and it is already legislated, and the custom thereof spread, to ease one’s thought, and not to accept qiddušín such as these .. .. 73 The verbal complex consists of three components: the verbal lexical substance, the actor and the nexus between the two. Goldenberg (1985) shows this, and presents how each of these three components can separately undergo certain syntactic procedures, such as negation, nominalization, adverbial modification, etc. As for decomposition, detachment, and thus laying the elements out, in §3.2.1.2.1 one may see another instance, – of decomposing the verbal object from the verbal complex and its object pronouns (me VERB a mi, and the like). 74 For the term segmentation, though in respect to another syntactic phenomenon, see Shisha9Halevy 1986: §2.0.2.1: 71: fn. 47. 75 It is interesting that in all of the following Judezmo examples, i precedes the pronoun; I am grateful to Professor David Bunis for this observation. 64 . (5) ‫לי דיגו טומה אישטי דידל פור דושי אי אילייא דיגו אי יו י לו ריסיבו‬, Le dišo: “Toma este dedal por qiddušín.”, i eya dišo: “I yo ke lo resivo.76”, ‘He told her: “Take this thimble as kiddushin.”, and she said: “And I hereby receive it.”’ (Maharašdam, ˀEven Haˁézer, no. 34, 179 18). (6) ‫ האלה ייו וידי אה ישעיא דיגו אפוגאדו מואירטו שוברי לא אגואה אי יו י‬$‫ואמר בלשו לעز הדברי‬ ‫לו איבא אטומאר שי לו לייבו לה וריינטי דיל וארדﭏ‬, Veˀamar bilšón láˁaz haddevarim haˀelle ke|yo vidi a Yešaˁyá dičo afogado mwerto sovre la agwa, i yo ke lo iva a|tomar. Se lo yevó la korryente del Vardal., ‘And he said in the foreign language these things: I saw the aforementioned Yešaˁyá choked, dead on the water, and I went to lift him. The current of the Vardar river had carried him.’ (Torat ˀEmet, no. 1, 58961). (7) ‫אי לו טומו לה מוסה אי איליא י שי איבה‬, i lo tomó la mosa, i eya ke se iva., ‘and the girl took it, and she (= this girl) did leave.’77 78 (Maharašdam, ˀEven Haˁézer, no. 8, 16917, (also in Divré Rivot, no. 3, 13914)). (8) A Spanish example: ¿ 9Y ahora qué hacemos?... Pero si apenas es lunes. Yo que pensé que por lo menos se iba a tardar un par de semanas..., ‘What shall we do now?... Monday has barely started. I thought that it would at least last for a couple of weeks...’ (drawn from CORDE (Arturo Azuela, El tamaño del infierno, Madrid: Jorge Rodríguez Padrón, Cátedra, 1985, [País: México])). 76 However, this might be another syntactic construction, with the e of calling to attention (Spanish he). If so, this example should be excluded from the list. Viz., E yo ke ló resivo, lit., ‘Behold, I who receive it’, i.e., ‘I hereby receive it.’, ‘I do receive it.’. 77 In this English translation, we have used did so as to focalize the nexus, but not the affirmation (cf. §3.2.1.2.2.1, paragraph (4)(A)). I am indebted to Ya’ar Hever for bringing to my attention the distinction between these two notions: Arnauld & Lancelot (1803) (the Port9Royal grammar) speak about affirmation throughout the book, whereas what we call ‘nexus’ seems to be pointed out ibid.: Ch. XXIII: 383: about the Latin 1ne. 78 In another testimony ibid., we find: ‫אי וינו לה מוסה אי טומו איל דו אדו אי בולטו לאש אישפאלדאש פארה אירשי‬, i vino la mosa, i tomó el dukado, i boltó las espaldas para irse., ‘and the girl came up, and took the ducat, and turned her back to go away.’ (Maharašdam, ˀEven Haˁézer, no. 8, 9910, (also in Divré Rivot, no. 3, 798)). 65 3.1.2.3 A case of unindicated (non9specified) agency: directive modality by means of infinitive and gerund forms This paragraph is intended to show some cases of directive modality79 – by means of infinitive and gerund forms –, in which the actor of the verb form is not indicated.80 Such occurences are completely opposed to the ones discussed above, – where we have seen double marking of the actor, both by the verbal morpheme and the subject pronoun near the verb, – and thus we wish to demonstrate the effect achieved when an indication of the actor is glaringly absent. In Judezmo, like in many other languages, infinitives can be used to express directive modality. E.g., (1) Komer el pan!, ‘Do eat the bread!’ (Bunis 1999a: 185: §9.4.2). (2) Dizfazermi las kazes, ‘the houses should be dismantled (lit., for me)’ (the Monastir [i.e., Bitola] dialect, Luria 1930: §155: 196; Text II: 24: line 16). Also in Spanish: ¡Pues buscarla [= la llave] en seguida! 1 gritó Currita, ‘Then look for it immediately! – shouted Currita’ (Corpus del Español [Luis Coloma (185191914), Pequeñeces, Bilbao: Administración de El Mensajero del Corazón de Jesús, año 1891]). In grammars, the infinitive may be described as a form of the verb which lacks markers of person, number, tense, and mood.81 As Goldenberg (1985) claims, the verb consists of three components: the verbal lexical substance, the actor and the nexus between the two. Further, he presents how each of these three components can separately undergo certain syntactic procedures, such as negation, nominalization, adverbial modification, etc. 79 Directive modality connotes the speaker’s degree of requirement of conformity to the proposition expressed by an utterance (Glossary of Linguistic Terms, the entry ‘directive modality’; Palmer 1986: 97998). 80 However, the actor is indicated in reflexive uses, e.g. (from Spanish), ¡Haberte callado!, ‘Keep quiet!’ (GRAE: Vol. II: §26.2f: 1965). Such instances are excluded from the discussion. 81 RAE Grammar 1771: Part I: Ch. 6: Article III: 62: “Infinitivo, el que no se ciñe á tiempos, números, ni personas , y necesita otro verbo que determine el sentido, como: conviene callar: quiero escribir. Por esto no debiera contarse el infinitivo entre los modos, pues esta palabra amar por si sola no dice quien ama, quando, ni como ...”; Bello 1903: 149: §420: “El infinitivo conserva el significado del verbo, despojado de las indicaciones de número y persona ...”. 66 In the case of infinitive, the actor’s component is missing, and that is why the actor is, or as though is, disregarded, overlooked on the one hand, and verb’s lexical element and the nexus take over, are more stressed, on the other hand. 82 For this reason, – we conclude, – when infinitive expresses directive modality, it admits condescending, authoritative shades of meaning. 82 We see this reflected in instances such as these: (a) Extraposed tautological infinitive. On this syntactic phenomenon in Biblical Hebrew, Semitic, European, and other languages, see Goldenberg 1971: 36949. In Biblical Hebrew, there is even a unique, purely lexical infinitival form, dissimilar from another infinitive form. Biblical Hebrew: ‫֥ א תְ ב ֲָרכֶ ֽנּוּ׃‬€ •‫֣ א תִ ֳקּ ֶ ֑בנּוּ גַּם־בּ ֵ ָ֖ר‬€ ‫ַם־ק ֹב‬ ֖ ‫( וַיֹּ֤אמֶר ָבּלָק֙ אֶל־ ִבּ ְל ָ֔עם גּ‬ibid.: 49 [Num. xxiii 25]), ‘And Balac said to Balaam: Neither curse, nor bless him.’ (Douay9Rheims 1899 American Edition). Cf. Russian and French translations, with the tautological infinitive in the former, ‘И сказал Валак Валааму: ни клясть не кляни его, ни благословлять не благословляй его.’ (Russian Synodal Version); ‘Balaq dit à Balaam: 999Si tu ne peux pas le maudire, au moins ne le bénis pas!’ (La Bible du Semeur); Spanish: Como tenerlo, lo tiene., ‘As for having it, he does.’ (ibid.: 38). For Spanish, see also GRAE: Vol. II: §40.3q9§40.3s: 298292983. (b) In enumerations of actions (Spanish – GRAE: Vol. II: §26.14c: 2032): En Medinilla, lo primero a misa, para causar buena impresión., ‘In Medinilla, the first thing we ought to do, is go to mass, in order to make a good impression.’ [Fernando Fernán Gómez, El viaje a ninguna parte, Madrid: Debate, año 1995, pág. 161]; Hablar de política de la identidad, requiere dos puntualizaciones: primero cómo se puede englobar dentro de una única identidad, varias identidades. Y segundo utilizar con extremada ligereza el término cultura., ‘Conversation about policy of identity requires two things to fix in mind: The first is to emphasize how one can include various identities into a single one. And the second is to avoid using the term culture extremely lightly.’ [Carmina Gaona Pisonero, José Fernández9Rufete y Joaquín Guerrero Muñoz, Estrategias metodológicas para el estudio de los procesos de adaptación e integración de la comunidad inmigrante ecuatoriana en el Bajo y Alto Guadalentín (Murcia), Scripta Nova: Revista Electrónica de Geografía y Ciencias Sociales, n.o 94 (26), Barcelona: Universidad de Barcelona, año 2001]. (c) Consider also the following Spanish examples: 1 Me parece que hice en este asunto cuanto pude. 1 ¡ ! ¿Y qué es lo que has hecho?, ‘– It seems to me, I did what I could in this matter. – Did! And what is it that you have done?’ (Corpus del Español [Rafael del Castillo (floruit 1894), seudónimo – Álvaro Carrillo, Los caballeros del amor: Memorias del reinado de Carlos III, Barcelona: Jaime Seix, año 1878]); ¡Qué desfachatez!, bramaba ahora a solas en su casa el alcalde. me a mí lo que he de hacer y dónde, cuándo y cómo., ‘What cheek!, – bellowed now the mayor, alone in his home. – To tell me what I have to do, and where, when, and how.’ (GRAE: Vol. II: §26.2f: 1965; CREA [Eduardo Mendoza, La ciudad de los prodigios, Barcelona: Seix Barral, año 1993, pág. 380]). (d) Cf. an observation made by RAE Grammar 1771 (Part I: Ch. 6: Article III: 62963): “Quando el infinitivo está por sí solo sin otro verbo que determine su sentido, sirve para distinguir unos verbos de otros, y así se dice: el verbo hablar, el verbo leer, el verbo escribir: y por eso se usa del infinitivo en los Diccionarios de las lenguas vulgares [= que se hablan actualmente, en contraposición de las lenguas sabias], con preferencia á todas las demas terminaciones.” 67 There exists, in the dialects of Salonika and Monastir (i.e., Bitola), another non9agentive form which signals directive modality – the gerund (Bunis 1999a: Ch. IX: 1809182: §9.2.1): It can be used both for adressing a single person – respectfully, politely, in one way or another83 –, and for addressing more than one individual, – but in this latter case, the form is not necessary marked in terms of social manner of acting. Examples from the Satirical Series, – we have found there only plural instances84: (3) .‫ בואינו פיزיטיש י ביניטיש‬,... ‫ אינטראנדו‬, ‫בוייורו‬, SUNXULA: Buyu(?)rún, entrando! Bweno fizíteš ke veníteš., ‘SUNXULA: Welcome, come (pl.) in! You have well done to come.’ (El Rizón 12: 39 (1938); Bunis 1999b: 588 bottom). (4) .‫ ייו בו איגאר פאסו בוزוטרוס אריספונדיינדו‬,‫מיראנדו אגורה‬, EZRÁ: Mirando agora, yo vo ečar pasuk, vozotros arespondyendo., ‘EZRÁ: Now look (pl.), I’m going to recite, and you (pl.) respond.’ (El Rizón 12: 27 (1937); Bunis 1999b: 396 bottom). (5) .‫בויירו אינטראנדו‬, SUNXULA: Buyrún, entrando., ‘SUNXULA: Welcome, come (pl.) in.’ (El Rizón 12: 37 (1938); Bunis 1999b: 583 middle). (6) ‫אינדאנדו אי לה אורה בואינה אי לארה‬, SUNXULA: Indando85 en la ora bwena i klara., ‘SUNXULA: Goodbye and good luck (to you two).’ (El Rizón 12: 37 (1938); Bunis 1999b: 585 top). We should be naturally inclined to suppose that this form’s directive modality has developed from its use as a converb (i.e., gerund)86, accompanying another inflected verbal form expressing this same modality. Such a cluster may be seen where the meaning of the KANTANDO form is ambivalent: it might be interpreted both as a converb, and as one signifying directive modality. Here is such an instance (a verse), the italicized forms denote 83 Bunis 1999a: Ch. IX: 1809182: §9.2.1; and Professor David Bunis – personal communication. 84 Similarly, plural examples of imperatives in the Monastir dialect: durrukandu, ‘destroy (pl.)’ (Luria 1930: Text XXI: 68: line 40; §156: 196); mantinyendu, ‘keep (pl.)’ (Luria 1930: Text II: 24: line 14915). 85 The form indando probably originated from andando, whose initial sound [a] changed to [i] under the influence of the conjugation of the verb ir (Cf. a somewhat similar mixture of these two verbs in Nehama 1977: 246a: the entry ‘ir’: the conjugation list: “[The imperative category:] va, vamos, 86 , (ou : langage noble)”. On the term converb (viz., gerund) – Matthews 1997: 75, 145; Shisha9Halevy 2009. 68 directive modality only, whereas the forms in bold may be ambivalent: ‫מיראנדו די בוש אר די נו‬ /‫ פור ביביר מאס דינייו אי בואיסטרה ביزיס‬/‫ ני די בוס אימבוראגאר אי גוטריאנדו בינו‬/‫פיידריר איל טינו‬ ‫ אה פו ו גאסטאנדו פאראס אבאנסאנדו‬/‫אי ונומיزאד אי לה מאנסיביס‬, BENUTA: Mirando de buškar de no pyedrer el tino,/ Ni de vos emboračar en čutreando vino,/ Por bivir mas dinyo en vwestra vežés,/ Ekonomizad en la mansevés,/ A poko gastando, parás avansando., ‘BENUTA: Do (pl.) mind that you don’t lose your mind, nor get boozed up on wine, in order to live with dignity and respect into old age, economize (pl.) in your youth, spend (pl.) slowly (and / or: spending slowly), save (pl.) money (and / or: saving money).’ (El Rizón 13: 5 (1938); Bunis 1999b: 607 bottom).87 The aforesaid supposed description of the development of this meaning explains why the directive modality KANTANDO is used addressing both one person, and more than one. There exists in Judezmo an inflected form of directive modality (KANTA!), that is to say, the suffix indicates the actor, – e.g., in the 1st (1ar) conjugation, sg. 1a, and pl. 1ad or 1á. As for the singular, we assume, regarding the KANTANDO form, that it is on account of lacking an 87 Cf. a will in Italian from 17th9century Ragusa, published in Orfali 2006: 1599163, 1779180. This is the notaries’ translation of a will, originally written in Judezmo, which has not survived. I thank Professor Yaron Ben9Naeh for informing me about the above9mentioned article. Note that the forms marked in bold might be syntactically independent, like in the Salonikan and Monastir dialects. The other verbs signalling directive modality have been italicized: “... Et quello che osservarà, sia benedetto. Havendo carico tutti i detti cinque anni, et da poi ancora sempre, David et Aron, et li vostri figlioli, dopo di voi di mandar per Talmudtora di Safet e Talmudtora di Jerusalem quello, che io mandava (ibid.: 179) ... Et li medesimi mandarete voi David et Aron soli quel che io mandava ogni anno per conto di un hebreo Abram Molxo ... che cosí farete voi altri et li vostri figlioli dopo di voi ... Sia, sapete et vedendo che nelle case di Venetia ho speso gran denaro ... rispartirete, come vedrete li libri et le note ... Vedete di conciar i libri di Costura ... (ibid.: 180)”, ‘... And one who will fulfill [my request], may he be blessed. [A new point of discussion:] And you (Whereas you), David and Aron, and your sons after you, have responsibility, all the aforesaid five years, and then for ever and a day, for sending to Talmud Torah of Safed and Talmud Torah of Jerusalem what I was sending ... And the same be sending, you, David and Aron on your own, what I was sending every year on behalf of a Jew Abram Molxo ... You should do so, you, and your sons after you ... May it be, you should know and see, that I have spent a lot of money on the houses of Venice ... distribute [the capital] the way you will see it in the book9keeping records and the notes ... Mind you abolish the costs’(?) book ...’. 69 indication of the actor – in contrast to KANTA –, that it signifies more gentle, more respectful address. 3.1.2.4 Conclusion Subchapter 3.1.2 dealt with subject pronouns employed in discourse. We have seen cases of subtle9moderate signalling, as well as those having strong signalling – focal or topical. Further, there were examined some actor9less instances – infinitives and gerunds expressing directive modality. 3.1.3 Subject pronouns in Erzählte Welt88 transmission Before the examination of this subject matter, it is important to begin with certain theoretical aspects. 3.1.3.1 Some theoretical aspects 3.1.3.1.1 Semantics of pleonasm (tautology) As we have seen, pronouns are often part of pleonastic (tautological) phenomena89, since subject pronouns may be correlative with verbal endings, object pronouns – with nominal or prepositional phrases, and so on. We would like to cite the valuable observations in RAE Grammar 1894: 2399241, where motivations for pleonasm are dealt with in some detail. We shall oftentimes see in the present research responses to many of these motivations through the pronominal pleonasm.90 88 See §1.1. 89 It should be stated, in general, that tautology and repetition comprise a large variety of phenomena. For example, cf. Aitchison 1994; examples from poems in Bello 1903: 218: §200, and ibid. in fn. 1. Repetitions sometimes may be almost purely stylistic, cf. a Friday radio program hosted by Shimon Parnas, who told a story, in a slow manner, with frequent immediate repetitions of some words (i.e., doubling the same word, making it resound, echo). 90 A note: The Spanish diacritics in the following citations, adherent to the orthographical conventions of that time, are presented here as they appear in the original text. 70 • [El pleonasmo] es útil cuando ciertos vocablos ... se emplean para dar más fuerza y colorido á la expresion, y para que á las personas que nos oyen no quede duda alguna de lo que les queremos referir ó asegurar.91 • ... se quiere dar más nervio y eficacia á la expresion, para que de ella no se dude ... 92 • esto es, como si dijéramos [la expresion] dos veces ... 93 • ... se añade más aseveracion y particularidad ó vida a lo que se dice ... 94 • ... como si señaláramos con el dedo ... 95 • ... indicar cierta sensacion grata ó desapacible ... 96 • ... indicar ... cierto interes de la persona que habla, con quien se habla ó de quien se habla ... 97 We find another important contribution to the analysis of such stressed utterances in Shisha9Halevy 2007. The author aligns the like kinds of prominent utterances with techniques used in movie making. Such cinematographic effects enrich the ways in which we can explain these pleonastic uses. Below will be given some techniques brought up there, as well as several other helpful terms. The definitions of these cinematic notions have been taken from Film Terms Glossary. • CloseBup (Shisha9Halevy 2007: 59) (‘CU’) – a shot98 taken from a close distance in which the scale of the object is magnified, appears relatively large and fills the entire 91 = [Pleonasm] is helpful when certain vocables (i.e., words) ... are used in order to give greater strength and coloring to the expression, and for the addressee to better understand what we wish to refer to, or claim. 92 = ... one wants to add vigor and effectiveness to the utterance, so as to dispel the addressee’s doubt ... 93 = this is as if we said something twice ... 94 = ... there is more assertion and peculiarity, or liveliness in what is being said ... 95 = ... as though one points with one’s index finger ... 96 = ... to indicate a good or a bad feeling ... 97 = ... to indicate ... certain interest of the utterer, the receiver (viz., the addressee), or the one who is talked about ... 98 Shot – the basic building block or unit of film narrative; refers to a single, constant take made by a motion picture camera uninterrupted by editing, interruptions or cuts, in which a length of film is exposed by turning the camera on, recording, and then turning the camera off; it can also refer to a single film frame (such as a still image); a follow1 shot is when the camera moves to follow the action; a pull1back shot refers to a tracking shot or zoom that moves 71 frame99 to focus attention and emphasize its importance; i.e., a person’s head from the shoulders or neck up is a commonly9filmed close9up; a tight shot makes the subject fill almost the entire frame; also extreme close1up (‘ECU’ or ‘XCU’) is a shot of a part of a character (e.g., face, head, hands) to emphasize detail; also known as detail shot or close on; contrast to long1shot (‘LS’) (Film Terms Glossary, the entry ‘close9 up’). • Zoom in (Shisha9Halevy 2007: 59) – A kind of a zoom shot, which, in turn, is a single shot taken with a lens that has a variable focal length, thereby permitting the cinematographer to change the distance between the camera and the object being filmed, and rapidly move from a wide9angle shot to a telephoto shot in one continuous movement; this camera technique makes an object in the frame appear larger; movement towards a subject to magnify it is known as zoom in or forward zoom, or reversed to reduce its size is known as zoom out/back or backward zoom (Film Terms Glossary, the entry ‘zoom shot’). • SlowBmotion (Shisha9Halevy 2007: 59) (or slo1motion) – refers to an effect resulting from running film through a camera at faster9than9normal speed (shooting faster than 24 frames per second), and then projecting it at standard speed; if a camera runs at 60 frames per second, and captures a one second9long event, a 249frame playback will slow that event to two and a half seconds long; overcrank(ing) means to speed up the camera, thereby making the action appear slower when projected – the term dates back to the old days of physically hand9cranking film through a camera; this filmic technique is usually employed to fully capture a ‘moment in time’ or to produce a dramatic (or romantic) feeling; contrast to fast1motion (or accelerated motion, back from the subject to reveal the context of the scene; ... shot analysis refers to the examination of individual shots; a one1shot, a two1shot, and a three1shot refers to common names for shooting just one, two, or three people in a shot (Film Terms Glossary, the entry ‘shot’). 99 Frame – refers to a single image, the smallest compositional unit of a film's structure, captured by the camera on a strip of motion picture film – similar to an individual slide in still photography; a series of frames juxtaposed and shown in rapid succession make up a motion (or moving) picture; also refers to the rectangular area within which the film image is composed by the film9maker – in other words, a frame is what we see (within the screen) (ibid., the entry ‘frame’). 72 achieved by undercranking) or time compression. Example: often used in sports films in which the climactic winning catch or play is run in slow9motion (Film Terms Glossary, the entry ‘slow9motion’). • Freeze (Shisha9Halevy 2007: 60) (or freeze1frame) – an optical printing effect in which a single frame image is identically repeated, reprinted or replicated over several frames; when projected, a freeze frame gives the illusion of a still photograph in which the action has ceased; often used at the end of a film to indicate death or ambiguity, and to provide an iconic lasting image (Film Terms Glossary, the entry ‘freeze’). • BlowBup (Shisha9Halevy 2007: 60) – an optical process – the enlargement of a photographic image or film frame; often used to create 70mm release prints from original 35mm films (Film Terms Glossary, the entry ‘blow9up’). • Pan (Shisha9Halevy 2007: 60) (or panning shot, or panoramic shot) – abbreviation for panorama shot; refers to the horizontal scan, movement, rotation or turning of the camera in one direction (to the right or left) around a fixed axis while filming; ... often confused with a dolly or tracking shot (Film Terms Glossary, the entry ‘pan’). • Rotation (Shisha9Halevy 2007: 60) – refers to a camera rotation – which can be a vertical or horizontal pan; or it may refer to a camera move in which the camera is moved in a complete (or half) circle to produce a spinning, disorienting effect to the viewer; a partial rotation is termed a tilt (Film Terms Glossary, the entry ‘rotation’). • Tracking shot (or truck) – a smooth shot in which the camera moves alongside (‘tracking within’) the subject, usually mounted on a dolly, in a side9to9side motion (relative to the scene100 or the action); also known as following shot; sometimes used interchangeably with dolly shot, pull back (pull1out, push1out, widen1out or push1 back) shot, track back (moving away) or track in (or push1in) (moving forward), or zoom shot (ibid., the entry ‘tracking shot’). 100 Scene – usually a shot (or series of shots) that together comprise a single, complete and unified dramatic event, action, unit, or element of film narration, or block (segment) of storytelling within a film, much like a scene in a play; the end of a scene is often indicated by a change in time, action and/or location (ibid., the entry ‘scene’). 73 • Dolly (shot) – refers to a moving shot in which the perspective of the subject and background is changed; the shot is taken from a camera that is mounted on a hydraulically9powered wheeled camera platform (sometimes referred to as a truck or dolly), pushed on rails (special tracks) and moved smoothly and noiselessly during filming while the camera is running; a pull1back shot (or dolly out) is the moving back (‘tracking back’) of the camera from a scene to reveal a character or object that was previously out of the frame, dolly in is when the camera moves closer (‘tracking in’) towards the subject, and dollying along with (or ‘tracking within’) refers to the camera moving beside the subject; also known as tracking shot, trucking shot, follow shot, or traveling shot (ibid., the entry ‘dolly’). • Background music – refers to part of the score101 that accompanies a scene or action in a film, usually to establish a specific mood or enhance the emotion (ibid., the entry ‘background music’). Additional useful conceptions, belonging to the narrative analysis, which may sometimes describe and explain pleonasms, are: • Dramatic event presentation (Shisha9Halevy 2007: 59). • Narrative peak (ibid.: 60). • Slowing down the narrative pace (ibid.: ibid.). Brief mention should be made of a recent study by Eshel (forthcoming), in which cinematographic techniques were used in order to interpret properly narrative episodes in Literary Modern Irish. 3.1.3.1.2 Newton’s Third Law and its relation to syntax We have found it useful to describe certain syntactic phenomena as ‘an opposed and equal reaction to an action’ (Newton’s Third Law, see Kater & Lardner 1830: §70: 45102; §71: 101 (Film) score – the musical component of a movie’s soundtrack, usually composed specifically for the film by a film composer; the background music in a film, usually specially composed for the film; may be orchestral, synthesized, or performed by a small group of musicians; also refers to the act of writing music for a film (ibid., the entry ‘score’). 74 47; Eggar 1905: §54: 85103; Symon 1960: §1.4: 7910; Troup 1976: §3.2: 41943104). That is, occasionally we can see two syntagms coming one after another, on the principal that the more the first one is salient (this saliency can be expressed, e.g., by the syntagm’s length, presence of pleonastic elements therein, nexus focussing), the more so is the second, as well. That is to say, the “force” of the former is in direct ratio to that of the latter. These could be the cases of a reporting clause, and of the direct or indirect speech following it. (This will be exemplified in greater detail in §3.1.3.2 below). A brief example is offered in Divré Rivot, no. 4: The conjoined phrase ‫השיב ואמר‬, hešiv veˀamar, ‘he answered saying’, precedes long answers, full of content, whereas phrases composed of a single verb, ‫השיב‬, hešiv, ‘he answered’, or ‫אמר‬, ˀamar, ‘he said’, precede short ones.105 Another example (the first syntagm is italicized): An SMS, Modern Hebrew, February 2011: ... .19-22 ‫אל תשאלו מה קרה לנו ביום ראשון – היתה לנו פריצה לדירה בדרך חברון בין‬, ‘You won’t believe what happened to us on Sunday – Burglars broke into our apartment in Hebron Road between 7 p.m.910 p.m. ...’106 102 “Action always must be equal and contrary to reaction; or the actions of two bodies upon each other must be equal, and directed towards contrary sides.” 103 “To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This is familiar enough to be regarded as obvious in such instances as a book resting on a table. The book presses on the table, and the table presses on the book with an equal and opposite pressure.” 104 “Action and reaction are equal and opposite. We can express this mathematically by saying that if F12 is the force due to the action of body 2 on body 1, and F21 is the force due to the action of body 1 on body 2, then F12 = 9 F21.” 105 Cf. same with i respondyó PROPER NOUN i dišo in contrast to i PROPER NOUN respondyó in a Judezmo text in Torat ˀEmet, no. 6, (folio 15, page 1, column 2, and page 2, column 1), 14936, and 12914, respectively. Similarly, compare a Judezmo instance of opposition between a reporting clause having tail, and one lacking it (see §3.2.1.2.2.2.1), – in Mahariṭac Haḥadašot, Part I, no. 25b, (page 41, column 1), 6911, vs. 18920. 106 Here are two instances taken from old Russian folkloric poetry: Не пыль в поле пылится,/ Не туман с моря подымается,/ Не грозная туча накатается,/ Не из той тучи молонья сверкает:/ Подымается силушка зловерная..., ‘It is not that the dust is stretching across the field, it is not that the fog is rolling in from the sea, it is not that a dark cloud is forming, it is not that lightning is flashing therein: It is that there is rising an evil spirit...’ (Barkhin 1936: 92); Не сияет на небе солнце красное,/ Не любуются им тучки синие:/ То за трапезой сидит во златом венце,/ Сидит грозный царь Иван Васильевич., ‘It is not that the beautiful sun is shining in the sky, it is not that the gray clouds feast their eyes thereupon: It is that there is sitting at table, wearing a golden crown, the terrible Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich.’ (ibid.: ibid. [Lermontov 1896: 230b: Part I]). 75 3.1.3.2 Lack or presence of a subject pronoun beside the verb Excluding the case of disambiguation described in §3.1.2.1 above, the addition of a pronoun to the inflected verb expresses the actor pleonastically. Many times in this state, in Erzählte Welt, viz., in narrative, we come across the semantic features of pleonasm presented earlier in §3.1.3.1.1. This can best be seen in a text where the two sorts of syntagms are included – one having a pronoun added, and one which does not. Further down, we will present two exemplary texts, one from the Early Middle Period of Judezmo (1493 – c. 1728), and another from the Early Modern Period (c. 1811 to World War I) (Bunis 1992: 4059407, 4099412), drawn from the responsa corpus. In EXAMPLE (1), in regard to reporting clauses, three types of syntagms are opposed to one another: type 1: DIŠO107, DÍŠOME108, ME DIŠO109 type 2: DÍŠOME EL110, EL ME DIŠO111 type 3: I DIŠO112, I ME DIŠO113 See §3.1.3.1.1 above for meanings that the pleonastic type 2 may carry. Type 3 is another kind of a prominent syntagm. In superscripted and marginal notes in grey as well as in footnotes, I shall attempt to suggest my interpretation of these utterances in the form of cinematographic techniques and other above9mentioned means: See below: EXAMPLE (1): lines 24, 27 – dramatization, dramatic event presentation; lines 45952: accelerated narrative pace; no camera effects or movement whatsoever; lines 58959: close9up, dramatization; EXAMPLE (2): lines 329 33: slowing down the narrative pace; close9up; tracking shot; line 61: slowing down the narrative 107 See in example (1): dišo (23, 30, 37, 45, 72). 108 See in example (1): díšome (10, 14, 50), díšile (22, 45, 49, 56, 57). 109 See in example (1): le diši (15, 17). 110 See in example (1): díšome el (58), díšile yo (24, 59). 111 See in example (1): yo le diši (27). 112 See in example (1): i dišo (29). 113 See in example (1): i me dišo (16), i le diši (64). 76 pace; close9up; tracking shot; freeze. Moreover, since the clauses of types 2 and 3 (– 2 containing an overt subject pronoun, 3 introduced by the conjunction –) are more salient, prominent, than type 1, the direct or indirect speech following them is more prominent too (see our adoption of Newton’s Third Law in §3.1.3.1.2 supra); thus see all of the above9mentioned instances in EXAMPLES (1) and (2) (lines 24, 27; 45952 [type 1], and so on), as well as: EXAMPLE (1): lines 29 and 64 – slowing down the narrative pace. Furthermore, the hierarchy of juncture, i.e., the degree of linkage114, between the speech or the narration preceding the reporting clause115 and the speech that comes after the reporting clause, is as follows, from the strongest to the weakest: with [isolated verb] DIŠO (type 1) > with [verb plus object pronoun] DÍŠOME, ME DIŠO (type 1) > with [verb and its overt subject pronoun, plus object pronoun] DÍŠOME EL, EL ME DIŠO (type 2) > with [the conjunction i plus isolated verb] I DIŠO (type 3) > with [the conjunction i plus verb and its object pronoun] I ME DIŠO (type 3). In EXAMPLE (2) the next two types of syntagms are opposed to each other, the second is pleonastic. As said before, the senses that pleonastic utterances might convey are mentioned in §3.1.3.1.1, and my interpretations will be provided in superscripted notes in grey and in footnotes. Moreover, as follows from §3.1.3.1.2 above, in view of the fact that the clauses of type 2 are more salient, prominent, than type 1, the direct speech following them is also more prominent.116 type 1: I LE DIŠI117 type 2: I DIŠI YO118 EXAMPLE (1): Torat Ḥayyim, Part I, no. 82 – the latter half of the 16th century or the first half of the 17th century, the case took place in the Izmir–Chios region: 114 For the definition of juncture, see Matthews 1997: 192. For usage of this term in relation to syntax, cf. Shisha9 Halevy 2004. 115 The reporting clauses dealt with in this section are ones which refer to the speech that goes after them. 116 Cf. similar results with tautology of the verbal object in §3.2.1.2.2.2.1. 117 See in example (2): i le diši (26, 46, 55), i me dišo (58). 118 See in example (2): i diši yo (32933, 61). 77 ‫‪1‬‬ ‫שאלה‬ ‫‪2‬‬ ‫טאפיטיש להוליכה בשי& או ועל زה עברו‬ ‫‪3‬‬ ‫ביניה‪ $‬טענות ועמדו לדי וﭏו ה‪ $‬הטענות אשר טענו‬ ‫ראוב נת לשמעו באישמיר באלה של‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪4‬‬ ‫בפנינו כל א מה‪ $‬בלשו לעز טע ראוב יו פינסאבה‬ ‫‪5‬‬ ‫מאנדאר לגיסי ו אישטה נאבי& אי נו שי מיפי& زו ומו‬ ‫‪6‬‬ ‫לו שאבי מוי ביי שמעו פור נו פאגאר מי לוי אי יהודה‬ ‫‪7‬‬ ‫טראוגו די‬ ‫אי לידישי& אה שמעו אבי& ש די טומאר &‬ ‫‪8‬‬ ‫ליי& בארמי אונה באלה די שי& גאדיש אי לה נאבי& י ווש‬ ‫‪9‬‬ ‫אינטראש אי טראימילה אה שי& או אי וואישה אزה‬ ‫&‬ ‫‪10‬‬ ‫די& שומי טראימי לה באלה דיבאשו דיל ונסול אי אאי‬ ‫‪11‬‬ ‫וירנה לה באר ה י מי אינבאר ארי אי לה טומארי‬ ‫‪12‬‬ ‫מאנדי י לה טורושירא אאי אימי די& שו שמעו דאמי‬ ‫‪13‬‬ ‫וינטי אש פארה לה באר ה אי לידי לה באלה אי דייש‬ ‫‪14‬‬ ‫אש אי לה מיטייו אי לה נאבי די& שומי פארה איל מכס‬ ‫‪15‬‬ ‫ומו פאزיש לי דישי& ווש דארי טיש יירי דילאש דוש‬ ‫‪16‬‬ ‫ואנדאש ביטיריאדה אי מי דישו שינו לו פארא אליי‬ ‫‪17‬‬ ‫בואינו י פארי לי דישי& ווש מי דיוי& ש ואנטו ושטארי‬ ‫‪18‬‬ ‫אאו י שי& פאש טורנאר אה פאגאר מכס נו מי דישי& ש‬ ‫‪19‬‬ ‫מי באלה שינו י מי לה יטי& ש אי מי לה פונגאש' אי‬ ‫‪20‬‬ ‫וואישה אزה פור י יו נו מי פואידו איר י נו מי אי‬ ‫‪21‬‬ ‫דישלינדאדו ויניינדו א י אי שיאו לו טופי לשמעו הנز‬ ‫‪22‬‬ ‫אי שו פואירטה יו‪ $‬ה' דישילי מי באלה פור י נו מי‬ ‫‪78‬‬ ‫‪23‬‬ ‫לה יטאשטי ו טו רופה די& שו נו אויאה אי לה‬ ‫‪24‬‬ ‫באר ה דישי& לי יו דונדי שא אשטיש אה שלמה עשאל‬ ‫‪25‬‬ ‫ו שו באלי ה אי אוטרה גי& נטי פור י נו מי שא אשטי‬ ‫‪26‬‬ ‫מי באלה מי די& שו שמעו פאנדילי וה מחר אה שא אר‬ ‫‪27‬‬ ‫שו רופה אי איל לה יטארה יו לי דישי& ני פאנדילי ני‬ ‫‪28‬‬ ‫נינגונו נו שי אוטרו י אווש אי יו מי ריאי ושאלנו לו‬ ‫‪29‬‬ ‫אנחנו ב"ד י די י שיריאו אי די& שו מי פיزי בורלה‬ ‫‪30‬‬ ‫ושאלנו לו עוד די י פי& زו בורלה דישו יו לידי לה באלה‬ ‫‪31‬‬ ‫אי לה טינגו אי איל אי איל מי די& שו י ואיאה ו לה‬ ‫‪32‬‬ ‫באר ה אה טומארלה עוד טע כי ביו‪ $‬ו' לי די& שו‬ ‫‪33‬‬ ‫שמעו אאיל בוש ה אה פאנדילי אי לי פאבלארי אי שילו‬ ‫‪34‬‬ ‫בוש י אי מי דישו פאנדילי לייאמה אה שמעו אי וינו‬ ‫‪35‬‬ ‫שמעו אי לי דישו אה פאנדילי דוש בﭏאש טינגו אי לה‬ ‫‪36‬‬ ‫נאבי& מירה דישא ארמילאש לי דישי& אה שמעו ווש‬ ‫‪37‬‬ ‫פארישי י מאנדי אמי ונייאדו טאנביי דישו מאנדﭏדו‬ ‫‪38‬‬ ‫אי לי דישי אה מי ונייאדו י פואי& רה ו פאנדילי‬ ‫‪39‬‬ ‫אי מי אינגאנייו אינו פואי למחר ביו‪ $‬שבת שיפואי‬ ‫‪40‬‬ ‫לה נאוי אי פאנדילי נו שא ו מי באלה די מודו שמעו‬ ‫‪41‬‬ ‫פי& زו פשיעה אי יירו י מי פאגי מי באלה ע"כ‬ ‫‪42‬‬ ‫ושמעון‬ ‫‪43‬‬ ‫אינבאר ארמי וינו ראוב אימי דישו שמעו יו אי מי‬ ‫‪44‬‬ ‫ונייאדו פינשו די איר אי לה נאבי& אי נו שי שי אל‬ ‫‪45‬‬ ‫אנשארי אינ י מי פאריש פלאزיר דישילי י דישו אונה‬ ‫‪79‬‬ ‫טוע אישטאנדו אי אישמיר פארה‬ ‫‪46‬‬ ‫באלה די טאפיטיש טינגו י לייבאר ו מיגו אי לה‬ ‫‪47‬‬ ‫נאבי֞◌ שי אירי יו ו לה נאבי ביי אי שינו ווש רואיגו‬ ‫‪48‬‬ ‫י מי האגאש' אישטי פלאزיר י מי יטי& ש אלייא מי‬ ‫‪49‬‬ ‫באלה דישי& לי פואיש איל נאבלו אי איל מכס ומו אה די‬ ‫‪50‬‬ ‫שיר נו ויניינדו ווש אי לה נאבי דישומי פארה איל‬ ‫‪51‬‬ ‫נאבלו יא מי דיביש ווש פארה איל מכס אינפינייאווש‬ ‫‪52‬‬ ‫אי פאגה אי מי טורושו לה באלה די באשו' דיל ונשול‬ ‫‪53‬‬ ‫אי פואי יו אי לה ארגי אי ראוב נו וינו אי לה נאבי‬ ‫‪54‬‬ ‫אי שי פואי לה נאבי& ואנדו ויני א י אי שי& או שאליינדו‬ ‫‪55‬‬ ‫די לה נאבי לו טופי אה ראוב דיزימי אונדי אישטה‬ ‫‪56‬‬ ‫מי באלה דישילי אישטה אי לה נאבי אי טריפול לימא‬ ‫‪57‬‬ ‫דישומי ראוב פוש ומו אה די שיר דישילי מירה די‬ ‫‪58‬‬ ‫יטאר טו באלה וה יטאלה דישומי איל נושי נאדה‬ ‫‪59‬‬ ‫דישילי יו טו שאויש שי שי פירדירה אה טו פושטה ג‪$‬‬ ‫‪60‬‬ ‫לי דישי אה פאנדילי דילאנטי איל פאטרו אי דילאנטי‬ ‫‪61‬‬ ‫די ראוב דוש באלאש איי אי לה נאבי לה אונה איש‬ ‫‪62‬‬ ‫די אישי יהודי יא איל נאבלו אישטאש פאגו לאש שא ארש‬ ‫‪63‬‬ ‫אה פואירה אי מי דישו איל יהודי שי יריאה י מא‬ ‫‪64‬‬ ‫דארה אשו ונייאדו אי לי דישי מאנדﭏדו אי לו אינגאנייו‬ ‫‪65‬‬ ‫כו' ‪...‬‬ ‫‪Transcription: (1) Šeˀelá: Reˀuvén natán leŠimˁón beIsmir bala šel (2) tapetes leholixah‬‬ ‫‪beŠio, veˁal ze ˁaverú (3) benehem ṭeˁanot, ve ˁamedú ledín, veˀellu hem haṭṭeˁanot ˀašer ṭaˁanú‬‬ ‫‪(4) befanenu kol ˀe[ḥad] mehem bilšón láˁaz: ṭaˁán Reˀuvén: Yo pensava (5) mandar legisí kon‬‬ ‫‪80‬‬ esta nave, i no se me|fizo, komo (6) lo save muy byen Šimˁón, por no pagar me Leví i Yehudá, (7) i le|diši a Šimˁón: Aveš de tomar travažo de (8) yevarme una bala de sedžadés en la nave ke vos (9) entraš, i traémela a Šio en vwesa kaza. (10) Díšome: Tráeme/9éme la bala debašo del kónsul, i aí (11) verná la barka ke me enbarkaré, i la tomaré. (12) Mandí ke la turušeran aí, i|me dišo Šimˁón: Dame (13) vente as para la barka, i le|di la bala i dyes (14) as, i la metyó en la nave. Díšome: Para el méxes – (15) komo fazes/9eš? Le diši: Vos daré teskyeré delas dos (16) vandas bitireada. I me dišo: Si|no lo farán ayí (17) bweno, ke faré? Le diši: Vos me deveš kwanto kostare, (18) aún ke sepaš tornar a pagar méxes. No me dešeš (19) mi bala sino ke me la kiteš i me la pongaš en (20) vwesa kaza, porke yo no me pwedo ir, ke no me e (21) deslindado.119 Vinyendo akí en Šio, lo topí leŠimˁón hanniz[kar] (22) en su pwerta yom heˀ, díšile: Mi bala – Dramatization, dramatic por ke no me (23) la kitaste kon tu ropa? Dišo: No kavia en la (24) barka. Díšile event presentation (as opposed to the the non9pleonastic Donde sakastes a Šelomó ˁAsaˀel and (25) yo: in lines 22 and 23); note also the kon su balika i otra prominent reporting clause – hence the salient reported speech (“Newton’s 3rd Law”) džente, porké no me sakaste[s/9š] (26) mi bala? Me dišo Šimˁón: Dramatization, dramatic event presentation (vs. Pandelí120 va maḥar a sakar (27) su ropa, i el la kitará. Yo non9pleonastic (28) 119 ninguno! ; No 120 [lines 22 and 23]) + “Newton’s Law” se otro ke a|vos. 121 As for the reporting clauses in bold, lines 7921: except for type 1 – accelerated narrative pace. le diši: Ni Pandelí ni I yo me reí. Vešaˀalnu lo, (29) in line 16, the rest is the non9accentuated : close9up, slowing down the narrative pace. Seemingly, a given name, and thus pronounced. Cf. the given names Παντελής, Pantelis, in Greek, (< ΠαντελεήÄων, ‘all9merciful’); Pandeli in Albanian. 121 As for and (lines 24 and 27) (as opposed to the the non9pleonastic and in lines 22 and 23): dramatization, dramatic event presentation. 81 “Newton’s 3rd Law”: a salient reporting clause (here with ) ⇒ a salient reported speech, slowing down the narrative pace anaḥnu, b[et] d[in], ke deké se|rió. I dišo: Me fizi burla. (30) Vešaˀalnu lo ˁod, deké fizo burla. Dišo: Yo le|di la bala, (31) i la tengo en el, i el me dišo ke vaya kon la (32) barka a tomarla.122 ˁOd ṭaˁán ki beyom vav le dišo (33) Šimˁón a|el: Buška/9á a Pandelí, i le favlaré. I se|lo (34) buškí, i me dišo Pandelí: Yama/9á a Šimˁón. I vino (35) Šimˁón i le dišo a Pandelí: Dos balas tengo en la (36) nave, mira/9á de|sakarmelas. Le diši a Šimˁón: Vos (37) parese ke mande a|mi kunyado tanbyén? Dišo: Mandaldo. (38) I le diši a mi kunyado ke fwera kon Pandelí, (39) i me enganyó i|no fwe. Lemaḥar, beyom Šabbat se|fwe (40) la nave, i Pandelí no sakó mi bala. De modo Šimˁón (41) fizo pešiˁá, i kyero ke me page mi bala. ˁA[d] ka[ˀn]. (42) VeŠimˁón ṭoˁén: Estando en Ismir para (43) enbarkarme, vino Reˀuvén, i|me dišo: Šimˁón, yo i mi (44) kunyado penso de ir en la nave, i no se si al9 (45) kansaré, en|ke me fareš Accelerated narrative pace; no camera effects or movement whatsoever; non9salient reporting clauses ⇒ non9salientrd reported speech (“Newton’s 3 Law”) Accelerated narrative pace; no camera effects or movement whatsoever plazer. Díšile: Ke? Dišo: Una (46) bala de tapetes tengo ke yevar kon migo en la (47) nave. Si iré Accelerated narrative pace; no camera effects or movement whatsoever yo kon la nave – byen, i si|no – vos rwego (48) ke me hagaš este plazer, ke me kiteš ayá mi (49) Accelerated narrative pace; no camera effects or movement whatsoever bala. Díšile: Pwes el nablo123 i el méxes – komo a de (50) ser no vinyendo vos en la nave? Accelerated narrative pace; no camera effects or movement whatsoever Díšome: Para el (51) nablo – ya me deveš vos, para el méxes – enpenyavos, (52) i pagá.124 I me turušo la bala de bašo del kónsul, (53) i fwe yo i la kargí, i Reˀuvén no vino en la nave. (54) I se 122 As for (line 29) (as opposed to the the more immediate in line 30): slowing down the narrative pace. 123 or: navlo, < Greek (Nehama 1977: 381a; Perez & Pimienta 2007: 317a), ναύλο < Ancient Greek ναῦλος, var. ναῦλον, ‘passage9money’, ‘fare’, ‘freightage’ (Liddell & Scott 1883: 992a). 124 As for the reporting clauses in bold and the dialogue in lines 45952: accelerated narrative pace; no camera effects or movement whatsoever. Also, attenuated reporting clauses, hence attenuated reported speech (“Newton’s 3rd Law”). 82 fwe la nave. Kwando vini akí en Šio, salyendo (55) de la nave lo topí a Reˀuvén. Dízeme: ‘Onde está (56) mi bala?’ Díšile: ‘Está en la nave en Tripol9limán.’ (57) Díšome Reˀuvén: ‘Pos komo a Close9up, dramatization, vs. the foregoing de ser?’ Díšile: ‘Mira de (58) kitar tu bala, va kítala.’ Díšome el: ‘No |se nada.’ (59) (×2); + a salient reporting cl. ⇒ a salient reported speech (Newton’s Law) Díšile yo: ‘Tu saves si se perderá a tu posta.’ 125 Gam (60) le diši a Pandelí delante el patrón i delante (61) de Reˀuvén: ‘Dos balas ay en la nave. La una es (62) de ese yehudí. Ya el nablo [de] estas pagó. Las sakarás (63) a fwera.’ I me dišo el yehudí si keria ke “Newton’s 3rd Law”: a salient reporting clause (here with ) ⇒ a salient reported speech, slowing down the narrative pace man9 (64) dara a|su kunyado. I le diši: ‘Mandaldo’ 126 , i lo enganyó, (65) ku[lleh]. ... Translation: (1) Question: In Izmir, Reˀuvén had given to Šimˁón a roll of (2) carpets to transport to Chios127, and they were making (3) claims about this, and put themselves on trial, and these are the claims which have arisen (4) before us, of each one of them, in Judezmo: Reˀuvén argued: “I had intended (5) to send my brother9in9law with this ship, but it was not carried out, (6) and Šimˁón knows it too very well, since Leví and Yehudá do not pay me. (7) 125 and , lines 58959 (in contrast with the foregoing , twice): close9up, dramatization. 126 127 : slowing down the narrative pace. Šio is probably the island Chios: In Greek, its name, Χίος, is pronounced with the voiceless palatal fricative [ç] (like ch in the German word milch), [ˈçios]. [ç] could have been interpreted here as, or transformed into, [ʃ] by Judezmo speakers. – Such shifts often happen, e.g., in some dialects and variations of German, which merged the phonemes [ç] and [ʃ] into [ʃ], or in Slavic languages, e.g., Russian, x [x] vs. xь [ç] yielding š [ʃ] in muxa [‘a fly’] vs. muxьka > muška [‘a little fly’]. This [ʃ] is also found in Cypriot9Cretan9Rhodian Greek: E.g., Standard Greek χέρι [ˈçeri] (‘a hand’) vs. [ˈʃera] in Cretan and [ˈʃeri] in Cypriot. (Jannedy & Weirich & Brunner 2011 – for German; knowledge provided by users of the forums Linguistics Stack Exchange and Word Reference). 83 And I said to Šimˁón: ‘You should do a job of (8) bringing me a roll of sedžadés128 in the ship that you (9) are about to board, and carry it for me to Chios to your house.’ (10) He told me: ‘Place the roll for me near the consulate, and (11) the ship wherein I am to embark will come right there, and I will take it.’ (12) I requested that it be brought there, and Šimˁón told me: ‘Give me (13) twenty akçes (aspers) for the ship’, and I gave him the roll and ten (14) akçes, then he put it in the ship. He said to me: (15) ‘How do you deal with the customs?’ I told him: ‘I will give you the ultimate confirmation for the two (16) directions (of the trip).’ And he told me: ‘If they do not do it (17) properly there (i.e., at the customs), what shall I do?’ I told him: ‘You owe me the sum it would cost, (18) in case you should get through paying tax again, [so you pay it!] Don’t leave (19) my roll [in the ship], but take it out, and leave it in (20) your house for me, because I can not walk, since I have not (21) gotten well.’ Having come here, to Chios, I found Šimˁón, mentioned above, (22) at the threshold of his house on Thursday. I told him: ‘Why haven’t you (23) taken out my roll together with your clothes?’ He said: ‘There wasn’t enough room for it in the (24) ferryboat.’ I told him: ‘When you got out Šelomó ˁAsaˀel (25) and his little bundle, and other people, why didn’t you take (26) my roll out?’ Šimˁón answered me: ‘Pandelí is going to take (27) his clothes from there, and he will get it (i.e., your roll) (too).’ I told him: ‘Neither Pandelí nor (28) anyone else! I know (viz., closely) no person other than you.’ And I laughed.” And (29) we, the court, asked him why he laughed, and he said: “I mocked him.” (30) Then we also asked him why he mocked him. He said: “I gave him the roll, (31) and I have it currently under his (constant) care, and (now) he told me to sail by the (32) ferryboat to take it.” Further, he claimed that on Friday (33) Šimˁón told him: ‘Look for Pandelí and I will talk to him’, and I (34) searched for him, then Pandelí said to me: ‘Call Šimˁón’, and (35) Šimˁón came and said to Pandelí: ‘I have two bundles in the (36) ship. Take care of taking them out for me.’ I told Šimˁón: ‘Does it (37) seem reasonable to you that I send my brother9in9law too (with him)?’ He said: ‘Send him’. (38) And I told my brother9in9law to sail with Pandelí, (39) and he (i.e., the former) fooled me and did not do that. The next day – on the Sabbath – (40) the ship left, and Pandelí had not taken my roll. So that Šimˁón (41) committed a crime, and I want him to pay back the value of my roll. End of quote. 128 Sedžadé (i.e., Turkish ‘secade’) = a Muslim prayer rug; many thanks to Professor David Bunis for clarifying this word. 84 (42) Whereas Šimˁón states the following: “While in Izmir, intending to (43) embark, Reˀuvén had come, and told me: ‘Šimˁón, – my (44) brother9in9law and I intend to be aboard the ship, and I don’t know whether (45) I will be successful in carrying this out, in which case you could do me a favour.’ I said to him: ‘What favour?’ He said: (46) ‘I have to transport a roll of carpets with me in the (47) ship. Should I travel on the ship – fine, but if not, then I kindly ask you (48) to grant me this favour of getting out my (49) roll there (i.e., in Chios, or: in the ship).’ I told him: ‘So how will be the (50) case of the freightage and the customs, if you do not board the ship?’ He answered me: ‘As for the (51) freightage – you are in my debt (for its cost), as for the customs – provide security, (52) and pay (when needed).’ Then he brought (and put) the roll for me near the consulate, (53) and I went and loaded it, whereas Reˀuvén did not get into the ship, (54) and the ship departed. When I had arrived here in Chios, while alighting (55) off the [ferry]boat, I found Reˀuvén. He tells me: ‘Where is (56) my roll?’ I told him: ‘It is in the ship in Tripol9limán129.’ (57) Reˀuvén said to me: ‘Then how will it be dealt with?’ I answered him: ‘Take care of (58) taking your roll out, go get it.’ He told me: ‘I don’t know anything (about where it is, etc.)’ (59) I told him: ‘[Don’t consider yourself helpless –] you do know, if it should get lost while you take charge.’ Moreover, (60) I said to Pandelí in front of the master and in front (61) of Reˀuvén: ‘There are two bundles in the ship, one of them (62) belongs to this Jew130 (i.e., Reˀuvén). The freightage has been paid for these. You should get them (63) out.’ And the Jew asked me whether I wanted him to send (64) his brother9in9law, and I told him: ‘Send him’, and he fooled him”, (65) etc. ... EXAMPLE (2): Cel Hakkésef, Part I, no. 9 – Monastir, the year 1851: 129 ‫ על‬$ ‫ הר' שלמה אלב'א‬... 15 ... ‫רגליו והעיד‬ 16 '‫ סאב'רא סי‬، ‫ וכה היו דבריו‬... 17 Liman (Turkish), λιÄάνι (Greek) = 'a port’. Tripol1limán must have been a port somewhere in or near Chios, since Šimˁón took a ferryboat from there to his destination in Chios. The toponym Tripolis (Greek, Τρίπολις, lit., ‘three cities’), and its variants such as Tripoli, Tirebolu (a Turkish form), Tarablus (an Arabic form), are found rather extensively in the Mediterranean area. 130 This word may actually mean ‘a fellow’, ‘a person’. Alternatively, Reˀuvén might have been called here ‘the Jew’ in order to differentiate him from (an)other non9Jew(s) during those events. 85 ‫‪18‬‬ ‫ואנדו סי מורייו לה מוز'יר די חיי‪ $‬ארואיסטי‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪19‬‬ ‫הי ו אגורה רוב די או חדש לי אב'לימוס פור‬ ‫‪20‬‬ ‫דיספוزארלה ו דיטה מוגאגה רב ה הנز' אי‬ ‫‪21‬‬ ‫נו אסובייו אי מאנו אגורה אונה טאדרי מי‬ ‫‪22‬‬ ‫ייאמו מי אירמאנו משה אלב'א אי מי דייו או‬ ‫‪23‬‬ ‫ב'אנטיל י סי לו דיירה אה חיי‪ $‬ארואיסטי‬ ‫‪24‬‬ ‫הנز' פור סינייאל די לה מוג'אג'ה הנز' אי טומי‬ ‫‪25‬‬ ‫איל ב'אנטיל אי סי לודי אה חיי‪ $‬ארואיסטי‬ ‫‪26‬‬ ‫הנز' אי לי דיש'י בס"ט ‪ ،‬אי חיי‪ $‬ארואיסטי‬ ‫‪27‬‬ ‫הנز' מי דייו או דו אדו אי אונוס אוריز'אליס‬ ‫‪28‬‬ ‫אי מי דיש'ו חיי‪ $‬מחי הי"ו י אאי איסטאב'ה‬ ‫‪29‬‬ ‫לה מוג'אג'ה הנز' אי לי דיש'י ייו אלה מוג'אג'ה‬ ‫‪30‬‬ ‫נה איסטו פור דושי כפי איסטאב'ה ﭏ פאפילי ו‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪31‬‬ ‫סיראדו אי אי לואיגו דיש'ו חיי‪ $‬מחי הי ו‬ ‫‪32‬‬ ‫הנز' ומו לה דיש'ו איל אוטרו נוב'ייו אי דיש'י‬ ‫‪33‬‬ ‫ייו אנסי י סיאה אי לה מוג'אג'ה דיש'ו אנסי‬ ‫‪34‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫י סיאה אי כפי דיزי חיי‪ $‬מחי הי ו אי אב'רי‬ ‫‪35‬‬ ‫ייו י ב'יירה לה מוג'אג'ה איל דו אדו ו‬ ‫‪36‬‬ ‫לוס אוריز'אליס אי טורנו חיי‪ $‬מחי אי דיש'ו‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪37‬‬ ‫איסטו איס ומו לה דיש ארה איל אוטרו נוב'ייו‬ ‫‪...‬‬ ‫‪...‬‬ ‫‪86‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪40‬‬ ‫‪ ...‬ואח ‪ 6‬בא הר' חיי‪ $‬ארואיסטי‬ ‫‪41‬‬ ‫הנز' ו ‪...‬‬ ‫‪42‬‬ ‫‪ ...‬אמר מוג'אס ב'יزיס מי אב'לארו פור‬ ‫‪43‬‬ ‫דיספוزאר ו דיטה מוג'אג'ה אי נו אב'יאה‬ ‫‪44‬‬ ‫אטורגאדו אגורה י אטורגי טומי או דו אדו‬ ‫‪45‬‬ ‫אי אונוס אוריز'אליס די דיינטרו די או פאפילי ו‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫‪46‬‬ ‫אי סי לוס די אה שלמה אלב'א אי לי דיש י נה‬ ‫‪47‬‬ ‫איסטו פור דושי לוס אוריز'אליס סו די‬ ‫‪48‬‬ ‫פלאטה אינדוראדה איל דו אדו לו טומי אינפ‬ ‫‪49‬‬ ‫ריסטאדו די מי טיאו משה ארואיסטי הי"ו פור‬ ‫‪50‬‬ ‫דיספוزאר ‪...‬‬ ‫‪51‬‬ ‫ואחר‬ ‫‪52‬‬ ‫‪ ...‬אמרה ב'ינו לה‬ ‫‪53‬‬ ‫מוز'יר די חיי‪ $‬מחי הי ו אי מי דימאנדו סי‬ ‫‪54‬‬ ‫טייניס או ב'אנטיל פארה דאר פור סינייאל‬ ‫‪55‬‬ ‫אי לי דיש'י נו טינגו אוטרו י או ב'אנטיל‬ ‫‪56‬‬ ‫די מי מאדרי אי מי לו טומו מי טיאו משה‬ ‫‪57‬‬ ‫אלב'א דיספואיס ב'ינו שלמה אלב'א אי מי דייו‬ ‫‪58‬‬ ‫או פאפילי ו סיראדו אי מי דיש'ו נה דושי‬ ‫‪59‬‬ ‫די איסטי נוב'ייו אי דיש'ו חיי‪ $‬מחי נו איס‬ ‫‪60‬‬ ‫אנסי סינו ומו לה דיש'ארה איל אוטרו נוב'ייו‬ ‫‪61‬‬ ‫אי דיש'י ייו אנסי י סיאה דיספואיס סופי‬ ‫‪87‬‬ ‫רינו להבתולה הנز' ו ‪...‬‬ ‫‪.‬‬ ‫י אב'יאה אי איל פאפילי ו או דו אדו אי‬ ... ‫אונוס אוריز'אליס‬ 62 63 Transcription: (15) ... hari[bí] Šelomó Alva qam ˁal (16) raglav veheˁid ... (17) ... vexó hayú devarav: Savrán se[nyores], (18) kwando se muryó la mužer de Ḥayyim Arwesti, (19) Ha[ššem] ye[ḥayyehu] ve[yišmerehu], agora qarov de un ḥódeš le avlimos por (20) despozarla kon dita mučača Rivqá hanniz[kéret], i (21) non asuvyó en mano. Agora una tadre, me (22) yamó mi ermano Mošé Alva, i me dyo un (23) vantil(?), ke se lo dyera a Ḥayyim Arwesti (24) hanniz[kar] por sinyal de la mučača hanniz[kéret], i tomí (25) el vantil(?) i se lo|di a Ḥayyim Arwesti (26) hanniz[kar], i le diši: Bes[imán] ṭ[ov]! I Ḥayyim Arwesti (27) hanniz[kar] me dyo un dukado i unos orežales, (28) i me dišo Ḥayyim Qamḥí, Ha[ššem] ye[ḥayyehu] ve[yišmerehu], ke aí estava (29) la mučača hanniz[kéret], i le diši yo a|la mučača: (30) Na esto por qiddušín, – kefí estava al papeliko (31) serrado. I en lwego dišo Ḥayyim Qamḥí, Ha[ššem] ye[ḥayyehu] Slowing down the narrative pace; close9up; tracking shot; as well as ve[yišmerehu], (32) hanniz[kar]: Komo la dešó el otro novyo. I diši (33) yo: “Newton’s 3rd Law”: a salient reporting clause ⇒ a salient reported speech Ansí ke sea. 131 I la mučača dišo: Ansí (34) ke sea, i kefí dize Ḥayyim Qamḥí, Ha[ššem] ye[ḥayyehu] ve[yišmerehu]. I avrí (35) yo ke vyera la mučača el dukado kon (36) los orežales. I tornó Ḥayyim Qamḥí i dišo: (37) Esto es komo la dešará/9ára el otro novyo. ... 131 Slowing down the narrative pace; close9up; tracking shot. 88 (40) ... Veˀaḥa[r] ka[x] baˀ hari[bí] Ḥayyim Arwesti (41) hanniz[kar] ve... (42) ... ˀamar: Mučas vezes me avlaron por (43) despozar kon dita mučača, i non avia (44) atorgado. Agora ke atorgí, tomí un dukado (45) i unos orežales de dyentro de un papeliko, (46) i se los di a Šelomó Alva, i le diši: Na (47) esto por qiddušín, – los orežales son de (48) plata endurada, el dukado – lo tomí enp9 (49) restado de mi tio Mošé Arwesti, Ha[ššem] ye[ḥayyehu] ve[yišmerehu], por (50) despozar. ... (51) Veˀaḥar qarinu lehabbetulá hanniz[kéret] ve... (52) ... ˀamerá: Vino la (53) mužer de Ḥayyim Qamḥí, Ha[ššem] ye[ḥayyehu] ve[yišmerehu], i me demandó si (54) tyenes un vantil(?) para dar por sinyal, (55) i le diši: No tengo otro ke un vantil(?) (56) de mi madre. I me lo tomó mi tio Mošé (57) Alva. Despwés vino Šelomó Alva i me dyo (58) un papeliko serrado, i me dišo: Na qiddušín (59) de este novyo. I dišo Ḥayyim Qamḥí: No es (60) ansí sinó komo la dešará/9ára Slowing down the narrative pace; close9up; tracking shot; freeze; as well as “Newton’s 3rd Law”: a prominent reporting clause ⇒ a prominent reported speech el otro novyo. (61) I diši yo: Ansí ke sea. 132 Despwés supi (62) ke avia en el papeliko un dukado i (63) unos orežales. ... Translation: (15) ... Ribí Šelomó Alva stood up on (16) his feet, and testified ... (17) ... and such were his words: “May the honoured gentlemen know, – (18) when Ḥayyim Arwesti’s wife had passed away, (19) – it has been about a month now –, we spoke with him, for the purpose of (20) betrothing the above9mentioned girl Rivqá133, and (21) were not having any 132 Slowing down the narrative pace; close9up; tracking shot; freeze. 133 Viz., for the locutor of this testimony, Ribí Šelomó Alva, and Rivqá to become engaged. 89 success. Then one afternoon, my brother Mošé Alva134 (22) called me and gave me a (23) fan(?)135, for me to give it to (24) the above9named Ḥayyim Arwesti as a sign of the aforesaid girl, and I took (25) the fan(?) and gave it to (26) the said Ḥayyim Arwesti, and told him: ‘[May it be] a favourable sign!’ Next (27) the aforementioned Ḥayyim Arwesti gave me a ducat and a pair of earrings, (28) and Ḥayyim Qamḥí, may God provide him with life and protection, told me that (29) the maiden was in that place, and I told the maiden: (30) ‘Take this as kiddushin’, – which was (31) wrapped in a piece of paper. Then the aforesaid Ḥayyim Qamḥí, may God provide him with life and protection, immediately said: (32) ‘If the other bridegroom has given her up’. And (33) I said: ‘Let it be so’, and the girl said: (34) ‘Let it be so, and the way Ḥayyim Qamḥí, may God provide him with life and protection, says.’ Afterwards (35) I unfolded [it, i.e. the paper] so that the maiden might see the ducat and (36) the earrings. And Ḥayyim Qamḥí said one more time: (37) ‘This is if the other bridegroom should give her up (or: if the other bridegroom gave her up).’” ... (40) ... Later on there came the mentioned Ribí Ḥayyim Arwesti (41) and ... (42) ... said: “Many times I was told that I should (43) get engaged to the said maiden, but I had not (44) promised this. Now that I did, I took a ducat and (45) a pair of earrings out of a piece of paper, (46) and gave them to Šelomó Alva, telling him: ‘Take (47) this for kiddushin, – the earrings are made of (48) hardened silver, while the ducat has been (49) borrowed by me from my uncle Mošé Arwesti, may God provide him with life and protection, for (50) the betrothal.’” ... (51) Afterwards we called the above9mentioned maiden to witness, and ... (52) ... she said: “There came Ḥayyim Qamḥí’s (53) wife, may God provide him with life and protection, 134 The girl’s uncle, see lines 56957 below. 135 Cf. Croatian vèntīl, ‘a device that closes or opens, to let gases or liquids through’, ‘a valve’, ‘a vent’ < ventilírati, ‘to provide airflow’, ‘to ventilate’ < Latin ventilare ≃ ventus, ‘wind’ (HJP, the entries vèntīl, ventilírati); Nehama 1977: 580a: vantilađór, vantilatór = ‘a ventilator’. A less likely possibility here is ‘an apron’ (see ibid.: 135a: devantál; Perez & Pimienta 2007: 110a, 458b: devantal, vental). As seen in lines 52957, the maiden was asked to give her fan(?) (eventually she gave her mother’s), functioning as a sign: According to Judaism, an unmarried woman is considered to be a lost thing, ˀavedá (Babylonian Talmud, Qiddušín, folio 2, page 2). This lost thing is fated to be found by its owner – her husband9to9be – who will claim it by identifying the corresponding signs. That is also why there is the blessing Besimán ṭov!, [May it be] a favourable sign!, i.e., may this be your truly intended wife. (I am grateful for the information given by Rabbi Eliezer Shlomo Schik on the Internet, at http://breslevcity.co.il/). 90 and asked me whether (54) I had a fan(?) to give as a sign, (55) and I answered her: ‘I have no other but a fan (56) of my mother.’ Then my uncle, Mošé (57) Alva, took it from me. Subsequently Šelomó Alva came, giving me (58) a wrapped piece of paper, and telling me: ‘Receive kiddushin (59) from this bridegroom.’ And Ḥayyim Qamḥí said: ‘It is not (60) so unless the other bridegroom should give her up (or: unless the other bridegroom gave her up).’ (61) Then I said: ‘Let it be so.’ Later on I knew (62) that there was a ducat and (63) a pair of earrings folded in the paper.” ... 3.1.3.2.1 Other observations 3.1.3.2.1.1 Use of yo at the beginning of a narration of the self At times, at the beginning of self9narratives, there is attested insertion of yo along with the inflected verb, – this tautology is put into use for the purpose of presenting oneself, the protagonist, more intensely, at the opening of the plot (see §3.2.1.2.2.2.2). Further in the text, yo often no longer appears beside the inflected verbs.136 Examples137: (1) ‫אי דישו יו ויניאה דיל ג'ארשי ו א ילייוש מאנסיבוש אי אינטרי אי איל ורטיג'ו אי לי פיزי די אוג'ו‬ ‫אמי אישפוزה אי פואי אי שי אפארו אלה וינטאנה אי לי ארוגי איל טישטאמיל די מאנסאנאש אי לידישי טומה‬ ‫אישטו פור דושי אי דיש'ו שי‬, i dišo: “Yo venia del čarší kon akeyos mansevos, i entrí en el kortižo, i le fizi de ožo a|mi espoza, i fwe i se aparó a|la ventana, i le arroží el testamil(?)138 de mansanas, i le|diši: ‘Toma/9á esto por qidduší[n]’, i dišo: ‘Si.’”, ‘and he said: “While coming from the bazaar with those young men, I entered the inner courtyard, gave my bride the eye, and she went 136 I am indebted to Dr. Lea Sawicki for pointing out to me this kind of occurrence. 137 We find the same in Modern Hebrew. E.g., below is a review of a washing machine, on the Internet, June 30, 2011: ‫ היא הכי מוצלחת‬AEG9L46010 ‫ ערכתי סקר מקיף והוברר לי ש‬.‫אני חיפשתי מכונת כביסה עם פתח עליון בגלל המוגבלות בגודל המיקום‬ ‫ משאירה‬,‫ מכבסת מהר וטוב‬,‫ היא קלה מאוד להפעלה‬,‫בקטגוריה! רכשתי אותה ומאז אני לא מפסיק לחייך! למרות מבחר גדול של תוכניות כביסה‬ ...‫ריח נעים ושקטה להפליא! אני ממליץ בחום‬ 138 Probably, we have here what seems to be a variant of the word testamal, which is a kind of cloth, (hence a bag made of this material?); I am indebted to Professor David Bunis for this infomation. Another, less felicitous, option is the Ottoman Turkish ×Ø‫ط‬, tasst, var. ×Ú‫ط‬, tašt, ‘a basin’, ‘a tray’ (Redhouse 1880: 640b). 91 and emerged at the window, I tossed her the bag(?) / basin(?) filled with apples, and told her: ‘Take this as kiddushin’, and she replied: ‘I do’.”’ (Maharšax, Part IV, no. 89, 51954). (2) ‫באר י אנטיס דוס אנייוס אי מידייו מ]עלה [ו"מ]טה[ די סאלוני ו אי מי פואי אה‬7‫ לייו מי אינ‬... ‫והעיד‬ ‫ חز די בולגאריאה י אוליי די אוטרוס י‬$‫טאדו אי איל י בידי אה נסי‬7‫ אונה טאדרי איסטאנדו אסינ‬,‫איزמירנה‬ ... ‫לו ייאמאבא אנסי‬, veheˁid ...: “Yo me enbarkí antes dos anyos i medyo ma[ˁla] uma[ṭṭa] de Saloniko, i me fwe a Ezmirna, una tadre estando asentado en el, ke vidi a Nissim Ḥazzán de Bulgaria, ke oyí de otros ke lo yamavan ansí, ...”, ‘and he testified ...: “I took ship some two and a half years ago from Salonika, and sailed to Izmir. One afternoon, when I was sitting there (i.e., in Salonika, still there), I saw Nissim Ḥazzán from Bulgaria, having heard from others that this was his name, ...”’ (– the year 1921, Noseˀ ˀEfod, no. 30139, 18922). (3) :‫ סונחולה דייו אונוס ואנטוס סורבוס אי אימפיסו אנסי‬.‫לה סירבידירה טרושו לוס אפיס אי סאלייו‬ ‫ אאי אנדי אפוزא לוס‬,‫ מי פואי אה סירביר אי אונה אزה סיר ה דיל לו ס‬,‫– ואנדו ייו מי ביני די איס ופייה‬ ... .‫אוטומוביליס‬, (La servidera trušo los kafés i salyó. Sunxula dyo unos kwantos sorvos i empesó ansí:) “Kwando yo me vine de Eskopya, me fwe a servir en una kaza serka del Luks, aí ande apozan los otomobiles. ...”, ‘The servant brought the cups of coffee and went out. Sunxula took several sips, and began in this way: “When I came from Skopje, I went to work as a servant in a house near Luks, where the cars stand. ...”’ (El Rizón 12: 33 (1938); Bunis 1999b: 575 bottom – 576 top). 3.1.3.2.1.2 The sequence (±i)–VERB–ACTOR, in narrative chaining Such word order might be encountered in narrative, as noted by Bunis & Adar9Bunis (2011: §9.1.2: 4469447). Examples140: 139 This responsum is discussed in Perez’s article (2000), which is also available at http://folkmasa.org/av/av08g03.htm. 140 Cf. an opposition with a nominal (not pronominal) actor, between the first utterance [ACTOR–VERB, the narrative’s opening] and the rest [(±i/ve/estonses)–VERB–ACTOR, continuative], below (Hebrew and Judezmo), – in Divré Rivot, no. 3 (also in Maharašdam, ˀEven Haˁézer, no. 8), the whole text is in §3.2.1.2.2.2.1, example (1): ‫מעשה‬ . . . 8‫ היה שהבחורה דונה נכנסה בבית רבי יוס‬6‫שהיה כ‬, Maˁasé šehayá kax hayá, šehabbaḥurá Dona nixnesá bevet ribí 92 (1) ‫אי טיניאה לייו או איג"ו ריגאלאדו‬, i tenia yo un ižo regalado, ‘and I had an only son’ (Magriso, Meˁam Loˁez, Bammidbar, folio 14, page 1, lines 20921; in the scholarly edition – Bunis & Adar9Bunis 2011: 486 middle). (2) ‫ אי אב'רי ייו י ב'יירה לה מוג'אג'ה איל דו אדו ו לוס אוריز'אליס‬... , ... I avrí yo ke vyera la mučača el dukado kon los orežales., ... [Afterwards] I unfolded [it, i.e. the paper] so that the maiden might see the ducat and the earrings (Cel Hakkésef, Part I, no. 9, 34936). (3) Here both in Hebrew and Judezmo: ... ‫ אز אמרה היא לבעלה‬... ‫ אחד שאלה היא לבעלה‬$‫ויו‬ ... ‫ דיש'ו איל‬.. . ‫ רישפונדייו אילייא‬... ‫ רישפונדייו איל‬... ‫ השיבה היא‬... ‫ השיבה היא‬... ‫אز אמרה היא אליו‬ ... ‫ רישפונדייו איל‬... ‫רישפונדייו אילייא‬, veyom ˀeḥad šaˀalá hiˀ levaˁalah (798) ... ˀaz ˀamerá hiˀ levaˁalah (9) ... ˀaz ˀamerá hiˀ ˀelav (12) ... hešiva hiˀ (14) ... hešiva hiˀ (18) ... respondyó el (19) ... respondyó eya (25) ... dišo el (25) ... respondyó eya (26) ... respondyó el (28) ..., ‘and one day she asked her husband: ... she said then to her husband: ... then she said to him: ... she answered: ... she answered: ... he replied: ... she replied: ... he said: ... she answered: ... he answered: ...’ (Mixtam LeDavid, Yoré Deˁá, no. 30). 3.1.3.3 Conclusion The foregoing subchapter, §3.1.3, presented the subject pronouns used in narrative. We proposed the Newton’s Law phenomenon, thereby suggesting that the attachment of a subject Yosef, ..., ‘The story runs as follows: A maiden named Dona entered Ribí Yosef’s house, ...’ (193); ‫ואמר לה רבי‬ 8‫יוס‬, 8‫ יוס‬veˀamar la ribí Yosef, ‘and Ribí Yosef told her’ (4); ‫ הנز' או דו אדו אי שואילו אי בינו לה‬8‫אישטונסיש פוزו רבי יוס‬ . .. ‫מוסה‬, Estonses puzo ribí Yosef hanniz[kar] un dukado en swelo, i vino la mosa ..., ‘Then the aforementioned Ribí Yosef placed one ducat on the ground, and the girl came up ... ’ (697); 8‫אי דישו רבי יוס‬, I dišo ribí Yosef, ‘And Ribí Yosef said’ (899); ‫אידישו לה מוסה‬, ‫ אידי‬i|dišo la mosa, ‘and the maiden said’ (13); ‫אי לו טומו לה מוסה‬, i lo tomó la mosa, ‘and the maiden took it’ (13914); $‫ אלוש עדי‬8‫דישו ר' יוס‬, Dišo ri[bí] Yosef a|los ˁedim, ‘Ribí Yosef said to the witnesses’ (14). Cf. also the continuative clause in two versions of the same text, exhibiting the pattern (±i)–VERB– ACTOR: $‫אי אשינטוסי דיטו ה"ר אהר בר אברה‬, i asentose dito ha[rav] ri[bí] ˀAharón Bar ˀAvraham, ‘and the aforesaid Ribí ˀAharón Bar ˀAvraham sat down’ (Torat ˀEmet, no. 6, 798); $‫אשינטושי דיטו אהר בר אברה‬, asentose dito ˀAharón Bar ˀAvraham (Maharšax, Part IV, no. 44, 5). 93 pronoun in a reporting clause would be a counterbalance to the reported speech: If a pronoun is added to an inflected verb, then the reported utterace is more prominent. We also showed that in the aforementioned case – a PRONOUN + an INFLECTED VERB, cinematographic interpretations – exemplified in the above subsections – might be helpful. Moreover, §3.1.3.2.1 examined some important patterns involving subject pronouns in Erzählte Welt. 3.1.4 On the locutive and allocutive plural forms I shall now describe the development of the locutive and allocutive plural forms of the subject pronouns over time. 3.1.4.1 Locutive plural (nozotros and others) This section is an outline description of the locutive plural pronouns mostly in Spanish, and, when appropriate, some other Romance languages will be dealth with. The section on Judezmo will appear thereafter. Originally the locutive plural subject pronoun in Spanish was nos. However, talking in broad strokes141, nowadays in Spanish and Judezmo, it has assumed the forms which include the addition of the element otros: nosotros, mozotros, etc. Also, in variations of Spanish and in Judezmo, we find phonetic mutations of the locutive plural n1, having been transformed into other liquids: m1 or l1, and vice versa. We shall elaborate on all these topics below. Spanish nos otros and vos otros had been used first toward the end of the Middle Ages, initially denoting exclusiveness, contrasting the individuals with certain others or another: ‘WEGROUP A, not XGROUP B ≥ 1’, ‘YOUGROUP A, not XGROUP B ≥ 1’.142 Over time nos otros and vos otros had become unmarked in terms of exclusiveness, and took the meaning ‘we’, ‘you (pl.)’, respectively. Lapesa (1981: §67.3: 259) writes about the period of Alfonso X’s reign (125291284) and the 14th century: “Y aumentan los ejemplos, muy raros antes, de nos otros, vos otros, junto a nos y vos; en un principio las formas compuestas ponían de relieve el contraste con otra persona o pluralidad: ‘Si pesa a vos otros, bien tanto pesa a mí’.” We see a beautiful example from 141 Elaborations will follow further down. 142 Menéndez Pidal 1904: §93: 141; Tesnière 1959: 1239125: Ch. 55: §5913; Lapesa 1981: §67.3: 259. 94 Nebrija’s grammar, having nos otros as opposed to los griegos, ‘the Greeks’ (GRAE: Vol. I: §16.15p: 125491255): “Gramatica: llamaron la arte de letras: & a los professores & maestros della dixeron grammaticos: que en nuestra lengua podemos dezir letrados. Esta segun Quintiliano en dos partes se gasta. La primera los griegos llamaron metho’dica: que nos otros podemos bolver en doctrinal: por que contiene preceptos & reglas”.143 This exclusive function of nos otros, vos otros is to be found in French144 and Italian145 as well (Tesnière 1959: 124: Ch. 55: §9910), however, in contrast with Spanish, it did not disappear over time.146 Also in Galician, the opposition vos : vosoutros has remained to this day (GRAE: Vol. I: §16.15p: 125491255). Lapesa (1981: §96.6: 397) points to preponderance of nos otros and vos otros over nos and vos, nos otros and vos otros already bearing the general meaning ‘we’, ‘you’ during the Spanish Golden Age, and attributes this to the fact that nos otros and vos otros had been clearer, as they had referred solely to more than one being, never to a single one147, hence they were 143 More examples of exclusive nos otros and vos otros beside nos or vos, being unmarked in terms of exclusiveness, within the same text – in Lapesa 1981: §67.3: 259. 144 Nous autres, vous autres. 145 Noialtri, voialtri. Cf. a will in Italian from 17th9century Ragusa, published in Orfali 2006: 1599163, 1779180. This is the notaries’ translation of a will, originally written in Judezmo, which has not survived. I thank Professor Yaron Ben9Naeh for informing me about the above9mentioned article. Note the usage below, voi altri, viz. ‘voi, excluding li vostri figlioli’: “Havendo carico tutti i detti cinque anni, et da poi ancora sempre, David et Aron, et li vostri figlioli, dopo di voi di mandar per Talmudtora di Safet e Talmudtora di Jerusalem quello, che io mandava (ibid.: 179) ... Et li medesimi mandarete voi David et Aron soli quel che io mandava ogni anno per conto di un hebreo Abram Molxo ... che cosí farete voi altri et li vostri figlioli dopo di voi ... (ibid.: 180)”, ‘And you, David and Aron, and your sons after you, have responsibility, all the aforesaid five years, and then for ever and a day, for sending to Talmud Torah of Safed and Talmud Torah of Jerusalem what I was sending ... And the same be sending, you, David and Aron on your own, what I was sending every year on behalf of a Jew Abram Molxo ... You should do so, you, and your sons after you ...’. 146 Also in Old Catalan there was nosaltros (Tesnière 1959: 1249125: Ch. 55: §12). Sardinian has both variants, nois, bois – noisàteros, boisàteros, and as we can see, at least in some cases the latter (probably, more so the locutive noisàteros) bears the exclusive function (Rossi 1864: Article IV: §94995: 30932; Rubattu 2006: Vol. II: the entries ‘noi’, ‘noialtri’, ‘voi’, ‘voialtri’). 147 Bello (1903: §112: 1259126) provides examples of nos signifying a single person – pluralis maiestatis (majestic plural), the last example below could be pluralis modestiae (plural of modesty, the author’s we): “En lugar de yo y 95 preferred for the purpose of clarity. Nos and vos eventually began to imply marked senses in terms of reverence, courtesy, etc.148 However, he indicates that this competition had been very slow, i.e., there had been a long spell of fluctuation between these variants. In the charts below are summarized the relevant examples of the use of the locutive plural forms in CORDE. Only the use of the lower9case letters was searched. Naturally, the locutive pronoun had begun its life being written separately (nos otros), and still retaining the excluding meaning of otros. In table (2) we have shown the distribution of the utterantces nos queremos and nosotros queremos, meaning approximately ‘we want’, – with nos, nosotros as the subject pronouns.149 We have eliminated the cases where nos was not a subject pronoun, but an object of a certain verb in the clause, or a reflexive pronoun, with which the sense was ‘we love each other’. de nosotros se dice nós en los despachos y provisiones de personas constituídas en alta dignidad: Nós don N., Arzobispo de; Nós el deán y cabildo de. En el primer ejemplo la pluralidad es ficticia: multiplícase la persona en señal de autoridad y poder. ... ‘Nós (el Arzobispo) mandamos’; ‘Si alguna contariedad pareciere en las leyes (decía el rey don Alfonso XI), tenemos por bien que Nós seamos requeridos sobre ello’ ... ‘Elevada la solicitud á Nós el Presidente de la República, hemos resuelto’ . .. Es frecuente en lo impreso que el escritor se designe á si mismo en primera persona de plural: ‘Nos hallamos obligados á elegir éste, de los tres argumentos que propusimos’ (Solís) ...”. 148 Cf. Bello (1903: §113: 127) who mentions another fact, as to vos signifying more than one individual: “vos por vosotros es hoy puramente poético: ‘Lanzad de vos el yugo vergonzoso.’ ([Alonso de] Ercilla [y Zúñiga, the 16th century].)”. 149 By the way, we would like to note that in the Ferrara Bible 1553, both (the subject pronouns) nos, vos, and nosotros, vosotros, are encountered, but the former type – more often (Wagner 1914: Part II: §72: 126). 96 ITEM NUMBER OF RANGE OF USE IN OCCURENCES nos otros *mos otros 612 Starting from the 13th century until the end of the 16th century 0 nosotros 54935 mosotros 9 Already from the 15th century to this day From the 16th century onward Table 2. Use of Spanish nos otros, mos otros, nosotros, mosotros over centuries – data retrieved from CORDE ITEM nos queremos RANGE OF USE IN From the 13th to the 18th century. Few in the 17th century. The 18th century – nearly none. nosotros queremos Starting from the 15th century onward Table 3. Spanish ‘We want’ – nos queremos vs. nosotros queremos – data retrieved from CORDE In Judezmo – already at a very early stage –, and in certain Spanish variations, one witnesses the shift [n] > [m] in this pronoun. Even in Iberia before the expulsion, Jews were making some use of mos as – at least – the object locutive plural pronoun.150 In former and modern variations of Spanish, we also find mos as subject and object pronouns, and muesso, muestro as possessive. 151 150 Bunis 2004: 109, and ibid. fn. 16. 151 Bunis 2004: 109, and ibid. fn. 16. As linguists explain (see ibid., and Wagner 1914: Part II: §43: 1169117), several factors seem to have been at work corcerning these shifts [n] > [m]: the influence of m1 of locutive singular pronouns; the locutive plural verbal ending 1 os; [nw9] > [mw9], anticipatory assimilation to [w], and perhaps more generally, anticipatory assimilation [n9] > [m9] to the rounded vowels and semi9vowel: to possibly rounded [o] and [u] (thus m s, m zotros, and cf. ibid. ezm darse (< desnudarse), and note already Pāṇini’s classification of [o] and 97 Furthermore, it should be generally noted that all these phonetic shifts are part of a known phenomenon found in languages, of the instability of liquids152: We can see in some variations of Spanish, even [n] of the locutive plural pronouns yielding [l]: losotros for nosotros, los for nos.153 However, such forms are undocumented for Judezmo. 3.1.4.1.1 Formal development of the locutive plural pronoun in Judezmo After the above introduction from a Romance viewpoint, this paragraph will speak about the locutive plural pronoun in Judezmo specifically. Already in the 16th917th9century responsa (the Early Middle Judezmo Period154), the form with the addition of 1otros predominates.155 Still, in one instance we have found nos.156 (On the other hand, in pre9expulsion Jewish Ibero9 [u] as labial, Macdonell 1959: Ch. I: §6: 4; about Pāṇini – ibid.: introduction: x), and to the semivowel [w]. (Interestingly, the inverse tendency has also been noted: GRAE: Vol. 1: §16.1l: 1166: “En el español popular de las áreas caribeña y centroamericana se registra un cruce entre la flexión de primera persona del plural y los pronombres átonos correspondientes. El resultado son formas como estábanos, cantábanos, que tampoco han pasado a la lengua culta: Bueno, primera vez estábanos en una fiesta y él estaba con el fastidio [CREA oral, Venezuela].”). On the whole, locutive plural pronouns with initial m1 for n1 have been a widespread phenomenon in the Iberian Peninsula: thus in Spanish, Mirandese, and popular (viz., vernacular) Portuguese (Wagner 1914: Part II: §43: 1169117). Cf. Lapesa 1981: §116.8: 471 in his chapter “El español actual: Extensión y variedades”: “los villanos del teatro del siglo XVII dicen mueso, mos, por nuestro, nos, ... hoy sigue usándose mos”. See also Menéndez Pidal 1904: §94.1: 143. Moreover, we witness mos instead of nos in CORDE, – there are clear instances beginning from at least the 16th century onwards. Searching, for instance, for infinitive forms + mos, we entered the following strings, and detected some occurrences: querermos, *armos (= any item ending with the letters 1armos), *bermos, *irmos. 152 Hock 1991: §7.3, §7.3.1: 1289130. And cf. examples in GRAE: Vol. 1: §16.1l: 1166. 153 GRAE: Vol. 1: §16.1l: 1166: “En el habla rural de algunas regiones de Chile, la Argentina, el Uruguay y varios países centroamericanos se usa ocasionalmente la forma incorrecta losotros por nosotros. Este trueque de sonantes alveolares se ha atestiguado también en el español rural de las islas Canarias (España). El trueque se extiende al uso (igualmente incorrecto) de los por nos como pronombre átono: ¿Los vamos de aquí? por ¿Nos vamos de aquí?”. 154 The Early Middle Period: 1493 – c. 1728 (Bunis 1992: 405). 155 In this section, we bear in mind not only the locutive plural subject pronouns but also the prepositional complements, i.e., the pronouns which follow prepositions. 156 nos: Ben9Naeh 2013: 31: fn. 5 [Kérem Šelomó, Ḥošen Mišpaṭ, no. 71, 32] (‫ ;)דילאנטרי די נוש‬nos otros: Maharḥaš, no. 59, 2 (‫נוש אוטרוש‬, cf. ibid., ibid., 66: ‫ ;)נוزאוטרוש‬Mahariṭ, Part II, ˀEven Haˁézer, no. 38, 16 (‫ ;)נוש אוטרוס‬nosotros: Maharšax, Part IV, no. 89, 33 (‫ ;)נושאוטרוש‬nozotros: Maharḥaš, no. 31, folio 152c (‫ ;)נוزוטרוש‬ibid., no. 59, 66 98 Romance texts from Castile and Aragon, it is nos that prevails, see Minervini 1992: Vol. I: §3.2.1: 77). In the Late Modern Judezmo Period157 the predominant form has m1: mozotros (1as)158, mozós (1ás), but one occasionally finds the older nozotros (1as), which may at times signal more elevated – or Western Europeanized – style.159 The use of the latter form was partly caused by French and Italian, which were exerting high influence on Judezmo in the Modern Period of the language (see §2.2.2.2), both having n1 at the beginning of the locutive plural pronoun: nous, noi.160 The older subject and post9prepositional pronoun nos vanished161, but can be found in poems and liturgy162, due to the general linguistic fact that these traditional channels may incorporate older features. (‫ ;)נוزאוטרוש‬Torat Ḥayyim, Part III, no. 32, 6 and 8 (‫ ;)נוزאוטרוש‬ibid., ibid., no. 56, 15 (‫ ;)נוزוטרוש‬Mahariṭ, Part II, ˀEven Haˁézer, no. 44, 23 (‫)נוزוטרוש‬. We even witness instances of supposedly further, this time phonetic, development of the pronoun in the Early Middle Period of Judezmo, which has not survived: From nos otros, there rose nosootros and nozorotros, each being attested at least once: ‫ נושואוטרוש‬, nosootros – Mahariṭ, Part II, ˀEven Haˁézer, no. 38, 19; ‫נוزורוטרוש‬, nozorotros – Maharašdam, Ḥošen Mišpaṭ, no. 5, 54. We further note that, on the other hand, in a liturgical, tradition9bound, text from the 16th century using exceptionally archaic syntax – a prayer book Séder Našim (the critical edition is Schwarzwald 2012), we can see the form nos (see appearances of nos, e.g., ibid.: 80 (‫ש‬9‫)נ‬, 81 (‫ש‬9‫)אנ‬, ַ 157 (‫))שוברי נוש‬, and I am sincerely grateful to one of my thesis reviewers for this illuminating remark. 157 The Late Modern Period: World War I to the present (Bunis 1992: 412). 158 Mozotros is known in Haketia (Jewish9Moroccan) as well (Bunis 2011: 461: fn. 92; Wagner 1931: 224). 159 Bunis 1999a: 106: §3.1; ibid.: 154: §7.5.1; Luria 1930: §82: 146 (muzotrus – the Monastir dialect). 160 Bunis & Adar9Bunis 2011: 460: fn. 84. 161 See also Wagner 1914: Part II: §72: 126. 162 Thus we find, e.g., in a Haggadah published in Vienna, 1884, the subject pronoun nos, and also after a preposition – for instance, sovre nos (Bunis 1999a: 4379438; 565; 567); in an earlier 18th9century liturgical poem by Raphael Judah ben Leon Kalay from Salonika: :‫אה נוס אי אטודו ישראל‬, a nos i a|todo Yisraˀel, ‘for us and for all Israel’ (Bunis 1999a: Ch. 19: 312 [Séfer Renanot: 192]). In the Satirical Series, there is (liturgy): ‫פארה י מוס דישי איל‬ .‫ אה נוס אי אה טודו ישראל‬/ ‫ י מוס סיאה בואי סימא‬.. . . .. ‫ אה נוס אי אה טודו ישראל‬/‫דייו ביביר‬, Para ke mos deše el Dyo bivir,/ A nos i a todo Israel (i.e., Hebrew ‘Yisraˀel’)... ... Ke mos sea bwen simán,/ A nos i a todo Israel., ‘So that 99 In the Satirical Series, mozotros is used, although there is one example of nozotros163, with no visible difference of connotation. The same can be said about the rare use of the object pronoun nos164 instead of mos, the latter being almost always employed. As for Ester Matalón, it has mozotros and nozotros as free variants165, and in this very manner – the possessives mwestro and nwestro166.167 God may let us live,/ For us and for all Israel... ... For us to have a good omen,/ For us and for all Israel.’ (Mesažero 4: 1290 (1939); Bunis 1999b: 376 middle – 377 top). 163 Mesažero 2: 556 (1937); Bunis 1999b: 385 middle. 164 ‫ואנדו מוס אزימוס‬ ‫ איי סאפי‬,‫ נו טיניאמוס אמאס אלה פראנ ה‬,‫א יל טיימפו יزרה מי אלמה מיטיא לוס גאלייוס גואיבוס‬ ‫ לה‬.‫טומימוס אמאס א יירה פור לוס אוגו דיאס דילה חופה? פור אניאי טיניאמוס לה באסינה י מיטיאמוס לוס ומיריס די דיבאשו‬ ‫ י גואיר ו טיניאה ביزאבי ו או פידאסו די איספיزו נוס מיראבאמוס פארה נוס‬.‫סובה אירה איל מידייו טיני יילי ו או לה טישלי ה‬ ‫ נו אביאה איסטה פודריסייו די לה פוסולה דיל אגואה או‬.‫ אסאר סאלגיגאס‬,‫ סיגורו י איאה סובראר פארה דיגולייאר פאטוס‬,‫טו אר‬ .‫דילה לוز א יל טיימפו סי מורייו יزרה ריגאלאדו‬, BENUTA: Akel tyempo, Ezrá mi alma, metian los gayos gwevos. No teníamos kamas ala franka, ay safek kwando mos kazimos tomimos kamas akyerá por los ocho dias de|la xupá (i.e., Hebrew ‘ḥuppá’)? Por kanié teníamos la basina ke metíamos los komeres de debašo. La soba era el medyo tenekyeliko o la tišlika. Ke gwerko tenia vizaví kon un pedaso de espežo? Nos mirávamos para nos tokar, seguro ke ia sovrar para degoyar patos, asar salčičas. No avia esta pudrisyón de la posula del agwa o de|la luz. Akel tyempo se muryó, Ezrá regalado., ‘BENUTA: At that time, Ezrá my love, roosters laid eggs. We had no beds, don’t you remember that we rented beds for the eight days of the wedding canopy when we had got married? As a sort of a pantry, we were having the tub where we were putting the food from below. The stove was thought of as half a tin can or as the rubbish bin(?). Who the hell had a wardrobe with a piece of mirror inside? We were observing ourselves by touch, the mirror would have been surely deemed unnecessary when slaughtering ducks, grilling sausages. There were no concerns about the water or electricity bills. Those times have died, Ezrá dear.’ (Aksyón 11: 2934 (1939); Bunis 1999b: 413 middle). 165 I am indebted to Gabriel Mordoch for bringing this to my attention. For instance, in chapters 697 and the beginning of 8, we see two times nozotros (pages 27 top, 28 middle) and ten times mozotros (pages 31 bottom, 32 [3 times], 33 [4 times], 35 [2 times]). 166 Nwestro – p. 26 bottom, mwestra – p. 32 middle. 167 Thus too, we find in a Haggadah published in Vienna, 1884, the variants mwestros and nwestros (Bunis 1999a: 4379438; 565; 567). Cf. also the documentation on the modern Salonika dialect by Lamouche (1907: 984): nozotros, nos (object pronoun), and nwestro – he writes – are much less used than their m1 competitors. As for the use of ozotros in the 19th century under the influence of modern Romance languages, see Bunis & Adar9Bunis 2011: 460: fn. 84. 100 In modern times, in some regions or registers, e.g. Izmir, there occured decline in the use of the feminine pronoun n/mozotras (also vozotras), being the “weakest link” that gives way to n/mozotros (and vozotros) which replaces the former, as similarly happens, probably, in many languages168. See section (1) in Appendix 2 for a discussion169 of this topic in Ladinokomunita as to Izmir, Constantinople, etc. As for the forms mozós/mozás, these developed from mozotros/mozotras by way of simplification, contraction; compare, for example, a similar (unrelated) development in Biblical Hebrew, ˀanoxí > ˀaní , ‘I’; ˀanaḥnu > ˀanu, ‘we’170; and also, supposedly, there was motivation to avoid the consonant cluster [tr] – for this subject, see §3.3.3.2.2.1.1. All of the above can be said about the allocutive vozós/vozás (< vozotros/vozotras) as well. Additionally, the feminine pronouns mozás and vozás are very rare in Judezmo, to the point of almost being extinct171, also because of the aforesaid frailty of the feminine9plural elements; see a valuable observation of a Ladinokomunita user about these feminine forms in section (2) in Appendix 2, as well as his illuminative discussion there of a difference in meaning between vozotros and vozós. 3.1.4.2 Allocutive plural (vozotros and others) In this and the next subsections, we move on from the locutive plural to the allocutive plural pronouns. On the history of these pronouns in Spanish, vos > vos otros > vosotros, see §3.1.4.1 above. 3.1.4.2.1 Formal development of the allocutive plural pronoun in Judezmo In the 16th917th9century responsa (the Early Middle Period), already the form with the addition of 1otros is used, being directed to a plural audience. 172 We have not found any 168 I thank Professor David Bunis for calling my attention to all these facts. Cf. the frailty of certain feminine9plural grammatical elements in colloquial Modern Hebrew. 169 Mentioned also in Bunis 2016: 334. 170 Strong 2007: the entries ‘‫ ’אני‬and ‘‫’אנו‬. 171 I thank Professor David Bunis for this information. In Ladinokomunita, I have not found uses of mozás or vozás. The dictionary composed by Perez & Pimienta (2007) mentions these forms (ibid.: 309 and 464). 172 In this section, we bear in mind not only the allocutive plural subject pronouns but also the prepositional complements, i.e., the pronouns which follow prepositions. 101 evidence of vos.173 This kind of use continues to apply to this day.174 (On the other hand, in pre9 expulsion Jewish Ibero9Romance texts from Castile and Aragon, it is vos that prevails, see Minervini 1992: Vol. I: §3.2.1: 77). However, the older subject and post9prepositional pronoun vos can be found in Judezmo poems and liturgy, the same way this happens with nos (see §3.1.4.1.1 above). For instance, in Ladino Bible 181311816: Part II: Ruth i (the text is quoted in Bunis 1999a: 440): The way it is in the course of conversations in Hebrew between Naomi and her daughters9in9law, – one addresses another using singular allocutive forms, and more than one – plural allocutive forms –, thus was the calque Ladino translation. Thus plural a vos in verses 9 and 11; kon vos – 8. In modern times, in some regions or registers, e.g. Izmir, there occured decline in the use of the feminine pronoun vozotras, see §3.1.4.1.1 above. For the forms vozós/vozás, which developed from vozotros/vozotras, see ibid. In addition, see a valuable observation of a Ladinokomunita user from Turkey about a possible difference in meaning between vozotros and vozós in Appendix 2, section (2): Vozós – he writes – is used in an intimate manner, i.e., directed to a plural close, familiar, or “group9like” audience, whereas vozotros – as formal plural address. In §3.5, we shall discuss three ways of address in Judezmo, and at times in certain variations of Spanish175. That is to say, the behavioural9social sort of interaction that causes the 173 vos otros: Maharašdam, Ḥošen Mišpaṭ, no. 263, 21 (‫ ;)ווש אוטרוש‬Maharšax, Part II, no. 134, 75 (‫;)ווש אוטרוש‬ Paraḥ Maṭṭé ˀAharón, Part I, 121, 20 (‫ ;)ווש אוטרוש‬Ben9Naeh 2013: 30: fn. 5 [Kérem Šelomó, Ḥošen Mišpaṭ, no. 72, 37] (‫ ;)ווש אוטרוש‬vozotros: Divré Rivot, no. 392, 11, 17 and 19 (‫ ;)ווزוטרוש‬Maharḥaš, no. 31, folio 152c (‫אווزוטרוש‬, a|vozotros); Maharḥaš, no. 35, 110 (‫ ;)ווزוטרוש‬Torat Ḥayyim, Part III, no. 56, 15 (‫ ;)ווزוטרוש‬Mahariṭac Haḥadašot, Part I, no. 25, page 42b top (‫)בוزוטרוש‬, the same text in Mahariṭ, Part II, ˀEven Haˁézer, no. 43, folio 59c top (‫)ווزוטרוס‬. On the other hand, in a liturgical, tradition9bound, text from the 16th century using exceptionally archaic syntax – a prayer book Séder Našim (the critical edition is Schwarzwald 2012), we can see the form vos (see occurrences of vos, e.g., ibid.: 145 (‫ ווש‬and ‫))שוברי ווש‬, and I am deeply grateful to one of my thesis critics for this illuminating remark. 174 We have vozotros (1as) or vozós (1ás) in the Late Modern Period (Bunis 1999a: 106: §3.1; ibid.: 154: §7.5.1; Wagner 1914: Part II: §72: 126). 175 Lapesa 1981: §132.1: 5799580. 102 utterer to employ allocutive singular176, allocutive plural177, or delocutive forms when addressing someone. This triple opposition is a linguistic tool for splitting social relationships or dynamics, into three spheres.178 With regard to the second way of address in Judezmo – allocutive plural –, (for details about all of the three ways, and examples, see §3.5), in the 16th917th9century responsa, when the allocutive plural pronoun is directed to one individual, vos is used. 179 Vozotros (1as) was not employed then for this purpose. In the Late Modern Period though, this social9behavioural manner of address has already become vozotros (1as)180, while in variations of Spanish, vos has remained unchanged until now181. However, this shift in Judezmo has not absolutely been completed: Some Judezmo regional variants or registers still use (or used) vos, and not vozotros (1as), as a way of address: Thus, vos was preserved in the Monastir (Bitola) dialect (Luria 1930: §82: 1459146); in Constantinople – at the beginning of the twentieth century – we might find vos, albeit only after prepositions (otherwise vozotros) (Wagner 1914: Part II: the chart on pp. 1279 128): para vos – I, 78; V, 59; komo vos – V, 136.182 Moreover, see a post written by a Ladinokomunita user from Turkey (Appendix 2, section (2)), who says that he uses only vos for 176 In Spanish linguistics, termed tuteo (< ‘tu’). 177 In Spanish linguistics, termed voseo (< ‘vos’). 178 We are talking about the state when all of the three ways existed contemporaneously in a single system. But possibly, in some chrono9regional systems of Judezmo, there are less than three. 179 Torat Ḥayyim, Part I, no. 82, 28 (‫נו שי אוטרו י אווש‬, no se otro ke a|vos (post9prepositional), ‘I know no other person other than you (sg.)’), and ‫ ווש‬is mostly likely a subject pronoun in lines 8, 17, 50, 51; Mahariṭ, Part II, ˀEven . Haˁézer, no. 38, 10 ( ‫יא מי אינו'גו ו ווש‬, ya me enožo kon vos. (post9prepositional), ‘I am so mad at you (sg.).’); Torat Mošé, Ḥošen Mišpaṭ, no. 18, 36 (‫ מאש י ווש‬$‫נו טינגו מאיור אינמיגו איניל עול‬, no tengo mayor enemigo en|el ˁolam mas ke vos (a subject pronoun), ‘I have no bigger enemy than you (sg.) in this world’). 180 Bunis 1999a: 106: §3.1. 181 GRAE: Vol. I: §16.17: 126191267. The question of use/disuse of voseo in Spanish9speaking regions across the globe is put aside at this stage, and will be discussed to some extent in §3.5. 182 But, interestingly, when being unmarked in terms of social9behavioural implementation, i.e., post9prepositional “simple” ‘you’ (pl.) directed to more than one individual, it is vozotros that was used there: de vozotros in Part I, text XII, line 32; para vozotros – XII, 36; komo vozotros – VI, 18 and 39. 103 the aforementioned purpose, being, we presume, influenced by the French vous mentioned by him. As for the points between the two periods presented above (the Early Middle Period and the Late Modern Period), we saw vos in a text from the late 18th or the early 19th century (= the & ‫סיאש &בוס מי שליח ואנדו‬ & ‫ י‬... ‫ייו &בוס דו איסטה תחינה‬ Late Middle Period183): ‫ אי‬$‫אינטאראריש לשלו‬ . ‫לוגאר י איס &בואיסטארה &בילונטאד‬, Yo vos do esta teḥinná ... ke seaš vos mi šalíaḥ kwando entarareš lešalom en lugar ke es vwéstara veluntad., ‘I ask you (sg.) this plea ..., for you to be my emissary, when you reach your destination in peace.’ (from Segullot lišˁat nesiˁá). Here are two examples of vos as the aforementioned form of address in poems or liturgy. As said before, such cases are “frozen”, which actually do not obey the flow of time: an 18th9 century liturgical poem by Raphael Judah ben Leon Kalay from Salonika: ‫בוס י סוש פאדרי‬ /. ‫ מאנדאמוס אל פאסטור נאמ‬/. ‫רחמ‬, Vos ke soš padre raḥamán,/ Mandamos al pastor neˀemán,/, ‘You, merciful father,/ Send us the faithful shepherd,/’ (Bunis 1999a: Ch. 19: 312 [Sefer Renanot: 192]).184 In the Satirical Series, from a love poem: ‫ אבריד‬/,‫אבריד מי גאלאני ה ייו אינטרארי‬ ... /‫ לה נוגי נו דואירמו פינסאנדו אה בוס‬/,‫ייה בוס אברו מי לינדו אמור‬, Avrid me galanika, yo entraré,/ Avrid ya vos avro, mi lindo amor,/ La noče no dwermo pensando a vos./ ..., ‘Open the door to me, my elegant lady, I will come in,/ Open, and I do, my beautiful love,/ I do not sleep at night thinking of you./ ...’ (El Rizón 13: 3 (1938); Bunis 1999b: 603 middle). In conclusion, not only had vos1otros lost its exclusive sense (see §3.1.4.1 supra) at an early stage of Spanish, it took one step further in Judezmo, – its use also became a form of (polite, etc.) address. 183 c. 1729–c. 1810, see Bunis 1992: 4079409. 184 Cf. Bello 1903: §113: 126: “... vos ... se usa ... cuando se habla á Dios ó á los santos .. . ”. 104 Chapter 3.2 Object pronouns 3.2.1 Tautological (pleonastic) uses There is an enormous number of works on the topic of the verbal object’s tautological uses, especially about the cases of tails (§3.2.1.2) in Romance and Balkan languages as well as in the form of tautological constructions with the preposition le in Mishnaic Hebrew and Modern Hebrew (cf. fn. 122 below), and the so+called medium (medio) (§3.2.1.3) in different languages. This chapter will try to determine and analyze the pivotal and fundamental matters in the tautological use of object pronouns in Judezmo; comprehensive references to the literature on these subject matters in other languages are many times beyond the scope of the present work. 3.2.1.1 Casus pendens For the definition and general description of casus pendens, see above, §1.5.2. In Judezmo, casus pendens patterns express topicalization1. 3.2.1.1.1 Casus pendens: the case of a doubled pronoun This section will examine instances of pronoun doubling by means of the prepositional phrase a + PRONOUN, used as casus pendens, corresponding to Spanish use as in: En esta su primera novela juventil, aunque no gusta considerarla como tal, ..., ‘In her first young+ adult novel, though she, personally, does not consider it as such, ...’. Below there will be presented several examples from different periods, in chronological order: (1) ‫פור י שינו האزי אנשי וגירה ו איל שטר פרימירו אי דישפואיש דימאנדארה ו איל טופס ומו‬ ‫אמי שינייוריש מי א ונטישי אגורה‬, porke si|no hazen ansí, kožerá/+era kon el šeṭar primero, i despwés demandará/+ara kon el ṭófes, komo a|mi senyores me akontese agora., ‘for if they do not do so, he will (or: he would) receive (the debt) from the promissory note first, and then will (or: would) claim it [once more], referring to the document, – the way it is happening, sirs, to me now.’ (Maharašdam, Ḥošen Mišpaṭ, no. 52, 21+24). 1 On topicalization see above in §3.1.2.2, §3.1.1, §3.1.2.2.2.1. 105 (2) ‫אאיל נו לי אגרדו לה פשרה‬, a|el no le agradó la pešará, ‘he did not like the compromise’ (Maharašdam, Ḥošen Mišpaṭ, no. 52, 55). (3) A testimony from Sofia, 1921: ‫מי דישו י אה איל ואנדו לי דיירו אי איל בראסו וידו י לו‬ ‫מאטארו אה נסי אי אוטרוס דוס בולגאריס‬, Me dišo ke a el kwando le dyeron en el braso vido ke lo mataron a Nissim i otros dos búlgares., ‘He told me that when his arm had been hurt [in a battle], he saw that Nissim was killed, and other two Bulgarians.’2 (Noseˀ ˀEfod, no. 25, 16+18). (4) .‫ לייו חנוכה אינטיינדו ו אزייטי‬,‫ אה מי דישאמי ריزיר ו מי אביסה‬,‫בואינו בינוטה‬, EZRÁ: Bweno Benuta, a mi déšame režir kon mi kavesa. Yo Xanuká3 entyendo kon azeyte..., ‘EZRÁ: Good, Benuta, let me decide for myself. I, personally, think of Hanukkah as [a holiday] with oil (not a candle), [being lit]...’ (Aksyón 11: 3172 (1939); Bunis 1999b: 401 bottom). (5) .‫אה טי נו טי פואידו דאר אטאנוס ייו‬, A ti no te pwedo dar atanós yo., ‘To you –, I can’t give you explanations.’ (Aksyón 11: 2921 (1939): 5; Bunis 1993b: entry no. 1714). (6) A mi no me agrada komer en pyes., ‘I, personally, do not like to eat standing on my feet.’ (Koén+Sarano 1999: 59). In the following four examples – and cf. similarly §3.1.2.2.2.1 above, examples (7)+(8) –, there are individuals, – one or both parties being topicalized –, being put in opposition: . (7) ‫אלה היג' די שמעו לי דאש איל איס ודו אי אמי נו מי לו דאש יא מי אינו'גו ו ווש‬, ‫ אלה‬A|la hiž[a] de Šimˁón le daš/+s el eskudo, i a|mi no me lo daš/+s. Ya me enožo kon vos., ‘You (sg.) give Šimˁón’s daughter the escudo, and you don’t give it to me. Now I am mad at you (sg.).’ (Mahariṭ, Part II, ˀEven Haˁézer, no. 38, 9+10). (8)4 < ‫אויי ביינדו י לה מאנ אנסה די דיטה וزה אי אונה נאסייו איס מונגו דאנייו פארה טודו >אי‬ ‫גיניראל סיגו לו איסטאמוס מיראנדו ו נואיסטרוס אוزוס >איל< אבאנטאزי די טודאס לאס אוטראס נאסייוניס‬ 2 See also the same sentence in Hebrew in the decision section: ‫ואز אמר הגוי כי כשהכוהו האו]י[בי על زרועו ראה שהרגו‬ ‫( לנסי ושני בולגאריס אחרי‬Noseˀ ˀEfod, no. 25, 44+46). 3 ‫חנוכה‬, i.e., Hebrew ‘Ḥanukká’. 4 The surviving text did not remain to a complete degree, the missing words or characters were reconstructed by Bunis (1993a: 48), and put between the angle brackets. 106 ‫)אבלו פור >טור< יאה( פור מונגאס וزאס י אילייוס טייני די לאס י >אנוزוטרו<ס מוס מאנ א ומו לייא סי‬ . ‫סאבי‬, Oy vyendo ke la mankansa de dita koza en una nasyón es munčo danyo para toðo <en> dženeral según lo estamos mirando kon nwestros ožos <el> avantaže de toðas las otras nasyones (avlo por <Tur>kia) por munčas kozas ke eyos tyenen de las ke <a|nozotro>s mos mankan komo ya se save., ‘Today, seeing, that want of the aforementioned thing [i.e., a newspaper in Judezmo] in a nation causes a great deal of harm to everything in general, the way we are observing, before our very eyes, the advantage of all the other nations (I am talking about Turkey) in terms of many things they do have, some of which we lack, as is well known.’ (Šaˁaré Mizraḥ 1: 1 (30 Kislev 5606 = December 29, 1845), pp. 1+2; Bunis 1993a: 48). (9) ‫ –אי אה טי י טי טרו י איל דייו‬. ‫ –אמי‬.‫–סאלוד בואינה אי איל דייו י מאנדי פאס אי לה טייררה‬ ‫ אי אטי י טי מאנדי איל דייו מיאולייו אי אמי פאסינסייה‬,‫ –סי פיزו‬.‫לאס אידיאס פארה י ריאס אי לה ליי‬ .‫ איסטי אראל די ניגרו סו ייו‬,‫ –די י ברי גוליי ה מיאה‬.‫פארה טי סומפורטאר‬, BOXOR: Salud bwena i el Dyo ke mande pas en la tyerra. DŽAMILA: Amén. BOXOR: I a ti ke te troke el Dyo las ideas para ke kreas en la ley. DŽAMILA: Si fižo, i a|ti ke te mande el Dyo meoyo i a|mi pasensya para te somportar. BOXOR: Deké, bre džoyika mia, este karal de negro so yo?, ‘BOXOR: Best wishes for good health, and may God send peace on earth. DŽAMILA: Amen. BOXOR: And you, – may God change your thoughts, so that you will believe in the holy law. DŽAMILA: Yes, honey, and you, – may God send you brains, and me – patience to bear you. BOXOR: Why, my jewel? Am I that awful?’ (Mesažero 5: 1596 (1940); Bunis 1999b: 382 middle). (10) ‫ אי נואיסטרה אزה פאריסי אונה ישיבה ו איל גואיزמו די‬,‫–בואינו איסטאס טו ו לוס ליברוס‬ .‫ –אי אמי מי אגראדה ראדייו אי ארטי אס‬.‫ ליברו אי וראגה‬,‫ –איסטו מי אגראדה אמי‬,‫טאבא ו‬, DŽAMILA: Bweno estás tu kon los livros, i nwestra kaza parese una yešivá kon el gwezmo de tabako. BOXOR: Esto me agrada a|mi, livro i korača. DŽAMILA: I a|mi me agrada radyo i kartikas., ‘DŽAMILA: How lovely you are with your books, and our home looks like a yeshiva permeated with the smell of tobacco. BOXOR: I do love that, a book and a korača (i.e., a bag for personal ritual items). DŽAMILA: And I love the radio and cards.’ (Mesažero 5: 1564 (1940); Bunis 1999b: 380 middle).5 5 Similarly, another instance in Mesažero 4 :1021 (1939) – Bunis 1999b: 551 bottom – 552 top. 107 3.2.1.1.2 Nouns, nominal phrases, and others as casus pendens In Spanish, topicalized verbal objects in the casus pendens position, have a resumptive pronoun or phrase6 further in the clause.7 This syntactic pattern is opposed to a focalizing pattern, in which the verbal object is focalized, and where there is also an object at the beginning of the clause, followed by a verb, but there is no resumptive pronoun.8 All the above+mentioned proves to be true in Judezmo as well: However we have also witnessed some examples of the topicalizing pattern having no resumptive pronoun, as will be demonstrated below in §3.2.1.1.2.1, examples (13)+(17) and §3.2.1.1.2.2, examples (9)+(11). Occasional lack of a resumptive element, relating to the casus pendens component, is a common phenomenon in some languages (at least under certain conditions): Lambrecht (2001) demonstrates two types of instances: a null element (1056b+1057b, e.g., in French, Les cacahuètes, moi, j’aime bien., ‘The peanuts, – I like [them].’, cf. a somewhat analogous Judezmo example no. (17) in §3.2.1.1.2.1 below), and unlinked topic (1057b+1060a, e.g., in English, As for education, John prefers Bertrand Russell’s ideas.; French (the following sentences being considered substandard): Mon premier mari, on avait une voiture puis une moto., ‘My first husband, we had a car then a 6 Cf. Driver 1892: 267: §197: Obs. 2 for Biblical Hebrew. 7 GRAE: Vol. II: §40.3: 2976+2985; Minervini 1992: Vol. I: §4.5.1: 110+111. Spanish arbitrary examples: decía yo., ‘This – I said (it).’ (GRAE: Vol. II: §40.3j: 2979); Llamábase Aldonza Lorenzo, y , le pareció ser bien dar título de señora de sus pensamientos: y buscándole nombre que no desdijese mucho del suyo, y que tirase y se encaminase al de princesa y gran señora, vino á llamarla DULCINEA DEL TOBOSO. (Cervantes 1833: Part I: Vol. I: Ch. I: 21), ‘... and this was the lady whom he chose to nominate mistress of his heart. He then sought a name for her, which, without entirely departing from her own, should incline and approach towards that of a princess or great lady, and determined upon Dulcinea del Toboso ...’ (Cervantes 1885: Vol. I: Ch. I: 42); Este es un dato bastante exacto, y, si hubiera parecido necesario, lo habría podido precisar aún más sin dificultad., ‘This is a rather exact piece of information, and if Schiller had deemed it necessary, he would have had no difficulty in being even more precise.’ (Weinrich 1968: Ch. I: 11+12); Pero, naturalmente, puede relatarse de formas diversas. sabe cualquiera por muy pocas dotes que tenga para la narración., ‘But, naturally, anything can be narrated in diverse forms. This fact is known by anyone who is just basically skilled in narration.’ (Ibid.: Ch. VII: 204). 8 See supra, §3.1.2.2.1.1, and GRAE: Vol. I: §17.6e: 1309; ibid.: Vol. II: §40.3c: 2977; §40.4: 2985+2990. For a discussion of the same syntactic principle as regards topicalization vs. focalization in many other languages, see Lambrecht 2001: 1052b+1053a. 108 motorcycle.’; La mer, tu vois de l’eau., ‘The ocean, you see water.’; Le métro, avec la Carte Orange, tu vas n’importe où., ‘The Metro, with the Orange Pass, you go anywhere you want.’; Mandarin: Nèige shù yèzi dà., lit., ‘That tree leaves big.’, i.e., ‘That tree, – its leaves are big.’). We shall divide the discussion into two groups of examples – §3.2.1.1.2.1 and §3.2.1.1.2.2. We would like to remark that in this chapter, dealing with object pronouns, we will exemplify topicalized elements relating to objects, but topics, having a resumptive element, may correlate to any other syntactic category in a clause. Here are four Judezmo examples of verbal subjects: #‫אי טאמביי משה מונייו י אישטה א י פאבלו איל ו או עראביאדו וניל מישמו אישטי אטריגי‬, I tambyén Mošé Munyón ke está akí – favló el, kon un ˁarabiado, kon|el mesmo este kartridží., ‘And also Mošé Munyón, who is here, spoke – together with an Arabized Jew – with this same muleteer.’ (I thank Professor David Bunis for this transcription and translation.) (Raˀanaḥ, no. 20, 57+59); . '‫ב'ה אה שאראי אי איל ג'ידייו י טי לו דייו איל טי דארה איל בא ש'יש‬, Va a Saray, i el džidyó ke te lo dyo – el te dará el bakšiš., ‘Go to Sarajevo, and the Jew who asked you to convey him – it is he who will give you the gratuity.’ (Mixtam LeDavid, ˀEven Haˁézer, no. 1, 22+23); in the examples below, akel ze /zaxú(θ) and dičos livros, respectively, are the resumptive elements: ‫אי איל زכות די מי סינייורה מאדרי רחל י אירה אונה מוג'יר אלייאדה י נו אב'לאב'ה דיל טודו אי‬ ‫טוב'ו אב'יزו די לה ונג'אדה די לב י לי דייו אה נואיסטרו פאדרי אה סו אירמאנה לאה אי סו לוגאר אי נו אב'לו‬ ‫א יל زכות מי רימידייארה‬, I el ze"/zaxú(θ) de mi senyora madre Raḥel, ke era una mužer kayada, ke no avlava del todo, i tuvo avizo de la končada de Laván, ke le dyo a nwestro padre a su ermana Leˀá en su lugar, i no avló, – akel ze"/zaxú(θ) me remedyará., ‘And the kindness of my honoured mother Rachel, who was a taciturn woman, not talking at all, and was given notice of Laban’s deception, – which was giving her sister Leah to our father, in her stead –, keeping silent, – that kindness will help me.’ (Xulí, Meˁam Loˁez, Berešit, Parashah Vayyéšev, Ch. I, folio 182, page 2, lines 43+45). ‫לוס ליברוש י סי אלייארי סיר סולייוש ומו אנשי מישמו דוש‬ ‫ גו שמעו‬#‫י טייני אינפישאדו אה איש ריויר לה מיטאד די דיג'וש ליברוש אי או ספר שי לידי אשו אי‬ ‫ספרי‬, Los livros ke se ayaren ser suyos, komo ansí mesmo dos sefarim ke tyene enpesado a eskrivir, – la metad de dičos livros i un séfer se le|de a|su ižo Šimˁón, ‘The books that will be found to be his, 109 as well as two Torah scrolls that he has begun writing, – half of the said books and one Torah scroll (of the two) should be given to his son, Šimˁón.’ (Kérem Šelomó, Ḥošen Mišpaṭ, no. 71, 26+29). There is an instance of a complement of verbal nexus (an adverb) as a topic, in §3.2.1.2.2.1.6 below, example (2) (i syendo se kitó la bexorá de Reˀuvén ..., – por esto ...). 3.2.1.1.2.1 The topic is unmarked in respect to the syntactic status This section illustrates a state in which the topic’s syntactic status as verbal object is discovered only at a more advanced point in the clause. It should be noted that in the case of a direct inanimate object, there is no other way to represent the topic but as unmarked in respect to the syntactic status. Examples (in chronological order)9: (1) ‫ואמר י איל שגונדו רינייו נו לו וידו שא אר‬, veˀamar ke el segundo rinyón – non lo vido sakar, ‘and he said that as for the second kidney – he had not seen it taken out’ (Divré Rivot, no. 310, 16). (2) ‫ לה בוטי ה לה דישו פארה איל הל דילה‬... ‫ מי בוטי ה לה היزי דש ﭏ הל דילה שיניורה‬... ... ‫ לה בוטי ה לה פאגו דש פארה איל הל די לה שיניורה‬... ‫שיניורה‬, ... mi botika la hizi qódeš al qahal de|la senyora ... La botika la dešo para el qahal de|la senyora ... La botika la fago qódeš para el qahal de la senyora ..., ‘... my shop – I consecrated as heqdeš10 for the Lady’s11 synagogue ... I leave the shop for the Lady’s synagogue ... The shop is consecrated by me for the Lady’s synagogue ...’ (Raˀanaḥ, no. 29, lines 36, 47+48, and 49+50 respectively). (3) ‫ לי מי באלה פור י נו מי לה יטאשטי ו טו רופה‬#‫דישי‬, díšile: “Mi bala – por ke no me la kitaste kon tu ropa?”, ‘I told him: “Why haven’t you taken out my roll together with your clothes?”’ (Torat Ḥayyim, Part I, no. 82, 22+23). 9 Cf. also in Italian: 'ho fatto., ‘My talk has been given by me.’ (Literally, ‘My talk – I have done it.’) (Borisova 2005: 17: example 12). Because of the construction examined in these subsections, the thought expressed by such sentences might also phrased in the English language as passive. But since the original construction is active, I have translated the clauses into English mostly as active constructions. 10 For this term, see Benaim 2011: 370: fn. 531. 11 Here, the famous Gracia Mendes Nasi is meant (for more information, see Benaim 2011: 367: fn. 517). 110 (4) ‫איל טאגואיל לו טומארו‬, el tagwil – lo tomaron, ..., ‘the tall one12, they took him ...’ (Maharam Galante, no. 52, 11+12, (also in Mahariṭac, no. 144, 10+11)). (5) ‫וכ דישו י לושוישטידוש י טיניאה אינשימה וישטידוס לוס ונישייו מונגו ביי י אירא די דוד‬ ‫ י איסטונסיש שי לו שא ארו איליוס לו ונוסייו מוי ביי י אירה‬#‫אלבעלי וכ איל אנילייו אי איל דידו די פירינגי‬ ‫ גו דוד אלבעלי י סיינפרי לו לייבאבה איניל דידו‬#‫איל אנילייו דיל די‬, Vexén dišo ke los|vestidos ke tenia ensima vestidos, – los konesyó13 munčo byen ke eran de David Albali, vexén el aniyo en el dedo, de pirinče/"i, ke estonses se lo sakaron eyos, – lo konosyó muy byen ke era el aniyo del dičo David Albali, ke syenpre lo yevava en|el dedo., ‘And he (i.e., the witness) also said that the outer garments worn by him (i.e., David Albali), were recognized very well by him (i.e., the witness) as David Albali’s, and the ring on his finger, made of brass, which they took off then, was recognized perfectly well by him as the said David Albali’s, who always had it on his finger.’ (Mahariṭ, Part II, ˀEven Haˁézer, no. 35, 56+61). (6) ‫ פארה‬#‫ אילה מיר אדיריאה י טיניאה דיטו יצח לה אויאה אראגאדו אי אוטרו פאשאגי‬... ‫ויניציאה‬, ... i|la merkaderia ke tenia dito Yicḥaq – la avia karagado en otro pasaže para Venécia., ‘... and the merchandise, which the said Yicḥaq had, had been laden by him on another pasaže (a kind of ship), travelling to Venice.’ (Maharḥaš, no. 59, 36+37). 12 َ , [t’awi:l], ‘long’, ‘tall’. Spanish does not tolerate the sequence VOWEL+w+VOWEL, hence the From Arabic fgiِ ‫ط‬ epenthetic g. Thanks to Professor David Bunis and to Matan Stein for these pieces of information. For the phonetic shift [w] > [gw]/[γw] in word+medial and word+initial position, attested in different certain dialects of Judezmo, see Quintana Rodríguez 2006: 112, 363 (map 7), 386 (map 30), 435 (map 78). 13 Forms with the vowel +e+ (rather than +o+) in the base of this verb are documented in CORDE, albeit rarely, in the 14th+15th centuries: coneció, conecieron, conecido/ a/ os, conecimiento. (We searched for these by entering ‘coneci*’). In Judezmo, the e variant is also in use: In Perez & Pimienta 2007, we find the entries kon ser (ibid.: 255), deskon ser (ibid.: 103), rekon ser (ibid.: 378), and arrekon serse (ibid.: 33). Cf. Meza de el Alma, folio 1, page 2, line 14: ‫ ונֵ ֵיס ַירה‬, koneserá, but when the second syllable is stressed, we find there the etymological o : ‫)נ)סי‬ ֵ , konose (ibid., folio 3, page 1, lines 7 and 8). 111 (7) ‫زבאלי חכ לו טומימוש פור לוש בראשוש‬, Zavalí / Zevalí h̩axam – lo tomimos por los brasos, ‘The poor14 rabbi/scholar – we lifted him up by his arms’ (Darxé Nóˁam, ˀEven Haˁézer, no. 13, 34+35). (8) [‫ ו י אישטו לו דיגו דילאנטרי ווש אוטרו']ש‬, Kon ke esto lo digo delantre vos otro[s], ..., ‘With these facts in mind, I say this in front of you, ...’ (Paraḥ Maṭṭé ˀAharón, Part I, no. 121, 18). (9) ‫איל ג'ידייו י לייב'ימוש אה אישפאלטרו ייו לו טרוש'י‬, el džidyó ke yevimos a Espaltro – yo lo truši, ‘the Jew whom we conveyed to Split – it was I who brought him’ (Mixtam LeDavid, ˀEven Haˁézer, no. 1, 17+18). (10) In the next instance, the topic is extremely long, after which we have the resumptive element todo esto, that, in turn, is also a topic, having the resumptive pronoun lo following it (in testimony from Kastoria, Greece, 1702): ‫ אני מצוה לבני מחמת מיתה ואתה תהיה‬#‫ואמר להח' חיי הנز‬ ‫ ו הגביר אלישע הכה‬#‫ ומו לאש אزאש מיאש י מורה מי היג'ו איל גי‬#‫לעד גמור ואמר דברי הללו בלשו לעز‬ ‫ די נחושת וברزל בדיל ועופרת ומטלטלי ע* ומו‬#‫ צו אי טודו לו י איי די דיינטרו די אילייאש ומו מטלטלי‬#‫י‬ ‫ וزהב אי טודו מודו די מלבושי טאנטו די לאנה‬+‫ נעל אי תכשיטי של כס‬,‫ארוטאש אי בוטאש מחוט ועד שרו‬ ‫ אי טאנביי לאש אزאש י‬#‫אי די שידה או לינו אי מעות בעי י איש מחزי אי איליוש בני ה ט אלישע הנز‬ ‫ אי איל אנפו י אישטה אי איל ג'ארדא י אי‬#‫אישטא אי איל בולאטו אי לה בוטי ה י אישטה אי איל ג'ארשי‬ ‫לאש וינייאש י טינגו אי לה שיבדאד אי לאש וינייאש י טינגו אי איל אزאל די טיאודלישטה טודו אישטו‬ #‫ אמי פיزו אלישע הנز‬#‫שילודי במתנה גמורה כל הנز‬, veˀamar leheḥa[xam] Ḥayyim hanniz[kar]: “Aní mecavvé levanay meḥamat mitá, veˀattá tihyé leˁed gamur”, veˀamar devarim hallalu bilšón láˁaz, komo las kazas mias ke mora mi hižo el čiko haggevir ˀElišaˁ Hakkohén, yi[šmerehu] C[uró] v[iḥayyehu], i todo loké ay de dyentro de eyas, komo meṭalṭelí[n] de neḥóšet uvarzel, bedil veˁoféret, umṭalṭelé ˁec, komo karotas i botas, – miḥuṭ veˁad serox náˁal –, i taxšiṭim šel késef vezahav, i todo modo de malbušim, tanto de lana i de seda o lino, i maˁot beˁáyin ke es maḥaziq 14 Zawalli!, ‘Poor fellow!’, ‘Poor thing’ (Redhouse 1880: 589b); zavalí, ‘poor’, ‘destitute’ (Perez & Pimienta 2007: 470c). Or (less likely): ‘the old rabbi/scholar’ (for the meaning ‘old’, see Ottoman Turkish Dictionary, the entry ‘zevalî’). 112 en eyos beni haqqaṭán ˀElišaˁ hanniz[kar], i tanbyén las kazas ke están en el Bulato(?), i la botika ke está en el čarší, i el kanpo ke está en el Čardake(?), i las vinyas ke tengo en la sivdad, i las vinyas ke tengo en el kazal de Tiodlista(?) – todo esto se|lo|de bemattaná gemurá, – kol hanniz[kar] –, a|mi fižo ˀElišaˁ hanniz[kar]., ‘and he told the aforementioned Rabbi Ḥayyim: “At my death, I bequeath the following to my sons, and you will be a true witness thereof”, and he said these words in Judezmo: “My houses where my younger son, – Master ˀElišaˁ Hakkohén, may his Rock guard him and give him life –, is living, and everything that is inside them, such as copper, iron, tin, and lead movables, and wooden ones, like buggies15 and barrels, – till the last –, as well as silver and gold jewelry, and any kind of clothing, both wool, and silk or linen, along with the actual money that my younger son, the said ˀElišaˁ , possesses; the houses in Bulato(?), the store in the market, the field in Čardake(?), and the vineyards which I have in the city, as well as the ones in the village of Tiodlista(?) – all this should be given as an outright gift, – all of the aforesaid –, to my son, the above+mentioned ˀElišaˁ.”’ (Kérem Šelomó, Ḥošen Mišpaṭ, no. 72, 11+ 24). The Satirical Series shows constructions both with a resumptive pronoun, and without it – see (16) below: (11) ... .‫איסטו לייה לו סי בינוטה‬, EZRÁ: Esto ya lo se, Benuta; ..., ‘EZRÁ: This I know, Benuta; ...’ (El Rizón 12: 41 (1938); Bunis 1999b: 593 middle). (12) ‫ סי לוס ומייו איל‬5 ‫ לוס‬,‫ פולייוס‬11 ‫ אי לה גו ה ייה סאלייו‬.‫י סיפאס י ייו איסטו מוגו בואינה‬ .‫גאטו‬, Ke sepas ke yo estó mučo bwena. I la čoka ya salyó onze poyos; los sinko se los komyó el gato., (from a letter) ‘You should know that I am quite well. And the egg+laying produced eleven chicks; five were eaten by the cat.’ (Aksyón 11: 3044 (1939); Bunis 1999b: 513 top). Another instance in: Maharašdam, Yoré Deˁá, no. 118, (folio 77, page 1), 21+22. The clauses in the following examples have no resumptive pronoun: (13) ‫ גה‬#‫אישטי פידאשו די פא טידו פור דושי די טו פי‬, Este pedaso de pan te|do por qiddušín de tu fiža., ‘This piece of bread I hereby give to you as kiddushin of your daughter.’ (Maharšax, Part III, no. 59, 20). 15 Cf. Greek καρότσα, Judezmo karrosa (Perez & Pimienta 2007: 236c), having this signification. 113 (14) '‫אישטו טי דו פור ידושי‬, Esto te do por qidduši[m]., ‘This I give to you as kiddushin.’; ‫אישטוש טי דו פור דושי‬, Estos te do por qiddušim., ‘These I give to you as kiddushin.’ (Maharí ben Leb, Part II, no.7, 15 and 38, respectively).16 (15) ‫ שו ר' אהר בר אברה אליי אישטאנדו‬#‫טודו אישטו מי די‬, Todo esto me dišo ri[bí] ˀAharón Bar ˀAvraham, ayí estando., ‘All this was said to me by Ribí ˀAharón Bar ˀAvraham, being present there.’ (Maharšax, Part IV, no. 44, 27+28; also in Torat ˀEmet, no. 6, 36+3717). (16) .‫איסטו אימביزו לי אימביزו לה מאדרי אי איל פאדרי אי איל נונו‬, DŽAMILA: Esto (sic) embezo le embezó la madre i el padre i el nono., ‘He was taught this habit by his mother, his father, and his grandfather.’ (Mesažero 5: 1557 (1940); Bunis 1999b: 572 top). (17) “La kuzina tuya, – lo konosko –, kyero gustar.”, “Your cuisine, – I know it18 –, (is one that) I (certainly) want to taste.” (Yitzhak Navon to Matilda Koén+Sarano, February 2010). 3.2.1.1.2.2 The topic is marked in respect to the syntactic status – as object This section exhibits a state in which the the topic is marked in respect to the syntactic status – as object. Examples: (1) ... ‫ ש י‬#‫ אמי אירמנו פלוני לי דירי‬... , ... a|mi ermano peloní le direš ke ..., ‘... you (pl.) shall tell my brother, So+and+so, that ...’ (Maharašdam, Yoré Deˁá, no. 168, 9).19 16 Similarly, in Divré Rivot, no. 290, 28+29: ‫שינייורה אישטו ווש דו פור דושי‬, Senyora, esto vos do por qiddušín., ‘My lady, this I give to you as kiddushin.’ But with a resumptive pronoun in ˀAvné Haˀefod, Part I, “Haˀeven haššenit” (ˀEven Haˁézer), no. 13, 10 and 17+18 – the year 1909: ‫איסטו טילו איסטו דאנדו פור ידושי‬, Esto te|lo estó dando por qiddušín., ‘This I hereby give to you as kiddushin.’ 17 . ‫טודו אישטו מי דישו ר' אהר בר אברה אליי אשינטאדו‬, Todo esto me dišo ri[bí] ˀAharón Bar ˀAvraham, ayí asentado. (not ‘estando’ in this version, cf. ibid., 7+8: ‫אי אשינטוסי דיטו ה"ר אהר בר אברה‬, i asentose dito ha[rav] ri[bí] ˀAharón Bar ˀAvraham). 18 The non+concrete, general lo, meaning ‘this’; we would translate lo konosko here as (colloquially) ‘I know this stuff (of yours)’. 19 A rather similar instance is also found in Dibber Mošé, Part II, no. 71, (folio 73, page 1), 8+9. 114 . (2) ‫אלה היג' די שמעו לי דאש איל איס ודו אי אמי נו מי לו דאש יא מי אינו'גו ו ווש‬, ‫ אלה‬A|la hiž[a] de Šimˁón le daš/+s el eskudo, i a|mi no me lo daš/+s. Ya me enožo kon vos., ‘You (sg.) give Šimˁón’s daughter the escudo, and you don’t give it to me. Now I am mad at you (sg.).’ (Mahariṭ, Part II, ˀEven Haˁézer, no. 38, 9+10).20 (3) ‫ באסה אי אה מנואל נחו מוש לייאמו אישטי ראוב הנ'ל‬+‫אמי אי אה יוס‬, a|mi i a Yosef Basa i a Manwel Naḥum, mos yamó este Reˀuvén hann[izkar] l[eˁel], ‘Yosef Basa, Manwel Naḥum, and I were called by this aforementioned Reˀuvén’ (Maharšax, Part II, no. 134, 42+44). (4) ‫ אונדי אישפירו י אב'וס אי ﭏה ג'ינטי סאב'ייאה אי אונראדה ליש גוסטארה אמילדאר אישטה מי‬... ‫פ'אטיגה‬, ... onde espero ke a|vos, i a|la džente savya i onrada – les gustará a|meldar esta mi fatiga, ..., ‘... and I hope that you, and wise and honourable readers, will enjoy reading this endeavour of mine, ...’ (La Gwerta de Oro, folio 3, page 1 bottom). (5) ‫ אלוס ארדאשיס ליס‬.‫ איל אבי אה לה טור ה י פאגו ייו‬,‫ וزו סונחולה‬,‫ייה טיניש גוסטאדו‬ .‫פלאزיאה מוגו איל אבי פיגו מיאו‬, Ya teneš gostado, kuzum Sunxula, el kavé a la turka ke fago yo. A|los kardašes les plazia mučo el kavé fečo mio., ‘You’ve already tried, Sunxula sweetheart, the Turkish coffee that I prepare. The friends liked a lot this coffee of my own making.’ (El Rizón 13: 9 (1938); Bunis 1999b: 616 top). (6) .‫ נו לו בו אה טומאר‬,‫אה איסטי סינייור פאדרי‬, A este, sinyor padre, no lo vo a tomar., ‘This [guy] –, father, I am not going to marry him.’ (El Rizón 13: 4 (1938); Bunis 1999b: 605 middle). (7) Varol+Bornes (2008: 256) provides an instance of a long, complex topic in the Constantinople dialect21: a mi mamá (k’)estuvo una vez este modo asarada [–] se lo ize, a otra 20 This can be found in the same manner in Italian: Cf. a will in Italian from 17th+century Ragusa, published in Orfali 2006: 159+163, 177+180. This is the notaries’ translation of a will, originally written in Judezmo, which has not survived: Alla mia figliola Ester gli lasso ducati cento per la sua heredità., ‘As for my daughter, Ester, I bequeath unto her one hundred ducats as inheritance.’ (Ibid.: 178). 21 Cf., similarly, a Spanish example: ‘Óscar – El nombre propio, de origen germánico, significa ‘lanza de los dioses’, pero no es eso lo que aquí nos preocupa, sino la curiosa razón por la que a la codiciada estatuilla de oro y bronce, o mejor, de bronce y algo de oro, con la que la Academia de Ciencias y Artes Cinematográficas de Hollywood premia anualmente a las estrellas del cine se la llama «Óscar».’ Cf. in Italian (from a will mentioned 115 dama k’estava desre(pozada) ..., ‘I did that to my mother, who was once terrified this way, – to another lady who was alarmed ...’ (The informant Lizet, about whom see ibid.: 54). (8) Another instance of a complex topic: Parese ke a los patrones anteriores, ke tambien eran merkaderes, esta kamareta les servio komo un magazen., ‘It seems as though the previous owners, also merchants, used this room as a store.’ (La megila de Saray, Ch. I, p. 18). During the research, there have been found the following clauses, having no resumptive pronoun: (9) ‫א אוו די טריש דיאש ויניירו ג'ינטי אי דיש'ירו שאב'ריש' י אה אריאל אי אה באגאש"ה אי‬ ‫אפירג'ילי ש'אבא מאטארו‬, ‫ אפירג'ילי‬A|kavo de tres dias venyeron džente, i dišeron: “Savreš ke a ˀAriˀel i a Bagaša(?)22 i a|Ferdžilí(?)23 Šabán(?) mataron, ...”, ‘Three days later, people came and said: “You should know that they killed ˀAriˀel, Bagaša(?), and Ferdžilí(?) Šabán(?), ...”’ (Torat Mošé – Modern Edition, Ḥošen Mišpaṭ, no. 28, 10+12). (10) The first topic has no resumptive pronoun: ‫אאישטי ונושי אי איל אוטרו נו לו ונוש ו י‬ ‫אירא או וייגו‬, A|este konosí, i el otro – no lo konosko, ke era un vyežo., ‘I knew this one (i.e., this person), and I do not know the other one, as he was elderly.’ (Mahariṭac, no. 144, 16+17). (11) .‫ אה לה מוש ה ייה איסטו ביינדו פירו לה פונטה דיל אסטילייו נו איסטו ביינדו דיל טודו‬... , ... a la moška ya estó vyendo, pero la punta del kastiyo no estó vyendo del todo., ‘... I do see the fly, but as for the tip of the castle – I don’t see it at all.’ (Bunis 1999a: Ch. V: 129 [El Bezerro: 16]). in the previous footnote): Et a sua madre che sta in casa et che stia, come sta per governo delli miei nipoti, il suo che gli dia, ..., ‘And as for his (Jacob’s) mother, who is, and will be, at home, taking care of my nephews (or: grandchildren), – may he (Jacob) give her her due, ... ’ (Orfali 2006: 179). 22 Cf. a Serbian family name Bagaš; or, potentially, a nickname from ‘Bagadža’ (I am grateful to Professor David Bunis for this suggestion). 23 Cf. Ottoman Turkish feradžé, ‘a kind of robe’ – I thank Professor David Bunis, personal correspondence – (hence, a name meaning literally ‘a feradžé maker’); cf. also feredž, ‘joy’, ‘happiness’ (Redhouse 1880: 675b). 116 3.2.1.2 Tail For the definition and general description of tail, see above, §1.5.2. 3.2.1.2.1 Doubled pronoun in Besprochene Welt24 transmission Structurally speaking, by doubling the object pronoun, by means of the prepositional phrase a + PRONOUN, the object component is decomposed, detached, unpacked from the verbal complex and its object pronoun(s), and, thus, is more prominent.25 Just like the case of added subject pronouns (§3.1.2.2), here also, the strength of this prominence’s signalling varies across the spectrum, from very subtle to intense, i.e. focal, or topical26. Section §3.2.1.2.1.1 below will analyze examples of subtle or moderate signalling, and §3.2.1.2.1.2 – of focal signalling. 3.2.1.2.1.1 Subtle or moderate signalling One may see in the following examples, that the pronominal signified is somewhat prominent, in one way or another. The constructions are comprised of an object pronoun and its correlative prepositional phrase a + PRONOUN. Whereas this prominence, in these examples, is subtle or moderate, in the next section (§3.2.1.2.1.2) it is focal. (1) ‫ אי נואיסטרה אزה פאריסי אונה ישיבה ו איל גואיزמו די‬,‫–בואינו איסטאס טו ו לוס ליברוס‬ .‫ –אי אמי מי אגראדה ראדייו אי ארטי אס‬.‫ ליברו אי וראגה‬,‫ –איסטו מי אגראדה אמי‬,‫טאבא ו‬, DŽAMILA: Bweno estás tu kon los livros, i nwestra kaza parese una yešivá kon el gwezmo de tabako. BOXOR: Esto me agrada a|mi, livro i korača. DŽAMILA: I a|mi me agrada radyo i kartikas., ‘DŽAMILA: How lovely you are with your books, and our home looks like a yeshiva permeated with the smell of tobacco. BOXOR: I do love that, a book and a korača (i.e., a bag for personal ritual items). DŽAMILA: And I love radio and cards.’ (Mesažero 5: 1564 (1940); Bunis 1999b: 380 middle). 24 See §1.1. 25 For a discussion of such cases and definition of verbal complex, see §3.1.2.2.2.3.2. RAE Grammar 1771 (Part II: Ch. II: Article IV: 250) defines the constructions such as me VERB a mí, a mí me VERB as those which are brought out more clearly: “Muchas veces es necesario repetir el pronombre en dos distintas terminaciones antes ó después del verbo para dar mayor claridad á la expresión ...”. 26 On a topical pattern, see above, §3.2.1.1.1. 117 (2) ?‫ י פור די סייוניר מי טומאטיס אמי‬, DŽAMILA: Ke, por diksyoner me tomates a|mi?, ‘DŽAMILA: What, do you take me for a dictionary?’ (Mesažero 5: 1480 (1940); Bunis 1999b: 488 bottom). (3) ‫ איסטוס טיימפוס נו‬,‫ סי סי איסטרוליי איל מונדו‬,‫ י לייו‬,‫ אינטינדיר אה טי‬27‫י מודו י טי די אה אה‬ .‫בו אה زיארה‬, DŽAMILA: Ke modo ke te de a entender a ti ke yo, si se estruye el mundo, estos tyempos no vo a ziará., ‘DŽAMILA: How on earth will I ever make you understand, that I, even if the world is to be destroyed, am not making the ziará (visit to the graves of ancestors) during this period.’ (Mesažero 4: 1083 (1939); Bunis 1999b: 559 middle). . (4) ‫איל מי דיוי אמי‬, ... el me deve a|mi., ‘... he owes me.’ (Torat ˀEmet, no. 227, 7). (5) See a use for purposes of indubitability, ‘Me dišo Leˀá a|mi’, in §3.1.2.2.2.3.2, example (4). (6) ‫ﭏ י ירי פארטיר אלוגאר לישוש לי דארה אה ﭏ סואמיגו ﭏגונה)?( איספאדה די מונידה אילי ארה‬ ‫ י‬... ‫סימ דהיינו י לה טורסירה או פו ו סיר ה דילה מزוزה אילי דירה אה ﭏ אנסי ייו בוס דו איסטה תחינה‬ . ‫סיאש בוס מי שליח ואנדו אינטאראריש לשלו אי לוגאר י איס בואיסטארה בילונטאד‬, El ke kere partir a|lugar léšoš, le dará a el su|amigo alguna(?) espada de moneda, i|le ará simán, dehaynú ke la torserá un poko serka de|la mezuzá, i|le dirá a el ansí: “Yo vos do esta teḥinná ... ke seaš vos mi šalíaḥ kwando entarareš lešalom en lugar ke es vwéstara veluntad.”, ‘As for one who wants to leave for a faraway place, his friend should give him a sword made of melted coins (?), should make a sign on it, that is to say, by twisting it a little near the mezuzah, and will tell him in this manner: “I ask you (sg.) this plea ..., for you to be my emissary, when you reach your destination in peace.”’ (from Segullot lišˁat nesiˁá). (7) In the following sentences, taken from religious instructions for a safe journey, one sees repetitions (pleonasm), which add, as it were, iconically, protective layers around the person, setting out on his journey. The repeated meanings below are displayed in bold type: ‫ה‬ ‫ הוא פור מי י נו מי אייגי אמי דינגו אינ ואינטרו מאלו שמריﭏ מי גואדרארה ברכיﭏ מי בינדיزירה‬,‫ה דש ברו‬ 27 Superfluous. 118 28 ‫ילויﭏ מי א ונפאנייארה‬, Haššem, Haqqadoš Barux Huˀ, por mi – ke no me ayege a|mi dingún enkwentro malo, Šamriˀel29 me gwadrará, Baraxiˀel me bendezirá, Yelavviˀel me akonpanyará., ‘As for me, – God, The holy one, blessed be He – may he not make me have any bad encounter, Šamriˀel will protect me, Baraxiˀel will bless me, Yelavviˀel will accompany me.’ (from Segullot lišˁat nesiˁá). (8) In the next two sentences, the first has no repeated pronoun, while the second one has it: ‫סאב'ריש' י טודוש לי וב'רארו אינימיסטאד לוס איג'וש די לאה סי סילארו די ב'יר י סו פאדרי לו יריאה‬ ‫ אב'לאב'ה מאל די אילייוס‬+‫י יוס‬ ‫ אי ויינדו לוס שבטי‬... ‫ביי מאס י אילייוש אי לוש איג'וש די בלהה וزלפה‬ ... ‫דילאנטרי די סו פאדרי אי יע ב לו יריאה ביי אה איל מאש י טודוש אינטינדיירו י‬, Savreš ke todos le kovraron enemistad: los ižos de Leˀá se selaron de ver ke su padre lo keria byen mas ke eyos; i los ižos de Bilhá veZilpá, ... I vyendo los ševaṭim ke Yosef avlava mal de eyos delantre de su padre, i Yaˁaqov lo keria byen a el mas ke todos, entendyeron ke ..., ‘You should note that everybody bore enmity for him (i.e., Joseph): Firstly, Leah’s sons were jealous, seeing that their father liked him more than them; and secondly, Bilhah’s and Zilpah’s sons, ... And Jacob’s sons, observing that Joseph was slandering them to their father, and that Jacob liked him more than all others, they understood that ...’ (Xulí, Meˁam Loˁez, Berešit, Parashah Vayyéšev, Ch. I, folio 182, page 2, lines 23+24; 28+29). 3.2.1.2.1.2 Focal signalling As opposed to the examples in the preceding section, we find here focal signalling. For the definition of focus, and its types – see §3.1.2.2. The following examples will be classified according to these types. (1) In both marked places below, there is contrastive30 replacing 31 focus: ‫דישו לאה אמי‬ 4 ‫מי‬ ‫דישי יו‬ 4 ‫היגה די שמעו ב' גראנוש סי מילו אובייראש דאדו אמי נו ווש רובארא נאדה‬ 5 ‫רובו לה‬ 4 ‫ויש ומו‬ 4 ‫ראוב‬ 28 I thank Professor David Bunis and Haim Carmi for elucidating this sentence. 29 The sounds in the angels’ names here are only conjectural. 30 Contrastive focus – as for the utterer’s assumptions and expectations about the receiver’s (i.e., addressee’s) knowledge, there is the latter’s contrary belief, – the receiver holds strong contrary beliefs (Vallejos Yopán 2009: 405). The utterer provides a contrast to those beliefs. We would like to note, that in many cases the focus is weak, 119 ‫ראוב ייריש י טי לו די אטי אי לו טומאראש פור דושי‬, Me dišo Leˀá a|mi, Reˀuvén: Veš komo rovó la hiža de Šimˁón b[et] granos? Si me|lo uvyéraš dado a|mi, no vos rovaran nada. Diši yo, Reˀuvén: Kyeres ke te lo de a|ti, i lo tomarás por qiddušín?, ‘Leˀá said to me, Reˀuvén: “Do you see how Šimˁón’s daughter has stolen two coins? If you had given this to me, (and not to her), you wouldn’t be robbed.” I, Reˀuvén, said: “Do you want me to give this to you, (not to her), and you will take this as kiddushin?”’ (Mahariṭ, Part II, ˀEven Haˁézer, no. 38, 44+47).32 (2) Contrastive selective33 focus: ‫ומידייאש שינטיולו אחי לוי י אנדאבא יו‬ 34 ‫פואיש אי א יליואש‬ ‫פור טומארלו דישומי ישי לוש דיישי אאיל אה גנאנסייא‬, Pwes, en akeyas komedyas, sintyolo ˀaḥí Leví, ke andava yo por tomarlo, díšome ke|se los dyese a|el a ganansya, ..., ‘Then, in all that commotion, my brother Leví heard that I went to take it (i.e., the money to be invested), and he told me that I had better give it to him, (and not handle it myself), for profit.’35 (HaMabiṭ, Part III, folio 137, page 2, column II, – no. 82, 97+99). (3) Contrastive selective focus: .‫לה נובייה טי יירי אה טי פור מארידו‬, La novya te kyere a ti por marido., ‘The bride wants you, (not Boxor), to be her husband.’ (El Rizón 13: 4 (1938); Bunis 1999b: 605 bottom). when the receiver actually assumes or expects nothing, or would not, in fact, have thought otherwise about the thing stated, but nevertheless the focalization signals the corroboration, indubitability of it. 31 Replacing focus – A specific item in the pragmatic information of the hearer is removed and replaced by another correct item (Vallejos Yopán 2009: 405+406). 32 Cf. a Spanish example of contrastive+replacing focus: ¡Qué desfachatez!, bramaba ahora a solas en su casa el alcalde. Decir lo que he de hacer y dónde, cuándo y cómo., ‘What cheek!, – bellowed now the mayor, alone in his home. – To tell me what I have to do, and where, when, and how.’ (GRAE: Vol. II: §26.2f: 1965; CREA [Eduardo Mendoza, La ciudad de los prodigios, Barcelona: Seix Barral, año 1993, pág. 380]). 33 By selective focus, one selects an item from a set of presupposed possibilities, e.g., Did John buy coffee or rice? John bought RICE (Vallejos Yopán 2009: 406). 34 Should have been ‫א ילייאש‬. 35 I availed myself of the translation made by Benaim (2011: 436+443). 120 3.2.1.2.1.3 The object pronoun is lacking, the prepositional phrase a + PRONOUN is present We find, both in Spanish and Judezmo, constructions having the prepositional phrase a + PRONOUN, without the clitic object pronoun. Although this state is considered to be non+ standard in Spanish36, it existed in the past37, and is still found in the contemporary language38. This use is also attested in medieval Spanish texts, that are adaptations of Arabic ones, such as Calila y Dimna39, and in Spanish texts written in Arabic characters (Lapesa 1981: §36.5: 149)40. We encountered two examples of this syntactic case in Judezmo, presented below, – both are focal. In addition, Varol+Bornes (2008: 266) informs about its presence in the Constantinople dialect. (1) Contrastive replacing focus: ‫טייניש אוטרוש עדי פארה י יריש אמי י די עדות דילו י נו‬ ‫וידי‬, Tyenes otros ˁedim. Para ke keres a|mi ke de ˁedut de|lo ke no vidi?, ‘You (sg.) have other witnesses. Why then do you want me to bear testimony of something that I did not see?’ (Mahariṭ, Part II, ˀEven Haˁézer, folio 59, page 1, – no. 43, 45+47). 36 GRAE: Vol. I: §16.11e: 1231; Vol. II: §34.8f: 2632. 37 See examples in GRAE: Vol. I: §16.14f: 1244. 38 Cf. a short story by Emilia Pardo Bazán (1851 – 1921): Ahora, que no había casa, faltando el que traía a ella la comida y el dinero para pagar la renta, Cipriana se dedicó a servir., ‘Now that she had no home, and no one to bring her food, and money to pay the rent, Cipriana dedicated herself into working as a servant.’ (Cited by Weinrich 1968: Ch. VII: 239 [Emilia Pardo Bazán, Obras completas, tomo II, Madrid, año 1956, págs. 1497 ss.]). Bello’s (1903: §147: 155) grammar provides another example: llaman, no á ti. (Contrastive+replacing focus. Here we have a focalizing construction, in which an object or an adverb precedes the verb – cf. §3.1.2.2.1.1.) 39 An example therefrom – a focal one, – contrastive+selective focus: Dijo el cuervo: “Esta es la señal del amigo: ser amigo del amigo e enemigo del enemigo, et non me es a mí amigo nin compañero quien non amare e non hobiere sabor de ti. Muy rafez me partiría yo de su amor del que tal fuere; ...” (Calila y Dimna: Ch. V: 137), ‘The crow. [said:] It is usual for every friend to be a friend to his friend’s friend, and an enemy to his friend’s enemy. And now everyone that does not seek your society and love as I do, is debarred from my love, and deprived of my friendship; ... ’ (Kalilah and Dimnah: “Story of the ring+dove”: 114: lines 31+34). 40 Lapesa (ibid.) quotes these instances: ayuntáronse las aves , ‘the birds joined him’, ya encontré , ‘I met them’. 121 (2) Contrastive parallel41 focus: ‫ אי איל מו ירי לוש לייבו‬... ‫איל אי אונא 'גודיאה שאליירו די חליב‬ ‫פור אוטרו אמינו פארא מאטארלוש אי ויניירו אוטרוש לאדרוניש אי מאטארו אה אלייוש אי אה איל מו ירי‬, el i una džudía salyeron de Ḥáleb ... i el mukeri/+iri42 los yevó por otro kamino para matarlos, i vinyeron otros ladrones i mataron a eyos i a el mukeri/+iri., ‘He and a Jewess set out from Aleppo ..., and the muleteer took them by another road in order to kill them, then there came other thieves and killed both them and the muleteer.’ (Harav Mošé Alšex, no. 44, 4+6)43. It should be noted, aside from the present discussion, that this kind of syntagm is used in Ladino (i.e., the calque translation of the Bible and of sacred texts, see thereon Sephiha 1982; Díaz+Mas 1986: 101; Alvar 1986: Ch. VI: 43+46; Bunis 1996), since it translates literally the identical Biblical Hebrew construction. For example, ‫אבה שו‬ ָ ‫ש ֵא ְיר ַמאנ)ש ֵ י ָא ֵאיל ַא ָמ‬9‫ִאי ְויֵ ירו ש‬ :‫אב ָלאר )נֵ יל פ)ר ָפאש‬ ְ ‫פודיֵ יר) ָה‬ ְ )‫ב)ר ְיסיֵ יר) ָאה ֵאיל ִאי נ‬ ֵ ‫ש ֵא ְיר ַמאנ)ש ִאי ָא‬9‫אד ֵרי ָמאש ֵדי ט)דוש ש‬ ְ ‫ ַפ‬, I vyeron sus ermanos ke a|el amava su padre mas de todos sus ermanos, i aborresyeron a el, i non pudyeron havlar kon|el por pas. (Constantinople Pentateuch, 1547, Parashah Vayyéšev, Gen. xxxvii 4 [‫שׁ•ֽם׃‬ ָ ‫שׂנ ְ֖אוּ א ֹ֑תוֹ וְ•֥ א יָכְל֖ וּ דַּ בּ ְ֥רוֹ ְל‬ ְ ִ ‫אָהב ֲאבִיהֶם֙ ִמכָּל־ ֶא ָ֔חיו וַ ֽיּ‬ ֤ ַ ‫)] ַויּ ְִר ֣אוּ ֶא ָ֗חיו כִּ ֽי־א ֹ֞תוֹ‬. 41 Parallel focus – Two pieces of information are contrasted within one linguistic unit, e.g., JOHN bought RICE, but PETER bought COFFEE (Vallejos Yopán 2009: 406). Here the two pieces of information being separated and parallelled are eyos and el mukeri/ iri. Cf. los in matar , – by contast with a eyos –, in respect to which no focalization is expressed. 42 From Ottoman Turkish mükâri (Kieffer & Bianchi – 1837: Vol. II: 985b – spell this word as mukiāriï, i.e., [muca:rij], [c] = palatalized [k]), < Arabic ‫رى‬ªَ ِ «-ُ [muˈkāri] (Sâmî Frashëri 1883: 1069a), ‘a hirer (here: of pack animals), one who hires something out’, from ‫ َرى‬ªَ² [ˈkāra], ‘to hire out’. That is, this word means ‘one who hires pack animals out, for transporting goods and people’, ‘a muleteer’, ‘an arriero’. I am grateful to Professor David Bunis for consulting about this word. The phonetic realization here is more likely to be mukeri rather than mukiri, – I thank the participants of the workshop Arabic in the Ottoman Empire (University of Cambridge, April 21+22, 2016) for this information. 43 I am grateful to Professor David Bunis for acquainting me with this text. 122 3.2.1.2.2 Nouns, nominal phrases, and others as tail For general semantic features of tautology (pleonasm), see §3.1.3.1.1. 3.2.1.2.2.1 In Besprochene Welt44 transmission In this theoretical subsection (examples will be shown in the following subsections), we will concentrate on seven specific cases in which non+pronominal45 tail may be used in Judezmo, in Besprochene Welt transmission. These are: 1. Questions.46 We posit two reasons for possible pleonasm by way of tail in questions. Firstly, as argued by linguists, the information uttered in answers to questions is focal.47 That is why the questions are also, in a way, prominent, emphasized, – this property might be expressed by means of pleonasm, and by tail in particular. Examples – several languages: The first element is italicized, the second – repeating the first – is presented in bold typeface: Modern Hebrew, an echo+construction, also called a sandwich+construction48: Efo atem mofiim atem? (Avri Gilad, asking a member of a rock band, the game show “1 vs. 100”, TV, February 2012); Efo ata yored [mehaotobus] ata? (February 2012); Biblical Hebrew, tautological infinitive49: ‫ֶל־אַר ִצ֛י ְואֶל־מוֹלַדְ ִ ֖תּי תֵּ ֵל֑· ְו ָל ַקח ָ ְ֥תּ ִא ָ ֖שּׁה ִל ְב ִנ֥י ְליִצ ְָחֽק׃‬ ְ ‫ִכּ֧י א‬ ָ‫שׁר־י ָצָ ֥את‬ ֶ ‫שּׁה לָלֶ ֥כֶת אַח ַ ֲ֖רי אֶל־ה ָ ָ֣א ֶרץ ה ַ֑זּ ֹאת הֶ ֽהָ ֵ ֤שׁב אָ שִׁ י ֙ב ֶאת־ ִבּנ ְ֔¾ אֶל־ה ָ ָ֖א ֶרץ ֲא‬ ָ ֔ ‫ֹאבה הָ ֽ ִא‬ ֣ ֶ ‫וַיֹּ֤א ֶמר ֵאלָי ֙ו ָה ֶ֔עבֶד אוּ ַל ֙י •א־ת‬ ‫( ִמ ָשּֽׁם׃‬Gen. xxiv 4+5); especially in impassioned or indignant questions, – in this case the present category is interlaced with the ANGER+COMPLAINT+CRITICISM category (no. (3) below). E.g., ‫ַיּוֹספוּ עוֹ ֙ד שׂ ְ֣נ ֹא א ֹ֔תוֹ עַל־חֲ•מ ָ ֹ֖תיו ְועַל־דְּ ב ָ ָֽריו׃‬ ֤ ִ ‫ ָע ֵ֔לינוּ ִאם־ ָמ ֥שׁוֹל תִּ ְמ ֖שׁ ֹל ָ ֑בּנוּ ו‬L֙ M‫ תִּ ְמ‬jk֤ ָ‫( וַיֹּ֤א ְמרוּ ל ֙וֹ ֶא ָ֔חיו ֲהמ‬Gen. xxxvii 8); ‫ֵאמ ֹר ה ַ֨עוֹד‬ ֗ ‫שׂ ָר ֵ֔אל לָמָ ֥ ה ה ֲֵרע ֶ ֹ֖תם ִל֑י ְל ַה ִגּ֣יד ָל ִ֔אישׁ הַע֥ וֹד ל ֶ ָ֖כם אָ ֽח׃ וַיּ ֹא ְמ ֡רוּ שׁ ָ֣אוֹל ָשֽׁאַל־ ֠ ָה ִאישׁ ָל֣נוּ וּ ְל ֽמוֹלַדְ תֵּ֜ נוּ ל‬ ְ ִ ‫וַיֹּ֙א ֶמ ֙ר י‬ ‫הוֹרידוּ אֶת־ ֲאחִיכֶ ֽם׃‬ ֔ ‫( ֲאבִיכֶ ֥ם ַח ֙י ֲה ֵי֣שׁ ל ֶָכ֣ם ָ֔אח ַו ַ֨נגּ‬Gen. xliii 6+7); ֖ ִ ‫ַל־פּי הַדְּ ב ִ ָ֣רים ה ֵ ָ֑אלֶּה ֲהי ָ֣דוֹעַ נֵדַ֔ ע ִכּ֣י י ֹא ַ֔מר‬ ֖ ִ ‫ֶד־לוֹ ע‬ Yiddish, an echo+construction: ‫ זאָל איך נישט?" – פאַרדושעט‬,‫" – "כ'זאָל נישט רעדן‬...‫ רעד גאָרנישט‬,‫ לייזער‬,‫"שאַ‬ 44 See §1.1. 45 On tail as object pronoun – see above, §3.2.1.2.1. 46 It should be commented that rhetorical questions are in the gray area between the QUESTIONS category and the ANGER+COMPLAINT+CRITICISM category (no. (3) below). 47 Cohen 2009: 132; GRAE: Vol. II: §40.4c: 2986; Vallejos Yopán 2009: 404+405. For the definition of focus, and its types – see §3.1.2.2. 48 Taube 1995: 397; 418: fn. 9. 49 Gesenius 1909: §113q: 343. 123 .‫זיך דער טאַטע מיט אַן ענג קול‬, ‘“Quiet, Lazer, say nothing...” – “Shouldn’t I speak!?” – the father is amazed, with a narrow voice.’50; Russian: The enclitic deictic element ‘то’, lit., ‘this / that’, points at the whole preceding interrogative sentence, or part of it, and thus, actually, repeats it: Вы знаете, с чего вообще начинал Березовский+то? (2013). RAE Grammar 1894 – see §3.1.3.1.1 – states that pleonasm may be employed when one shows an interest in something. And note, that, indeed, one sometimes employs pleonasm in questions, when one is overly curious, or astonished. In the following examples, the first element is italicized, and the second, recurring one, is in bold: Modern Hebrew: Ma yeš ba baxašmalit hazot, šegorem lexa laasot et ze? (January 11, 2012); Ma yeš bo beNoxi Dankner šegorem leanašim lalexet axarav? (August 2013); ‫ שסבו‬,‫ובעוד רפאל משתאה למראה הוד אפוף סוד זה של עלוה סבוכה‬ ‫ הסב[ היה מקשה עליו ]= על נכדו רפאל[ ושואל מהו הייעוד הקדוש ביותר‬,]‫הנהיגו בתוכה בוטח כאדם השרוי בביתו‬ 51 ... ‫ ]הסב[ היה משיב‬,"‫ "לרחוץ את המת ולטהרו לפני הקבורה‬.‫ לקוות לעצמם בעולמנו‬,‫ למים‬,‫ ;שאפשר להם‬Haim mutar la, laiša hacijonit, lehakdiš et zmana avur ...? (Dr. Šimrit Péled, a literature meeting, The Hebrew University, June 9, 2010); Mishnaic Hebrew: ‫וא]מר["ר]בי[ יוחנן משום ר']בי[ יוסי מנין שאין‬ 52 ‫ ְמ ַרצין לו לאדם בשעת כעסו‬, ‘Rabbi Johanan further said in the name of Rabbi Jose: How do you know that we must not try to placate a man in the time of his anger?’53; English: the construction ‘Why (or another interrogative word) is it that NEXUS?’ Examples: Oh, kind, true God, You are a long+bearing Lord, a great God and a good God, merciful and just, why is it that You give one everything, the other nothing?54 50 Taube 1995: 401 [Yoshue Perle (1888 – 1943), Yidn fun a ganc yor (= Everyday Jews), Tel Aviv: I.L. Peretz, the year 1990, p. 254]; further interrogative instances in Taube 1995: 399+400. 51 Tor+Raz 1989: 26. 52 Babylonian Talmud, Beraxot, folio 7, page 1. 53 Maurice Simon, (tr.), The Soncino Babylonian Talmud: Book I, Folios 2a 31b: Berakoth, under the editorship of Rabbi Dr. I. Epstein, reformatted by Reuven Brauner, Raanana, 5771 (= 2011), http://www.halakhah.com/rst/zeraim/01a%20+%20Brochos%20+%202a+31b.pdf, p. 29a. 54 Sholem Aleichem, “The grand prize”, in Sholem Aleykhem's Tevye the Dairyman, translated by Miriam Katz, illustrated by Manuel Bennett, Malibu, California: Joseph Simon/Pangloss Press, the year 1994, p. 19. Further examples: What’s happened, why is it that he is seen neither in Boiberik nor in Yehupetz such a long time? (Sholem Aleichem, “Tevye goes to Palestine”, ibid., p. 117), Why is it that when I come from "cheder," and do not find Busie I cannot eat? (Sholem Aleichem, “A page from the ‘Song of Songs’”, in Jewish Children, translated by Hannah Berman, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, the year 1929, p. 10), Why is it that most of the people who are 124 The second reason is a tendency in languages to express the rhematic and thematic55 components – in wh+questions56, and the rhematic and nexus components – in yes no questions57, as soon as possible58, by means of pro+forms59 when needed, and only then the missing information might be added by way of apposition to that pro+form. Thus, the tail is an apposition to such a preceding pronoun. Examples from various languages, the pro+form is italicized, and the apposition is presented in bold type: (1) In "questions: (A) With a pronoun (or pronominal morpheme) constituting the theme of the clause or part of the theme: Modern Hebrew: Efo ze sderot Rotšild? (Professor Ariel Shisha+Halevy, personal communication); Kama šaot ze mazlifim lavrid, šaloš? (2014); Aval lama hem lo novxim, haklavim? (January 2015); Russian: Куда это ты идёшь?; Polish: Co to są pliki cookie? (Internet); A właściwie to skąd się wzięły te rogi? (Internet); French: Qui est+ce qui chante une chanson?60; Judezmo: I tu kwalo’z [= kwalo es] lo ke azes?, ‘And you, what is your occupation?’61; Arabic, the Dhofari dialect against abortion are people you wouldn't want to fuck in the first place? (George Carlin, Back in Town – a stand+up, the year 1996); another kind of instance: What did happen? (Surprise, shock, wonder, astonishment. The structural analysis of this sentence is the same as that of ‘I do understand.’, – see below in paragraph (4)(A). We do not mean here the same sentence, expressing contrastive focus, contrasting what did not happen). (60 Minutes, an American television newsmagazine program that is broadcast on the CBS television network). One can see in Google contexts where this interesting sentence, having the said meanings, appears, – at times in titles. I thank the user AlpheccaStars at English Forums for valuable information. 55 For theme and rheme, see §3.1.1. 56 Also called partial questions – GRAE: Vol. II: §42.9: 3166+3174. For further names, see Tesnière 1959: Ch. 83: §11+12: 204; §23+24: 206. 57 Also called polar questions, total questions – GRAE: Vol. II: §42.7a: 3156. For further names, see Tesnière 1959: Ch. 83: §11+12: 204; §23+24: 206. 58 Cf., in yes no questions in some languages, the verb – typically the rheme – takes precedence, and is put at the beginning of the sentence. 59 I.e., pronouns, “pro+verbs” (= vicarious verbs, Goldenberg 1971: 50, also called empty verbs, Jespersen 1963: 26), “pro+nexus”, and so on. 60 Tesnière 1959: Ch. 81: §4: 198; see Ch. 81: 198+201 about this type of questions – ‘les interrogations renforcées’ –, and more examples. 61 Constantinople, Wagner 1914: Part I: Text VI: 33: line 26. 125 (Oman): [ˈmin iˈsiddhen el"ɣaˈnam], ‘Who takes care of (lit., ‘them’ is added) the cattle?’62; (B) With a vicarious (empty) verb constituting the theme of the clause or part of the theme: do in English, e.g., Why do you VERB? (2) In questions: (A) With a “pro"nexus”: Enclitic 63 ne in Latin , and ли in Russian, both added to the end of the first word in the sentence64; French Est ce que ..., lit., ‘Is it that ...’65; Swahili je, Polish czy, Modern Hebrew haim, Biblical Hebrew ha , Arabic hal, being all put at the beginning of a sentence. (B) With a vicarious (empty) verb constituting the rheme of the clause or part of the rheme: do in English, e.g., Do you VERB? 2. Directive modality. Directive modality connotes the speaker’s degree of requirement of conformity to the proposition expressed by an utterance.66 Directive modality is inherently accentuated, is of somewhat aggressive nature, and we can deduce this from possible inclusion of accommodating signifiers, such as please, would in English, in order to soften the request. That is why it is logical that pleonasm – and, specifically, tail – might be used in sentences, expressing directive modality. Examples of pleonasm in such sentences, in several languages: In Biblical Hebrew, with tautological infinitive67: ‫( אַל־תִּ בְכּ֣ וּ ְל ֵ֔מת וְאַל־תָּ נֻ ֖דוּ ֑לוֹ בְּכ֤ וּ בָכ ֙וֹ לַ ֽה ֹ ֵ֔ל· ִכּ֣י •֤ א י ָשׁוּ ֙ב ֔עוֹד ו ְָר ָ ֖אה ֶאת־אֶ ֶ֥רץ מוֹלַדְ תּֽ וֹ׃‬Jer. xxii 10); ‫ִיהם וְהַ ֽ ֲעב ְַר ָ ֛תּ‬ ֽ ‫ְהו֖ה אֶל־מ ֶ ֹ֥שׁה לּ‬ ָ ‫וַיֹּ֥א ֶמר י‬ ֑ ֶ ‫ֵאמ ֹר׃ ֵ֗כּן בְּנ֣ וֹת ְצ ָל ְפ ָח ֮ד דֹּבְר ֹ֒ת נ ָ֨ת ֹן תִּ ֵ ֤תּן ָלהֶם֙ ֲא ֻח ַזּ֣ת נַ ֲח ָ֔לה בּ ְ֖תוֹ· ֲא ֵ ֣חי ֲאב‬ ‫ִיהן לָהֶ ֽן׃‬ ֶ ‫ו ַ֣תּ ֹא ֶמר הָאִ שָּׁה֩ ֲא‬ ֖ ֶ ‫( ֶאת־נַחֲלַ ֥ת ֲאב‬Num. xxvii 6+7); ‫שׁר־ ְבּ ָ֨נהּ ַה ַ֜חי אֶל־ ַה ֶ֗מּלֶ· כִּ ֽי־נִ ְכמ ְ֣רוּ ַר ֲח ֶמי ֮ ָה עַל־ ְבּנ ָ֒הּ ו ַ֣תּ ֹא ֶמר׀‬ ֙‫ַם־ל֥י גַם־לָ ֛· •֥ א י ִ ְה ֶי֖ה גְּז ֹֽרוּ׃ ַו ַ֨יּעַן ַה ֶ֜מּלֶ· ו ַ֗יּ ֹא ֶמר תְּ נוּ־לָהּ‬ ִ ‫יתהוּ ו ְ֣ז ֹאת א ֹ ֶ֗מ ֶרת גּ‬ ֑ ֻ ‫ִ ֣בּי ֲאד ִֹ֗ני תְּ נוּ־לָהּ֙ ֶאת־ ַהיּ ָל֣ וּד ַה ַ֔חי ְוה ֵ ָ֖מת אַל־תְּ ִמ‬ ‫יתהוּ ִ ֖היא ִא ֽמּוֹ׃‬ ֑ ֻ ‫֣ א תְ ִמ‬M ‫( ֶאת־ ַהיּ ָל֣ וּד ַה ַ֔חי ְוה ֵ ָ֖מת‬I Kgs. iii 26+27); In Biblical Hebrew, Coptic, and Polish we see, at times, the construction ‘for/to you’ added to the verb which signals directive modality, and thus, in fact, the signified of the allocutor is expressed twice: Biblical Hebrew: ֙‫וַיֹּ֤א ֶמר י ְהוָה‬ ‫אַראֶ ֽךָּ׃‬ ְ ‫אָבי¾ אֶל־ה ָ ָ֖א ֶרץ ֲא ֶ ֥שׁר‬ ְ ‫־לְ…֛ מ‬Lֶ‫( אֶל־אַב ְָ֔רם ל‬Gen. xii 1) (lex+ø le+xá); Coptic: ֑ ִ ‫ֵאַרצְ¾֥ וּ ִמ ֽמּוֹלַדְ תְּ ¾֖ וּ ִמ ֵ ֣בּית‬ 62 Rhodokanakis 1911: Vol. II: 205: §100a. 63 About the relation of this particle to nexus – Arnauld & Lancelot 1803: Ch. XXIII: 383. 64 See Wackernagel’s law – Wackernagel 1892: 342+343, 351+352, 418+422; Tesnière 1959: Ch. 84: §6: 207. 65 Tesnière 1959: Ch. 84: §16: 209. 66 Glossary of Linguistic Terms, the entry ‘directive modality’; Palmer 1986: 97+98. 67 Goldenberg 1971: 65: fn. 55. 126 ⲁⲛⲁⲭⲱⲣⲉⲓ ⲛⲏⲧⲛ, ‘Leave (pl.) (lit., for yourself)!’68; Polish: Idź+ø sobie, ..., ‘Go (sg.) (lit., for yourself), ...’69. Modern Hebrew: 70.‫ שאני משיג נגדו צו מעצר חֻקי‬,‫ ַלתּ ְֻרכִּ י הזה‬,‫ רוץ מהר ואמׂר לו מיד‬,‫ סְ קַ פֶּ ן‬,ֵ‫;ל‬ 71 .‫ שהוא יחזיר את בני ואתה תִ שָּ אר במקומו עד שאשיג את הסכום הנדרש‬,‫ לתֻרכי הזה‬,‫ ;עליך ללכת ולומר לו‬Russian: The enclitic deixis ‘то’, lit., ‘this / that’, points at the whole directive+modality clause, or part of it, and thus, actually, repeats it. Отвечай мне на телефон+то. Я же из+за границы звоню. (July 2014); Arabic, the Dhofari dialect (Oman): [la+ð’ð’iriˈbu:nha: ˈommi], ‘Do not beat (‘her’ added) my mother!’72. 3. Anger, complaint, criticism. We suggest the following reasons for possible pleonasm by way of tail in utterances expressing anger, complaint, or criticism: At the time of feeling these emotions, one may be hyperactive, – there may be evident intensive activity of face muscles and body parts, raising of one’s voice. For this reason, pleonasm, and particularly tail, is clearly an integral part of this behaviour. Another factor that might produce pleonasm in these situations, is the speaker’s lack of concentration, of clear mind, – which compels him to facilitate his thoughts, and that could be the reason for uttering a pronoun first, and then, so as to be clear, its apposition, because it might be cognitively easier to express one’s thoughts using pronouns and pro+forms.73 68 Shisha+Halevy 1986: §6.1.5.2: 182; though Coptic is nonoptimal in this regard, because its imperative does not have a flexion – it does not include any allocutive singular/plural morpheme. 69 And other examples, in Doroszewski et al. 1966: Vol. VIII: the entry ‘sobie’: 472a. 70 Molière, "‫"תעלולי סקפן‬, in ‫ ק ו מד י ו ת‬, 3 vols., translated by Nathan Alterman, [Tel Aviv]: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 1967, Vol. III, Act II, Scene VII, p. 225. 71 Ibid. 72 Rhodokanakis 1911: Vol. II: 205: §100a. 73 Cf. §1.4, and also fn. 20 there. Cf. the following facilitating, speeding up pro+form elements (which may be called in French des mots béquilles, ‘crutch words ’, or in Russian слова паразиты, ‘parasite words’): Hebrew: ‫את הזה‬, et haze (see another example ibid., fn. 20), e.g. (from the Internet) ‫ והוא יחקה אותך‬,‫איפה אפשר ;תדגימי לו איך את עושה את הזה‬ ...‫ ;לקנות את הזה של ]חברת[ ]"[שלושת האופים]"[? עברתי בכמה חנויות ואין עם המבצע של הפסטיגל‬.‫ ;לא הבנתי את הזה של הספר‬ze, in the clause at/hem/etc. lo haxi ze, at/hem/etc. VERB lo haxi ze with ze standing for a certain quality, which is understood anyway from the context, (from the Internet): ‫ אז זה אולי באמת‬.‫ ומדברים גם אחר כך לא הכי זה‬,‫כלומר אני רואה לאיפה הם הולכים‬ .‫כל הכבוד חבל שאת לא הכי זה נו חכמה את לא רוצה לאכול חיות אל תאכלי רק תסתכלי טוב מה יקרה עם טיגריס יהיה רעב ;צריך לשים על זה דגש‬ ‫ זה נועד להיות ככה זה אבולוציה את רוצה לחזור אחורה בבקשה תתנ]ת[קי מחשמל תגורי במערה ותאכלי נבטים שמדושנים בחרא‬.... ‫והוא יראה קוף‬ ‫ ;של פרות‬English: thing, in the syntagm NOUN thing of approximation, when referring to concrete objects, not 127 Here are some instances: Modern Hebrew: Kvar lo taspik kvar! (June 2012); a rhetorical question, pronounced uninterruptedly, with a falling intonation at its end: Et mi anaxnu meramim et mi. (February 2013). See also rhetorical questions in Biblical Hebrew and Yiddish in paragraph (1) supra. Moreover, in some languages, the so+called “medium/middle voice” (see §3.2.1.3 below) – the literal construction of which is VERB + oneself / for oneself –, where the actor is thus signified twice, – both with the verb and through the reflexive pronoun –, is used with verbs of being angry, of complaining, and cursing.74 4. Emphasizing a fact at least, and alarm, anxiety, agitation at the most. In the following examples of pleonasm, taken from various languages, the first element will be italicized, the second, recurring one, will be in bold: (A) Emphasizing a fact: English: I do understand. [Viz., your complaint] (2010, a reaction of having a fellow feeling for the allocutor). Please note, that the nexus is focussed here, not the affirmation, – same in the next example. Analytically speaking, it is the verbal+lexeme element which is repeated, as illustrated below75: I do understand. defining them literally, but by way of that attributive NOUN, as an approximate definition or simile. Instances drawn from GloWbE: If I ever learn how to write a letter on this internet thing I’m going to ask for his autograph.; Now as you can probably tell from this blog thing, I write like I talk, and when it comes to grammar and such stuff I am a retarded.; I keep a plant mister spray bottle thing by my bedside. Man, this works like a charm.; Juno MacGuff: Ow, ow, fuckity ow! Bren, when do I get that spinal tap thing? Bren: It’s called a spinal block. And you can't have it yet, honey. The doctor said you’re not dilated enough.; Russian это самое; Polish ten ten. 74 A typological study in Kemmer 1993: 18. 75 This analysis is according to Goldenberg 1985. 128 ; ... but when his £3 million+a+year wages are thrown into the mix then it really does paint a dramatic picture of how big the difference is between United and the leading pack. (Internet); Modern Hebrew: .‫( אבל אסור לה לנערה העובדת להיות בקשר עם גבר לתפארת‬Internet); (said with excitement) Kama koax yeš la leyecira, lektiva, šenaaset becavta! (An event about poetry, August 2010); (ma) nišˀar lo leadam – sometimes emphasizing the statement, sometimes uttered affectedly, whereas the non+pleonastic ‘(ma) nišˀar leadam’ is more practical, more informative: examples on the Internet: .‫ כי נשאר לו לאדם הרצון החפשי‬,‫ אבל לא של שעבוד‬,‫הרי ;יש כאן רגש של תלות‬ ?‫ִיקס‬ ְ ‫ במיוחד אם הוא אוהד של הנ‬,‫ עד שלבסוף ]–[ האדם ]–[ ;מה כבר נשאר לו לאדם‬,‫ וכאשר הוא יהיה בפנסיה וכולי‬... .‫ ;נשאר לו לאדם רק מעט זמן להבין שכילה את זמנו לריק‬but: .‫פעם אחד המרצים שלי ;מה נשאר לאדם חוץ משמו הטוב‬ ?‫ אף אחד לא ;אמר שמה נשאר לאדם בערוב חייו אם לא הזכרונות שלו‬.‫ ללכת בשבילו‬, ‫מה נשאר לאדם? ללכת אל עצמו‬ .‫ ומה נשאר לאדם מכל המאה טון שהוא אכל? ;צריך ממנו טובות‬,‫ רק לנפץ מסגרות ומבנים של ;נו‬.‫מה נשאר לאדם כזה‬ ??? ‫ ולעשות איתנו סרט קטן ואנונימי‬.‫ לגור בדירת חדר ביפו‬.‫ אולי נציע לו לבוא לארץ‬.‫ ;עשייה‬an echo+construction, also called a sandwich+construction76: En lahem ma laasot bifnim ma laasot. (A security guard, prohibiting a certain group of people from entering, December 2011); in the following Modern Hebrew, Russian, and Polish examples, the deictic element ‘this’ at the beginning of a clause, is directed to all the next components of a clause, and thus, there is pleonasm: this = the rest of the clause: Modern Hebrew: Ze od haya min kaze, ata yodea, mašehu partizani kaze, nu, xaci maxtarti. Bakvišim haele hayiti nosea, – lo haya mesuman šum davar, v+ze haya carix lesartet (somewhat accentuated) et hamapot. Miefes. (One of those who made up Waze, – a GPS+based geographical navigation application program. Channel 10, Israel, Hammaqor, the very beginning of the report, December 10, 2014); Russian: Это я тебе всё перевела., ‘[You are wrong,] I have translated everything [written on this bottle] for you. (April 2014); Polish: Threats issued to a child are in the following instances: Ojciec wróci, to zobaczysz., ‘Father will return, – oh you will see then.’ (Internet, October 16, 2006); Ojciec wróci to wam dupska złoi w te i nazad..., ‘Your father will return, – you’ll get a good spanking...’ (Internet, February 19, 2013); (B) Alarm, anxiety, agitation: Judezmo: with tautological infinitive77: ‫נו איסטאס מיראנדו‬ ‫ נו סאביס‬,‫ אי איספונגאר איספונגו‬,‫ אי פריגאר פריגו‬,‫ נו סאביס י סו מוزיר‬,‫י איס ביزויי די טיניר איסטאס אונייאס‬ 76 Taube 1995: 397; 418: fn. 9. 77 Cf. Goldenberg 1971 about tautological infinitives. 129 ‫ נו סי מאדאמי ה מודירנה י מי לאס בו אלחינייאר אל‬,‫י טודה לה סוزיידאד סי אינטרה אי לאס אונייאס‬ .‫ אליבארדו או פאزירמי מאני ייור‬, DŽAMILA: No estás mirando ke es bizuy de tener estas unyas? No saves ke so mužer, i fregar frego, i espondžar espondžo? No saves ke toda la suzyedad se entra en las unyas? No se madamika moderna ke me las vo alxenyar al kalibardo o fazerme manikyur., ‘DŽAMILA: Don’t you see that it is a disgrace that I have these nails? Don’t you know that I am a woman, and I do rub, and I do mop floors? Don’t you know that all the dirt gets under the nails? I am not a modern lady who would paint her nails red (< a kalibardo colour < Giuseppe Garibaldi (1807 – 1882), an Italian general, whose volunteers were wearing red shirts78), or get a manicure.’ (Mesažero 4 :1265 (1939) – Bunis 1999b: 562 middle); in the colloquial Spanish: an example of an “inner object”79, here in a cleft sentence: ¡la caída que me caí!, ‘I fell with a wallop!’, ‘I spanked down hard!’80; Modern Hebrew: an echo+construction, also called a sandwich+construction81: Lo haya li kesef liknot [afilu] sendvič lo haya li! (October 2010); Efo hem dagim (as a verb) efo? (asked with a tone, demanding justly that mininal piece of information. Moshe Timor, radio – Reshet Bet, September 2012); tautological infinitive in Biblical and Modern Hebrew: Biblical Hebrew: ‫ִירהּ וַיֹּ֙א ֶמ ֙ר כּ ְ֣ת ֹנֶת ְבּ ִ֔ני ַח ָיּ ֥ה ָר ָ ֖עה ֲאכ ָָל֑תְ הוּ טָ ֥ר ֹף ט ַ ֹ֖רף‬ ֤ ָ ‫ַויַּכּ‬ ‫יוֹסֽף׃‬ ֵ (Gen. xxxvii 33)82; Modern Hebrew: 83.‫ אבוד אבד מאתנו נער‬:‫ והוציאו קול‬...; ‫א תִּ הְ יֶה‬ ‫ <( הָ יֹה‬Ezek. xx 32); Russian: The enclitic deictic element ‘то’, lit., ‘this / that’, points at the whole clause, or part of it, and thus, actually, repeats it: Вот чудеса+то в решете!; Как надоели+то!; moreover, in some languages, the so+called “medium/middle voice” (see §3.2.1.3 below) – the literal construction of which is VERB + oneself / for oneself –, where the actor is thus signified twice, – both with the verb and through the reflexive pronoun –, is used with verbs of being frightened, of regretting, and lamenting.84 78 Perez & Pimienta 2007: 192c. 79 Goldenberg 1971: §38+39: 76+77. 80 Varol+Bornes 2008: §4.4.1: 263. 81 Taube 1995: 397; 418: fn. 9. 82 I thank Professor Ariel Shisha+Halevy for this example. 83 Shmuel Yosef Agnon (1888 – 1970), "‫"מעשה רבי גדיאל התינוק‬, the story appears in Barux & Levinski 1948: 292+294, – p. 293. 84 A typological study in Kemmer 1993: 18. 130 5. Explanations, clarifications. Pleonasm, and specifically tail, is explainable in sentences which aim to clarify something, because some notions, being repeated therein, are by that means highlighted, and anchored more securely in the information flow85, and thus the clarification is made more effective.86 6. The rhematic87, or, at least, a highlighted, part in a long sentence – a cause, a conclusion, a deduction, etc. Such Judezmo pleonastic usages (by means of tail) will be exemplified in the respective subsection below. For other languages, cf. pleonastic constructions in Modern Hebrew, when presenting the main idea, (and then its details are listed): an echo+construction, also called a sandwich+construction88: Anaxnu mexapsim [liknot] šaloš mexoniyot anaxnu: ... (July 16, 2011); a tail: Šne tnaim hayu lo larav hanadiv: ... (A TV news report. Channel 10, Israel. May 2011); Veaz mašehu xašuv meod medagdeg lo leRafi Kac: Hu hexlit laxzor lecahal velihyot xoveš kravi. (Yosi ˀAlfi, '‫ חלק א‬,‫סיפורי סיירת מטכ"ל‬, at ‫פסטיבל מספרי סיפורים‬, TV, Channel 1, Israel. October 2010). 7. A protasis (in a conditional sentence). When one wishes to highlight the whole protasis, to make it more prominent, one may use tautology within it, and specifically tail. Compare the use of tautological infinitive in a protasis, – after ˀim, lu, etc. –, in Biblical Hebrew (“emphasizes the importance of the condition” – Gesenius 1909: §113o (2): 342+343); and compare also: Judezmo (Constantinople89) and Spanish si es que ..., ‘in case that ...’, lit., ‘if it is that ...’, being pleonastic, because the indefinite delocutive actor within es, ‘it’, points at the content clause ‘que ...’, ‘that ...’; Modern Hebrew: a tail: ‫ הרי כאן‬,‫ ואם יש לה ניגון לארץ הזאת‬... 90. 90. ‫בשירים אלה נדרך אחד היפים והברוכים במיתריה‬. 85 For the terminology anchoring and information flow, see §3.1.1. 86 Cf. another way of making a clarification more efficient, – by uttering the sentences more slowly. 87 For theme and rheme, see §3.1.1. 88 Taube 1995: 397; 418: fn. 9. 89 Wagner 1914: Part I: Text XII: 65: line 40. 90 Nathan Alterman, in the introduction to: Matti Kac (‫)מתי כ"ץ‬, ‫ ש יר י ם‬: ‫ עם בו א ש מש‬, 3rd edition, Tel Aviv: Lezixró, 1975, p. 11. 131 3.2.1.2.2.1.1 Tail in questions91 In the following examples, tails in question constructions are shown: (1) ‫לי דישו ראוב הנز' אה לאה שי לו ייריש טומאר פור דושי אישטי איס ודו די פרוטות דישו לאה‬ ‫בואינו‬, Le dišo Reˀuvén hanniz[kar] a Leˀá, si lo kyeres92 tomar por qiddušín este eskudo de peruṭot? Dišo Leˀá: “Bweno.”, ‘The aforementioned Reˀuvén told Leˀá, “Would you like to take as kiddushin this minute escudo93?” Leˀá said: “Good.”’ (Mahariṭ, Part II, ˀEven Haˁézer, no. 38, 28+30). (2) ‫פור י נו לו יטאשטיש שו באלה די ראוב ו טו רופה‬, Porké no lo94 kitastes su bala de Reˀuvén kon tu ropa?, ‘Why did you not take out Reˀuvén’s roll together with your clothes?’ (Torat Ḥayyim, Part I, no. 82, 65+66). (3) ‫ פור‬+‫ומו לוש שבטי לו אבוריסיירו אה יוס‬ ‫אי טירניש' י דימאנדאר ומו אונוש צדי י‬ ... ‫פאטראנייאש‬, I ternéš ke demandar, komo unos caddiqim komo los ševaṭim lo aborresyeron a Yosef por patranyas, ..., ‘And you will want to ask, how come the righteous persons like Jacob’s sons hated Joseph for petty matters, ...’ (Xulí, Meˁam Loˁez, Berešit, Parashah Vayyéšev, Ch. I, folio 182, page 2, line 57). (4) ?‫נו לי איגאטיס אדיש אטו מאדרי‬, BENUTA: Non le ečates kadiš a|tu madre?, (a rhetorical question95) ‘BENUTA: Haven’t you said kaddish over your mother?’ (Aksyón 11: 2953(?) (1939); Bunis 1999b: 417 bottom). 91 Spanish examples: ¿Qué §40.4c: 2986); ¿Qué pasa regaló Clara ?, ‘What gift did Clara give to her son?’ (GRAE: Vol. II: ?, ‘What is going on with my mom?’ (cited in CORDE: Arturo Azuela, El tamaño del infierno, Madrid: Jorge Rodríguez Padrón, Cátedra, 1985, [País: México]); ¿Qué pasa [,] doctor?, ‘What is happening to my teddy bear, doctor?’ (A title, having appeared on TVE [=Televisión Española], Spain, – a certain news report about children, March 25, 2011). 92 Indirect speech switching to direct speech. 93 Probably, as opposed to another kind of eskudo used in the monetary system at the time. 94 Here there is no gender agreement with the nominal phrase. Or it was mistakenly written lo instead of le, ‘for him’, ‘for his sake’, in which case there would be no tautology. 95 This is why this example also belongs to the category ANGER+COMPLAINT+CRITICISM (§3.2.1.2.2.1.3 below). 132 3.2.1.2.2.1.2 Tail in clauses expressing directive modality One finds such use in sentences incorporating verbs in the imperative and jussive moods. 3.2.1.2.2.1.2.1 Imperative mood Imperative mood is mood that signals directive modality96, especially in commands; its use may be extended to signal permission.97 Examples98: (1) +‫דאלי אונה טאסא די וינו אה יוס‬, Dale una tasa de vino a Yosef., ‘Give a cup of wine to Yosef.’ (Maharšax, Part III, no. 59, 10). (2) .‫בה ונטאסילו אה דיליסייה טו אירמאנה‬, DŽAMILA: Va kóntaselo a Delisya tu ermana., ‘DŽAMILA: Go tell it to your sister Delisya.’ (Mesažero 2: 556 (1937); Bunis 1999b: 386 middle). (3) .‫ אי איס ריבילי דוס פאלאבראס אל באלאבאיי‬,‫אסינטאטי או פונטו‬, BENUTA: Aséntate un punto, i eskrívele dos palavras al balabay., ‘BENUTA: Sit awhile, and write a few words to my man.’ (Aksyón 10: 2757 (1938); Bunis 1999b: 506 bottom). (4) ‫ אי דימאנדאלי מיאולייו י טי‬,‫ סולו פאגאלי אל שמש דילה לולה‬,‫– י ייס י טי טראגה? –נאדה‬ .‫ או מאס אטאגינטו ו טו פאנאטיزמו‬,‫מאנדי דילוס סיילוס פארה ביר סי איס אינביירנאדה י מוס בה ביניר‬, BOXOR: Ke kyes ke te traga? DŽAMILA: Nada, solo págale al samás99 de|la lulá, i demándale meoyo ke te manden de|los syelos para ver si es envyernada ke mos va venir, o mas atagento kon tu fanatizmo., ‘BOXOR: What do you want me to bring you? DŽAMILA: Nothing, just pay the 96 See above, §3.2.1.2.2.1, paragraph (2). 97 Glossary of Linguistic Terms, the entry ‘imperative mood’; Palmer 1986: 29, 97, 108, 111. More on the imperative mood and its various facets, – in Jespersen 1963: Ch. XXIII (“Moods”): 313+315. 98 Examples of tail in Spanish: Da un abrazo ., ‘Send a hug to your parents.’ (Le for les in Spanish, having been in certain periods, and being a common phenomenon nowadays. – Lapesa §116.9: 472. Also occasionally in Constantinople Judezmo, Wagner 1914: Part II: §75: 127; in Portuguese and Mirandese – see ibid.); DA DE COMER ! , ‘Give food to your nerve cells’ (A text title, from a DELE test [= Diplomas de Español como Lengua Extranjera], issued by Instituto Cervantes, 2008); Da un pedazo de pastel " ., ‘Give a piece of cake to the child.’ (Internet, WordReference English+Spanish Dictionary, the entry ‘pedazo’). 99 ‫שמש‬, i.e., Hebrew ‘šammaš’. 133 attendant of the palm frond100, and ask him for brains, to be sent to you from above, in order to see whether it is winter time that will come to us, or more trouble from your fanatism.’ (Mesažero 2: 578 (1937); Bunis 1999b: 473 bottom). (5) “Byen”, dišo el rey, “traeldo akí este pato.”, “Good”, said the king, “bring (pl.) here this (golden) goose.” (Constantinople, Wagner 1914: Part I: Text V: 27: line 60). (6) La gayina de la kuzina/ La gayina de la kuzina/ Dale a gostar a la vizina/ Ke le sea milizina/ En shabbat de Hanuká /Leadlik ner shel Hanuká, ‘The chicken in the kitchen,/ The chicken in the kitchen –,/ Give it to the neighbour, for her to taste it/ And get well,/ On the Hanukkah Sabbath,/ Lighting a Hanukka candle.’ (From “Da’ki’l tas”, a Hanukkah song, Turkey, in Koén+Sarano 1993: 37).101 However, the examined phenomenon probably does not apply to the case in the sentence: .‫ אניסטה ו ונה‬,‫ארימאטאלה‬, BOXOR: Aremáta , # # ., ‘BOXOR: I am fed up with her (lit., ‘Take her away’), with that coquette.’ (Mesažero 2: 578 (1937); Bunis 1999b: 473 bottom), where the nominal phrase – an apposition – was added to express degrading treatment. 3.2.1.2.2.1.2.2 Jussive mood Jussive mood is a directive mood that signals a speaker’s command, permission, or agreement that the proposition expressed by his or her utterance be brought about; jussive mood is typically applicable in the first and third person.102 Examples: (1) ‫י טייני אינפישאדו אה‬ ‫לוס ליברוש י סי אלייארי סיר סולייוש ומו אנשי מישמו דוש ספרי‬ ‫ גו שמעו‬#‫איש ריויר לה מיטאד די דיג'וש ליברוש אי או ספר שי לידי אשו אי‬, Los livros ke se ayaren ser suyos, komo ansí mesmo dos sefarim ke tyene enpesado a eskrivir, – la metad de dičos livros i un séfer se le|de a|su ižo Šimˁón, ‘The books that will be found to be his, as well as two Torah scrolls that he has begun writing, – half of the said books and one Torah scroll (of the two) should be given to his son, Šimˁón.’ (Kérem Šelomó, Ḥošen Mišpaṭ, no. 71, 26+29). 100 Both Mishnaic Hebrew šammaš and Hebrew lulav may imply a male private part (for šammaš, see Even+Shoshan 2003: Vol. VI: 1923a). 101 I thank Anabella Esperanza and Dr. Michal Held for this example. 102 Glossary of Linguistic Terms, the entry ‘jussive mood’; Palmer 1986: 10, 24, 39+40, 96,110, 113. 134 (2) See §3.2.1.2.2.3.2, example (2). (3) ... '‫ אל מוגאגו‬#‫ אי ליש דיריש י לו דישי‬... , ... i les direš, ke lo dešen al mučačo, ..., ‘... and tell them to set the lad (or: the servant) free, ...’ (Maharašdam, Ḥošen Mišpaṭ, no. 5, 35+36). (4) ‫ איל פארמאסיי דישו אה מאחיל די מיטיר אי‬,‫אפי די דיزבאראסארסי אי נו טיניר מאס דיס וסייוניס‬ .‫או פאפיל או פו ו די פולבו אדורמיסידור י נו אزי נינגו דאנייו אי די דארסילו אה סימאלייה‬, Afín de dezbarasarse i no tener mas diskusyones, el farmasyén dišo a Maxel de meter en un papel un poko de polvo adormesedor ke no aze ningún danyo i de dárselo a Semayá., ‘In order to free himself from this trouble, and have no more discussions, the pharmacist told Maxel to put into a piece of paper a little bit of soporific powder, that does not do any harm, and give it to Semayá.’ (El Rizón 12: 36 (1938); Bunis 1999b: 579 middle). (5)103 ‫י מאנירה י נו לו סיינטה אל ביزיני ו די אריבה י מי אברי לוס מיאולייוס אי ונטאנדומי טודו‬ .‫לו י סי פאסה פור איל מונדו‬, DŽAMILA: Ke manera ke no lo syenta al veziniko de ariva ke me avre los meoyos en kontándome todo loke se pasa por el mundo., ‘DŽAMILA: How do you expect me not to listen to the upstairs neighbour, who opens the mind by telling me everything that is happening all over the world.’ (Mesažero 4: 1125 (1939); Bunis 1999b: 430 top). More instances: Maharašdam, Ḥošen Mišpaṭ, no. 148, (folio 108, page 1), 54+55; Divré Rivot, no. 124, (folio 73, page 1), 5+7; Paraḥ Maṭṭé ˀAharón, Part I, no. 121, (folio 208, page 1), 22+23. 3.2.1.2.2.1.3 Tail in clauses representing anger, complaint, or criticism Below, we can see tail in clauses representing anger, complaint, or criticism. Examples: (1) ‫ נו סאביס י אינטרי לאס מואיסטראס איי טיפוס י‬.‫אח! יزרה ריגאלאדו נו ונוסיס אאינדה אל מונדו‬ ‫ לו יטה דיל מונדו‬,‫ לה ביס אה איסטה סאנטה אי פייאנטה‬. ‫איל דייו י נו מוס אפריבי די בו אס ניגראס י טייני‬ ‫ י נו לי בינגה אה מאנ אר אלגונה וزה סי לה ביבי‬.‫אל מארידו סי נו לה ייבה אונה ביز לה סימאנה אל סינימה‬ 103 This example also belongs to the categories: QUESTIONS (§3.2.1.2.2.1.1 above, this is a rhetorical question) and ANGER, COMPLAINT, CRITICISM (§3.2.1.2.2.1.3 below). 135 ‫ י לה ביאס אה איסטה ארה די סארטי ומו סי פאסה מושוס אי ולור סי‬.‫לה סאנגרי ו אנייוטה די פייררו‬ ‫בה סאבה אה לאס איزנוגאס דיל אל אי אה לה בואילטה מואירטה פור אררובאר דיל زארزאבאגי או מאסו די‬ .‫איספינא ה או לו י לי בייני‬, BENUTA: Ax! Ezrá regalado, no konoses ainda al mundo. No saves ke entre las mwestras ay tipos ke el Dyo ke no mos apreve de bokas negras ke tyenen. La ves a esta santa i pyanta, lo kita del mundo al marido si no la yeva una vez la semana al sinemá. Ke no le venga a mankar alguna koza se la beve la sangre kon kanyuta de fyerro. Ke la veas a esta kara de sartén komo se pasa mušos i kolor si va sabá a las eznogas del kal i a la bwelta mwerta por arrovar del zarzavačí un maso de espinaka o loke le vyene., ‘BENUTA: Ah! Precious Ezrá, you have yet to understand the world. You don’t know that among us women there are “cases”, with whose dirty mouths I wish God wouldn’t test us. You see that holier+than+thou, – she would exterminate her husband, if he didn’t take her to the cinema once a week. If she’s lacking anything, she completely humiliates him. Now look at this pan face, – what amount of lipstick and colour she puts on, when she goes on the Sabbath to the synagogue’s women’s gallery, and immediately after, she feels like stealing a bunch of spinach or anything else that comes to hand at the greengrocer’s.’ (Aksyón 12: 3214 (1940); Bunis 1999b: 478 bottom – 479 top). (2) ‫ אדה אורה אי אדה פונטו‬... ‫מה נו איס ו מי י מי לה א‬, BENUTA: Ma no es kon mi ke me la ka[ges] kada ora i kada punto., ‘BENUTA: But it is not all right with me that you denigrate each and every hour and minute (we spent together).’ (Aksyón 10: 2797 (1938); Bunis 1999b: 395 bottom). (3)104 ‫– י אלגונה סיחורה ו טו נואירה? –נו ברי דישאלה אניסטה אראפוסה י סי איסטה פידיינדו‬ ... ,‫ סי מי נואירה סי פיידי טייני ריגאלו די מארידו‬,‫א אנייפוס‬, BENUTA: Ke, alguna sexorá kon tu nwera? EZRÁ: No bre, déšala anesta karapusa ke se está fidyendo a kanyifos. Si mi nwera se fyede, tyene regalo de marido; ..., ‘BENUTA: What, some melancholy about your daughter+in+law? EZRÁ: No, now, just forget about that dull brain, who is stinking herself up with a stench (of perfume). If my daughter+in+law stinks herself, her husband gave her a present; ...’ (Aksyón 11: 2879 (1939); Bunis 1999b: 491 bottom – 492 top). 104 But cf. the note and the example at the very end of §3.2.1.2.2.1.2.1 supra. This example also belongs to the category DIRECTIVE MODALITY (IMPERATIVE MOOD) (§3.2.1.2.2.1.2.1 above). 136 3.2.1.2.2.1.4 Tail in clauses in which one wishes to emphasize a fact at least, or expresses alarm, anxiety, agitation at the most The examples set forth below will illustrate the use of tail in clauses in which one wishes to emphasize a fact at least, or expresses alarm, anxiety, agitation at the most: (1) ‫או פורי אישטאנדו בואינה בעת ההיא פ'אשטה י פ'אבלארו באزניו י מאנדאשי פריزינטי ינו‬ ‫ נו גמור לו טורנארו אשו‬105‫ יאה ביי אי אילייו אי לו טומו בהשﭏת אי ומו שינטיירו י לו פיزו שלח מו‬#‫פאز‬ ‫דואינייו איל פריزינטי‬, Un purim, estando bwena baˁet hahiˀ, fasta ke favlaron beˀoznav ke mandase prezente, ke|no fazia byen en eyo, i lo tomó behašˀalat, i komo sentyeron ke lo fizo šélaḥ(?)106 ma[not] non gamur, lo tornaron a|su dwenyo el prezente., ‘One Purim – when she was healthy –, until he was told to send a present, he had (already) done it rather badly, having borrowed it, and when it was realized that he had made an incomplete mishloach manot, (since it had been borrowed), the present was returned to its owner.’ (Maharšax, Part IV, folio 24, page 1, – no. 16, 66+69). (2) ‫אי דישו אגורה אישטו בוראגו אי נו שי לו י דירי ואנדו מי שי אנט]ר[וגארה לו דירי י אגורה אישטו‬ ‫בוראגו אי נושאוטרוש וימוש י נו אישטאוה בוראג'ו י שו כוונה אירה פור טופארשי ו לוש עדי פארה ויר‬ ‫ שאטי גוליר פארה ויר שי אישטאש בוראג'ו פור י ויא י נו אויאה‬#‫ שו אונו די‬#‫ גו אי אאו י לי די‬#‫ומו אויא די‬ ‫ביבידו וינו‬, I dišo: “Agora estó borračo, i no se lo|ke diré. Kwando me se ente[rr]ogará, lo diré ke agora estó borračo.” I nosotros vimos ke no estava borračo, ke su kavvaná era por toparse kon los ˁedim, para ver, komo avian dičo, i aún ke le dišo uno: “Déšate goler, para ver si estás borračo”, – porke vian ke no avia bevido vino., ‘And he said: “Now I am drunk, and I do not know what I am going to say. (So) when I am asked, I will say that right now I am drunk, (and nothing more).” And we saw that he was not drunk, that his intention was to meet with the witnesses, in order to see, how they had set out their testimonies, – and (he stated he was drunk) 105 Should be, probably, '‫מ‬. 106 Cf. Yiddish ‫שלח מנות‬, [ʃ(a)laxˈmones], which is mishloach manot – gifts of food or drink that are sent to family, friends and others on Purim day. 137 although someone told him: “Let me smell you to see whether you are drunk”, – because people saw that he had not drunk wine.’ (Maharšax, Part IV, no. 89, 31+36). (3) .‫אמא מי לה יטארו לה אלמה י מי דישירו י נו איסטאבאס בואינה‬, EZRÁ: Amán, me la kitaron la alma ke me dišeron ke no estavas bwena., ‘EZRÁ: Oh, dear, they tore my soul apart, telling me you were not well.’ (Aksyón 11: 3067 (1939); Bunis 1999b: 519 bottom). (4) ‫ייה לו סאביס סי דובדו י לוס טור וס אינגי סוס חארימיס די גובינאס איزאס י אزי ביניר דיל‬ .‫ אב אز‬, Ya lo saves sin duvdo, ke los turkos inčen sus xaremes de džóvenas ižas ke azen venir del Kavkaz., ‘You know it without doubt, that the Turks fill their harems with young girls whom they bring from the Caucasus.’ (Ester Matalón, Ch. 6, p. 28 bottom). In this sentence the content clause107 is more emphasized, as opposed to a non+tautological instance: ‫ייה סאביס י לאס‬ !‫גיר יزאס סו לאס מיزוריס מוزיריס י אינגי לוס חארימיס‬, Ya saves ke las čerkezas son las mižores mužeres ke inčen los xaremes!, ‘You know, that the Circassians are the best women who populate the harems!’ (ibid., ibid., ibid.).108 (5) A threat issued by a parent to a child, in the Salonika dialect: Mira ke se lo vo a dezir al rubí., ‘Watch out, otherwise, I will tell the rubí (the teacher in a xavrá – a religious primary school).’ (Nehama 1977: 485c). (6) A ludicrous threat issued by a husband to his sour+tempered wife: Moška moška! Le vo a dezir a mi Sinyó ke te kaze, ‘Oh, fly, oh, fly! [Do not bother me, or] I am going to tell my father to marry you off.’ (Nehama 1977: 282b). (7) (A title:) Finalmente lo sinti a Edmond! (Within the text following it:) ... oy, finalmente fue un grande plazer poder sentir la emision de Edmond ... !, ‘I heard Edmond at last! [who has a radio program] ... today, it finally was a great pleasure to be able to hear Edmond’s radiocast ... !’109 (Ladinokomunita, January 26, 2012). 107 Jespersen’s term (Jespersen 1965: Part 3 (Syntax), Vol. 2: 23; Ornan 2009: 142; Jespersen 2010: “The system of grammar” (1933): §33+35: 269). 108 Cf. also the persuasive expression ‘God knows that .. .’, el Šem Yitbarax lo save ke ... (Leḥem Rav, no. 203, (folio 112, page 1), 9+10), vs. el Dyo / el Šem Yitbarax save ke ... (Maharašdam, Ḥošen Mišpaṭ, no. 148, (folio 108, page 1), 56+58; Maharḥaš, no. 56, (folio 217, page 2, column I), 86+88 and 93+94). 109 Thanks to Professor David Bunis for clearing this example up for me. 138 Another example from a Džoxá110 story (dízile palavras … ke token # $ !) see in §3.2.1.2.2.2.2.1 below, example (1). 3.2.1.2.2.1.5 Tail in clauses purposing to explain or clarify111 Below are examples of tail in clauses whose purpose is to explain or clarify: (1) See §3.2.1.2.2.3.2, example (2). 110 Džoxá is a famous character in funny stories and anecdotes of the Sephardi Ottoman folklore, and also of the folklore of the neighbouring residents in the Ottoman region. 111 Cf. in Spanish: PROPER NAME le mandó a su padre OBJECT (A paper delivered at a conference, 2010. The clause was uttered slowly and accentuatedly, within a narration. This fact was meaningful for the paper and the whole story); Decíase él: si yo por malos de mis pecados, ó por mi buena suerte me encuentro por ahí con algun gigante, como de ordinárío acontece , y le derribo de un encuentro, ó le parto por mitad del % cuerpo, ó finalmente le venzo y le rindo, ...(Cervantes 1833: Part I: Vol. I: Ch. I: 20), ‘“If,” said he, “for my sins, or rather, through my good fortune, I encounter some giant – an ordinary occurrence to knights errant – and overthrow him at the first onset, or cleave him in twain, or, in short, vanquish him and force him to surrender, ...”’ (Cervantes 1885: Vol. I: Ch. I: 41); Ella está convencida que «monsito», como llama & " , la libró y la mantiene sana y alejada de la enfermedad del cáncer, que hace 30 años estuvo a punto de quitarle la vida y la llevó por un calvario., ‘She is convinced, that monsito, – the way she calls Monseñor Romero –, saved her, and keeps her healthy, and away from cancer, which was going to take her life 30 years ago, being a torment to her.’ (Internet, the newspaper Diario Co Latino, San Salvador, El Salvador, “El Santo de muchos feligreses se llama Monseñor Romero”, March 24, 2010); Los cínicos como los miembros de dicho clan, consideran que su forma de vivir es la parte fundamental de la filosofía de vida que permite obtener poder y control social., ‘The cynics, as members of the said group, consider their way of life to be the fundamental part of the philosophy of life, which enables them to gain power and social control.’ (Orlando N. Gomez, La bendición de los buitres, Bloomington, Indiana: AuthorHouse, 2012, p. 112); Puede ver su carpeta de antecedentes como una prueba de su trabajo que pueden ver sus clientes y empleadores potenciales, y que permite evaluar sus habilidades profesionales i su pericia en el arte del maquillaje., ‘You can see your C.V. folder as an indication of your work, which may be seen by your clients and potential employers, and which enables them to evaluate your professional skills and your experience in the art of make+up.’ (Instruction as to how one can publish a personal Webpage, and so on, in: Michelle D’Allaird et al., Milady estándar: Maquillaje, translated into Spanish from English (Milady Standard: Makeup), Clifton Park, New York: Milady, 2012, p. 453); in a dictionary definition: ‘botana’: 5. f. Cuba. Espuela postiza que se le pone al gallo para pelear., ‘botana: 5. feminine. Cuba. An artificial spur put upon a (fighting) cock for cockfighting’ (RAE Dictionary, the entry ‘botana’). 139 (2)112 ‫אי די איסטו סי פריב'א י איל י טייני דוש איג'וש י לוש ב'יסטה די או מודו אי נו ריגאלי אל‬ ‫אונו מאס י אל אוטרו פור י סי רי ריסי מונג'ו דאנייו י איל סילו לו יטא אל אומברי דיל מונדו סיגו ב'ימוש אי‬ ‫י נו אירה טא וزה גראנדי‬ . ‫ מאס י סוס אירמאנוש אאו‬+‫י פור דיטה אמיزה י איزו יע ב אה יוס‬ ‫לוש שבטי‬ ‫פ'ואי אב'زה י לו אבוריסיירו אי סי רי ריסייו מונג'ו דיزאסטרי‬, I de esto se preva ke el ken tyene dos ižos, ke los vista de un modo, i no regale al uno mas ke al otro, porke se rekrese munčo danyo, ke el selo lo kita al ombre del mundo, según vemos en los ševaṭim, ke por dita kamiza ke izo Yaˁaqov a Yosef mas ke sus ermanos, aún ke no era tan koza grande, fwe kavza ke lo aborresyeron, i rekresyó munčo dezastre., ‘From this it is proved that a person having two sons, should dress them in like manner, and should not make presents to one more than to the other, because there grows up great harm, as jealousy moves a person out from the world, – the way we see it regarding Jacob’s sons, that because of the aforementioned shirt which Jabob made for Joseph (only), and not for his brothers – although this may seem petty and minor – they hated him, and there developed a great disaster.’ (Xulí, Meˁam Loˁez, Berešit, Parashah Vayyéšev, Ch. I, folio 182, page 2, lines 12+16). . (3) ‫ אי פור אב'יزו די איסטו דיزי‬+‫ מונג'אס וزאס י טוב'ו יע ב לו מיزמו טוב'ו יוס‬,‫ וכ על زה הדר‬... . +‫ירי דיزיר י טודו לו י לי אל ונטיסייו אה יע ב לי אל ונטיסייו אה יוס‬ . +‫איל פסו אלה תולדות יע ב יוס‬, ... vexén ˁal ze haddérex munčas kozas ke tuvo Yaˁaqov, lo mezmo tuvo Yosef. I por avizo de esto, dize el pasuq ˀÉlle toledot Yaˁaqov Yosef. Kere dezir ke todo lo ke le alkontesyó a Yaˁaqov le alkontesyó a Yosef., ‘In this manner, many things that Jacob had, Joseph had as well. And in order to tell this, the verse reads ˀÉlle toledot Yaˁaqov Yosef113 (These are the generations of Jacob. Joseph, ... 114). That is to say, everything that had happened to Jacob, happened to Joseph too.’ (Xulí, Meˁam Loˁez, Berešit, Parashah Vayyéšev, Ch. I, folio 182, page 2, lines 2+4). 112 This example belongs also to the category §3.2.1.2.2.1.6 below. 113 Gen. xxxvii 2. 114 A translation in the King James Bible. 140 (4) ‫אי איל زכות די מי סינייורה מאדרי רחל י אירה אונה מוג'יר אלייאדה י נו אב'לאב'ה דיל טודו אי‬ ‫טוב'ו אב'יزו די לה ונג'אדה די לב י לי דייו אה נואיסטרו פאדרי אה סו אירמאנה לאה אי סו לוגאר אי נו אב'לו‬ ‫א יל زכות מי רימידייארה‬, I el ze+/zaxú(θ) de mi senyora madre Raḥel, ke era una mužer kayada, ke no avlava del todo, i tuvo avizo de la končada de Laván, ke le dyo a nwestro padre a su ermana Leˀá en su lugar, i no avló, – akel ze+/zaxú(θ) me remedyará., ‘And the kindness of my honoured mother Rachel, who was a taciturn woman, not talking at all, and was given notice of Laban’s deception, – which was giving her sister Leah to our father, in her stead –, keeping silent, – that kindness will help me.’ (Xulí, Meˁam Loˁez, Berešit, Parashah Vayyéšev, Ch. I, folio 182, page 2, lines 43+45). (5) Ebreo + zemiroth – literarmente: kantigas, nombre de unos kapitolos de Teilim ke se dizen antes de la ‘Keriyat Shema’ de la menyana, a propozito de trayerlo al dovadji en un estado kontemplativo – para ke podra dezir ‘Shema Yisrael’ kon la kavana., ‘[From] Hebrew, zemiroth, literally ‘singings’, a name for some Psalms chapters, pronounced before the morning Shema Yisrael, so as to lead the praying person to contemplation, in order for him to utter Shema Yisrael intentionally.’ (La megila de Saray, Ch. I, p. 20, fn. 30). 3.2.1.2.2.1.6 Tail in a long sentence, in which it signals the rhematic115, or, at least, a highlighted clause, representing a cause, a conclusion, a deduction, etc. Examples of such cases are provided below: (1) See example (1) in §3.2.1.2.2.1.5 above. (2) ‫אי דיزי י איל כתונת אירה איל ויסטידו י אב'יאה טומאדו יע ב די עשו ואנדו לי מיר ו לה בכורה‬ ‫אי אירה די אד הראשו אי טודו י אירה בכור לי ונב'יניאה ויסטירלו אי שיינדו סי יטו לה בכורה די ראוב‬ ‫ פור בכור אי סו לוגאר סיגו אב'יزארי אי לה פרשה די ויחי פור איסטו לו‬+‫פור א יל ליירי ו י איزו אי אינטרו יוס‬ . ‫ב'יסטייו דיטו כתונת‬, I dizen ke el kuttónet era el vestido ke avia tomado Yaˁaqov de ˁEsav, kwando le merkó la bexorá, i era de ˀAdam harišón, i todo ken era bexor, le konvenia vestirlo; i syendo se kitó la bexorá de Reˀuvén por akel yerriko ke izo, i entró Yosef por bexor en su lugar, 115 For theme and rheme, see §3.1.1. 141 según avizaré en la parašá de Vayḥí, – por esto lo vistyó dito kuttónet., ‘And they say that this shirt had been the item of clothing which Jacob had taken from Esau, having bought the birthright from him, and it had been Adam’s. And it was accepted that everyone who was firstborn, would wear it. Since Reuben lost his birthright, due to that mistake he had made, and Joseph received the birthright in his stead, – as I shall relate in Parashah Vayḥí –, – it is for that reason he wore the aforesaid shirt.’ (Xulí, Meˁam Loˁez, Berešit, Parashah Vayyéšev, Ch. I, folio 182, page 2, lines 16+19). . (3) ‫אי סאב'ידו איס י סי ראוב אבוריסי אה שמעו לו מיزמו שמעו לו אבוריסי אה ראוב‬, I savido es, ke si Reˀuvén aborrese a Šimˁón, lo mezmo Šimˁón lo aborrese a Reˀuvén., ‘And it is known, that if Reuben hates Simeon, then Simeon hates Reuben.’ (Xulí, Meˁam Loˁez, Berešit, Parashah Vayyéšev, Ch. I, folio 182, page 2, lines 61+62). (4) “Yo se manyatizmo, ke lo manyatizeo a la persona, i mi xaver116 entra kada noče kom mi džuntos a la xazné del rey i mos yevamos parás.”, “I practise mesmerism: I mesmerize a person, and then my friend and I, together, enter the king’s treasury, and take ourselves some money.” (Constantinople, Wagner 1914: Part I: Text VI: 33: line 22+25). 3.2.1.2.2.1.7 Tail in a protasis (in a conditional sentence) We can observe instances in which tail shows up in the protasis of a conditional sentence: (1) ‫ סי לי פאבלאבאס אה אנרי פילו י ייה פאزי פלאزיר אל מונדו‬.‫ י נו טי ייزיטיס ביניר טו‬,‫ ברי‬,‫אח‬ .‫ נאדה נאדה פור י סוס מוزיר די טיאו יزרה‬,‫אינטירו נו טי איאה אה ידיאר‬, EZRÁ: Ax, bre, ke no te kyižites venir tu. Si le favlavas a Anrí Pilo ke ya faze plazer al mundo entero, no te ia a kidear, nada nada, porke sos mužer de Tio Ezrá., ‘EZRÁ: It’s too bad that you didn’t want to come. If only you had talked to Anrí Pilo, who does favours for the whole world, he wouldn’t have grudged you absolutely anything, because you are Uncle Ezrá’s wife.’ (Aksyón 11: 3067 (1939); Bunis 1999b: 520 top). (2) Si por enshemplo lo forsan a uno de echarse al “Melting Pot” i lo forsan mismo a abandonar su relijion, entonses la otra parte esta reklamando demaziado i es kontra los derechos 116 < Heb. ḥaver. 142 umanos., ‘If, for instance, one is forced to throw oneself into the melting pot, and even to give up one’s religion, then the other party is demanding too much, and speaks out against human rights.’ (Ladinokomunita, October 27, 2008). (3) ... ,‫ אי ואנדו סי לו ונטו אמי נואירה סי פאزי ו וס אי מו וס‬... , BOXOR: ... i kwando se lo konto a|mi nwera se faze kokos i mokos., ‘BOXOR: ... and when I tell this to my daughter+in+ law, she makes a joke out of it.’ (Mesažero 4: 1021 (1939); Bunis 1999b: 552 top). (4) Dišo el rey: “Kwando alevanto el dedo, s’emforka la persona, i kwando l’abašo la mano, lo abašan de la forka.”, ‘The king said: “When I raise my finger, the person is hung, and when I let my hand down, he is removed from the gallows.”’ (Constantinople, Wagner 1914: Part I: Text VI: 33: lines 26+29). 3.2.1.2.2.2 In Erzählte Welt117 transmission 3.2.1.2.2.2.1 Examples having minimal oppositions The addition of an object pronoun to an objectival noun or nominal phrase expresses the object pleonastically. In this state, in Erzählte Welt, viz., in narrative, we come across the semantic features of pleonasm presented earlier in §3.1.3.1.1. This can best be seen in a text where the two sorts of syntagms are included – one having an object pronoun added, and one which does not. Further on, there will be demonstrated two texts and further sentences, mostly from the Early Middle Period of Judezmo (1493 – c. 1728)118, drawn from the rabbinical responsa corpus. The relevant syntagms or elements are in bold. See §3.1.3.1.1 for meanings that the pleonastic uses may carry; my cinematographic and other interpretations will be provided in superscripted and marginal notes in grey as well as in footnotes, those are (see below): EXAMPLE (1), lines 11+12, and similarly also in EXAMPLE (2), lines 23+24, 105+106, and 113+114: slowing down the narrative pace; close+up; EXAMPLE (2): lines 61+62: slowing down the narrative pace; close+up; zoom in; slow motion; freeze; lines 72+73: an attenuated, non+tautological instance, – see fn. 133; lines 101+102: a trivial non+tautological reporting clause, in contrast with the 117 See §1.1. 118 Bunis 1992: 405+407. 143 tautological ones on account of their position before the decisive betrothal declarations or suggestions in lines 23+24, 105+106, and 113+114, – see fn. 134. Moreover, we shall see in the following instances of reporting clauses, that when they have pleonasm, being thus more salient, prominent, the direct or indirect speech following them is more prominent too (see our adoption of Newton’s Third Law in §3.1.3.1.2).119 In EXAMPLE (1), note that the non+tautological clause ‘Dišo ribí Yosef a|los ˁedim’ has no ‘i’ preceding it, which means that the juncture, i.e., the degree of linkage120, between this reporting clause and the narration before it, is strong, which is also a sign of lightness, unaccentuatedness of this clause. In EXAMPLE (2), the following three tautological–non+tautological Hebrew and Judezmo pairs are set off in contrast: (i) ˀamar PROPER NOUN "PROPER NOUN (ii) dišo PROPER NOUN "PROPER NOUN PROPER NOUN ˀamar NOMINAL PHRASE dišo "PROPER NOUN dišo PROPER NOUN "PROPER NOUN (iii) dyo PROPER NOUNactor NOMINAL PHRASEobj % dyo PROPER NOUNactor NOMINAL PHRASEobj % PROPER NOUN ' ' PROPER NOUN121 119 Similarly, also in Mahariṭac Haḥadašot, Part I, no. 25b, (page 41, column 1), 6+11, vs. 18+20. 120 For the definition of juncture, see Matthews 1997: 192. For usage of this term in relation to syntax, cf. Shisha+ Halevy 2004. 121 Another pleonastic instance with the verb dar may be seen in a text written by Mošé Cazés, in Bunis 1999b: 256 in the Hebrew section (268 in the English section): the third paragraph from the end of the page: ‫לי דייו אה מי פאדרי‬, le dyo a mi padre, ‘he gave (it) to my father’. 144 The examples: EXAMPLE (1): Divré Rivot, no. 3 (also in Maharašdam, ˀEven Haˁézer, no. 8) – perhaps, Salonika or the Salonika region, the 16th century: ‫ היה‬,‫מעשה שהיה כ‬ 1 ‫שהבחורה דונה נכנסה‬ 2 ‫ והיו‬+‫בבית רבי יוס‬ 3 ‫ לדונה‬+‫ הנز'כמו עשרה زהובי ואמר לה רבי יוס‬+‫ביד רבי יוס‬ 4 ‫הנزכרת תרצי אלו הزהובי פור ידושי פרה אונה אדינה אز‬ 5 ‫אמרה לו פונילדוש אי שואילו אי לוש טומארי אישטונסיש פוزו‬ 6 ‫ הנز' או דו אדו אי שואילו אי בינו לה מוסה אי טומו‬+‫רבי יוס‬ 7 ‫ שו‬#‫איל דו אדו אי בולטו לאש אישפאלדאש פארה אירשי אי די‬ 8 ‫ומו‬ ‫ גו אלוש י אליי אישטאבא שידמי עדי‬#‫ איל די‬+‫רבי יוס‬ 9 ‫לו טומו פור דושי زה העיד בתורת עדות משה באשה‬ 10 +‫ שו רבי יוס‬#‫ שו ומו לי די‬#‫באותה שעה בא משה פראנ ו אי די‬ 11 ‫ייש אישטוש דו אדוש פור דושי פארה אונה‬ 123 122 '‫הנز' לדונה הנز‬ ‫ שו לה מוסה פו אונו איניל שואילו אילו פושו אי‬#‫אדינה אידי‬ 13 ‫ אלוש עדי‬+‫ שו ר' יוס‬#‫לו טומו לה מוסה אי אילייא י שיאיבה די‬ 14 ‫י לו טומו פור דושי ילמדנו רבינו א יש‬ 122 12 ‫שידמי עדי‬ 15 This tautological addressee+object construction with verba dicendi is also found in some other languages, as pointed out by Blau (1958: 189): in medieval Judeo+Arabic (e.g., ‫וקאלו לה ללחארס‬, ‘and they said (‘to him’ added) to the security guard’), Mishnaic Hebrew (‫אמרו לו לר' עקיבא‬, ‘they said (‘to him’ added) to Rabbi Akiva’; also cf. in our texts, e.g., here, lines 4+5), Aramaic, the Arabic dialect of Dhofar (in Oman) ([u:ˈga:l lah el+keˈbi:r li+s’s’ˈɣi:r], ‘and there spoke (‘to him’ added) the older person to the younger one’, – Rhodokanakis 1911: Vol. II: §100c: 206). I thank Ya’alah Cohen for pointing this out to me with reference to Hebrew. 123 In the parallel version in Maharašdam, ˀEven Haˁézer, no. 8: ‫ אלוש י אליי אישטאב‬+‫דישו רבי יוס‬, dišo ribí Yosef a|los ke ayí estavan (17+18). 145 ‫חשש ב דושי אלו להצריכה גט‬ 16 Transcription: (1) Maˁasé šehayá kax hayá, (2) šehabbaḥurá Dona nixnesá (3) bevet ribí Yosef, vehayú (4) beyad ribí Yosef hanniz[kar] kemo ˁasará zehuvim, veˀamar la ribí Yosef leDona (5) hannizkéret: ‘Tircí ˀellu hazzehuvim por qiddušín para una kadena?’ ˀAz (6) ˀamerá lo: ‘Poneldos en swelo, i los tomaré.’ Estonses puzo (7) ribí Yosef hanniz[kar] un dukado en swelo, i vino la mosa i tomó (8) el dukado, i boltó las espaldas para irse. I dišo (9) ribí Yosef el dičo a|los ke ayí estavan: ‘Sedme ˁedim, komo (10) lo tomó por qiddušín.’ – Ze heˁid betorat ˁedut Mošé Bašá124. Slowing down the narrative pace; close+up; (11) Beˀotah šaˁá baˀ Mošé Franko i dišo komo le dišo ribí Yosef (12) “Newton’s 3rd Law”: a salient reporting clause ⇒ a salient reported speech hanniz[kar] qiddušín leDona para una hanniz[kéret] 125: (13) kadena?’, ‘Kyes estos dukados por i|dišo la mosa: ‘Pon uno en|el swelo.’, i|lo puso, i (14) lo tomó la mosa, i eya ke se|iva. Dišo ri[bí] Yosef a|los ˁedim: (15) ‘Sedme ˁedim ke lo tomó por qiddušín.’ Yelammedenu rabbenu ˀim yeš (16) ḥašaš beqiddušín ˀellu lehacrixah geṭ. 124 In the Venice edition (1586), there is a diacritic mark above this word, which means that this person’s surname probably has the sound +š+, i.e. Bašá. In earlier times, the famous Turkish word pašá could have been pronounced in Turkish bašá (see OED, the entry ‘pasha’), hence, perhaps, this surname. Cf. a Montenegrin footballer of Serbian origin, Marko Baša (Wikipedia). If this surname is, however, Basa, as appears here in the Salonika edition, and in Maharašdam, ˀEven Haˁézer, no. 8, 13 (spelled ‫ באסה‬there), then it could be of Iberian origin (< a topographic Basque name < Basque baso, ‘wood’, ‘forest’; or < a topographic Catalan name < Catalan bassa, ‘pool’, ‘pond’) (Dictionary of American Family Names, the entry ‘Basa’). 125 Slowing down the narrative pace; close+up. 146 Translation126: (1) The story runs as follows: (2) A maiden named Dona entered (3) Ribí Yosef’s house, and he (4) was holding in his hand about ten ducats, then Ribí Yosef told the said Dona: (5) ‘Would you like these ducats as kiddushin, for a necklace?127’, then (6) she told him: ‘Put them on the floor, and I will take them.’ After this, the aforementioned Ribí Yosef (7) placed one ducat on the ground, the girl came up and took (8) the ducat, and turned her back to go away. Then (9) the previously+mentioned Ribí Yosef told those who were there: ‘Be my witnesses to how (10) she took it as kiddushin.’ – This was testified by Mošé Bašá. (11) At the same time, there came Mošé Franko, and said that the aforementioned Ribí Yosef told (12) the said Dona: ‘Do you want these ducats as kiddushin, for (13) a necklace?’, and the maiden said: ‘Put one on the floor.’, he put it, (14) the maiden took it, and did go away.128 Ribí Yosef said to the witnesses: (15) ‘Be my witnesses, that she took it as kiddushin.’ May our rabbi teach us, whether (16) this kiddushin has validity, necessitating divorce. EXAMPLE (2): Divré Rivot, no. 4 – perhaps, Salonika or the Salonika region, the year 1553: ‫ ושבשעת הנתינה אמר‬... 23 ... ‫לה לסיטי הנز' תהי לי מ ודשת בפרח زה כדת משה וישרﭏ‬ 24 ... ... '‫ אי י דישו סיטי הנز‬... 60 ‫ ט הנز' איל דו אדו עצמו ביד‬#‫שי אי י לואיגו לי דייו רבי י‬ 61 ‫סיטי הנز' אי י לי דישו ר' יו טוב הנز' תהי לי מ ודשת בפרח‬ 62 ... ‫زה כדת משה וישראל‬ 63 ... 126 I availed myself of the translation and discussion made by Benaim (2011: 296+298). 127 I.e., ‘for (you to buy) a necklace?’; or: ‘for making a necklace of them?’ (Ducats were also made into necklaces; I thank Professor David Bunis for this fact). 128 For a discussion on this clause, see §3.1.2.2.2.3.2, example (7). 147 ‫‪71‬‬ ‫‪ ...‬ואנו בית די ח"מ שאלנו לרבי יע ב הנز‪#‬‬ ‫‪72‬‬ ‫כמה زמ עבר אחר הנתינה כשאמר רבי יו טוב הנز'לסיטי הנز‪#‬‬ ‫‪73‬‬ ‫תהי לי מ ודשת וכו' ‪.. .‬‬ ‫‪...‬‬ ‫‪101‬‬ ‫‪ ...‬אי אישטונשיש ידי‪ #‬שו רבי יו טוב הנز' אלה מוגי‪ #‬ר‬ ‫‪102‬‬ ‫די רבי אברה הנز' שינייורה לייאמאלדה א ה ‪...‬‬ ‫‪103‬‬ ‫‪...‬‬ ‫‪104‬‬ ‫‪ ...‬אי י‬ ‫‪105‬‬ ‫שאלייו סיטי הנز' אינפאר דישו מאדרי אי י רבי יו טוב הנز'‬ ‫‪106‬‬ ‫לי דישו‪ 129‬לסיטי הנز' יריש ריסיביר ידושי דימי ‪...‬‬ ‫‪...‬‬ ‫‪110‬‬ ‫‪ ...‬אי‬ ‫‪111‬‬ ‫טורנו רבי יו טוב הנز' אי דישו אלה מוסה אוטרה ויש יריש‬ ‫‪112‬‬ ‫סיטי ריסיביר ידושי דימי אי לואיגו באותו רגע דייו רבי יט‬ ‫‪113‬‬ ‫הנزכר הפרח עצמו ביד סיטי הנز'אי לי דישו רבי יו טוב הנزכר‬ ‫‪114‬‬ ‫לסיטי הנز' תהי לי מ ודשת בפרח زה כדת משה וישראל ‪...‬‬ ‫‪The correct spelling under line 105 in the book, – the word carried over to the next page.‬‬ ‫‪148‬‬ ‫‪129‬‬ (24) leSete 130 lah see also the marginal note on the right; “Newton’s 3rd Law”: a salient reporting clause ⇒ a salient reported speech hanniz[kéret] 131: “Tehí li mequddéšet beféraḥ ze kedat Mošé Slowing down the veYisraˀel.” ... (60) ... i ke dišo Sete hanniz[kéret] (61) “Si”, i ke lwego le d yo ribí narrative pace; close+up; zoom in; slow motion; freeze Y[om] Ṭ[ov] hanniz[kar] el dukado ˁacmó beyad (62) Sete hanniz[kéret] 132, i ke le dišo ri[bí] Yom Ṭov hanniz[kar]: “Tehí li mequddéšet beféraḥ (63) ze kedat Mošé veYisraˀel.” ... (71) ... Veˀanu, bet din ḥa[tumim] ma[ṭṭa], šaˀalnu leribí Yaˁaqov hanniz[kar], (72) kammá A non+tautological attenuated instance – see fn. 133 zeman ˁavar ˀaḥar hannetiná kešeˀamar ribí Yom Ṭov hanniz[kar]|leSete hanniz[kéret] 133 (73) “Tehí li mequddéšet, vexulleh”, ... (101) ... , i estonses A trivial non+tautological reporting clause – see the marginal note on the right ke|dišo ribí Yom Ṭov hanniz[kar] a|la mužer (102) de ribí ˀAvraham hanniz[kéret] 134: “Senyora, yamalda aká.” ... (104) ... , i|ke (105) salyó Sete 130 This feminine name – also appears in Maharí ben Leb, Part I, no. 24 – (cf. Perez & Pimienta 2007: 77a: kita i mete bula Sete) is spelled with Samekh, which, in case it is of Spanish origin, indicates its etymological Spanish c. As CORDE shows, there existed such a name – Cete – in Spain: see a Moorish donna Cete (año 1346) (Julio Puyol y Alonso, El Abadengo de Sahagún. Contribución al estudio del feudalismo en España, Madrid: Real Academia de la Historia, 1915, p. 27, fn. 2). Cf. also Cete as a term for a certain stage of development of a kind of tuna fish (Fray Martín Sarmiento, Carta sobre los atunes, (año 1757), Madrid: Javier de Salas; Francisco García Solá, Imprenta Fortanet, año 1876, pág. 132). Also Benaim (2011: 299; 385) transcribed this name so. 131 Slowing down the narrative pace; close+up. 132 (These lines are part of another testimony), slowing down the narrative pace; close+up; zoom in; slow motion; freeze. 133 This is a very good non+tautological example, because we can see that in terms of information structure, the predicative element here is kammá zeman ˁavar, ‘how much time had elapsed’, which renders the fact of saying ˀamar ... 134 ()# * less stressed, and it is why, I suggest, the utterance here is not tautological. Compare this non+tautological reporting clause, preceding an ordinary quotation, hence trivial, with the tautological ones, which precede the decisive betrothal declarations or suggestions in lines 23+24, 105+106, and 113+ 114. 149 Cf. a trivial non+tautological reporting clause in lines 101+102, in contrast with the tautological ones on account of their position before the decisive betrothal declarations or suggestions in lines 23+24, 105+106, and 113+114 Slowing down the narrative pace; close+up; Transcription: (23) ... vešebbišˁat hannetiná ˀamar Cf. a trivial non+tautological reporting clause in lines 101+ 102, in contrast with the tautological ones on account of their position before the decisive betrothal declarations or suggestions in lines 23+24, 105+106, and 113+114 hanniz[kéret] enpar de|su madre, i|ke Slowing down the narrative pace; close+up; see also the ribí Yom Ṭov hanniz[kar] (106) le marginal note on the left; “Newton’s 3rd Law”: a salient reporting clause ⇒ a salient reported speech dišo leSete hanniz[kéret] 135: “Kereš resivir qiddušín de|mi?” ... (110) ... , i (111) tornó ribí Yom Ṭov hanniz[kar] i dišo a|la mosa otra ves: “Kereš, (112) Sete, resivir qiddušín de|mi?”, i lwego beˀotó régaˁ dyo ribí Y[om] Ṭ[ov] (113) hannizkar happéraḥ Slowing down the narrative pace; close+up; ˁacmó beyad Sete hanniz[kéret]|, i le dišo ribí Yom Ṭov hannizkar (114) leSete see also the marginal note on the left; “Newton’s 3rd Law”: a salient reporting clause ⇒ a salient reported speech hanniz[kéret] 136: “Tehí li mequddéšet beféraḥ ze kedat Mošé veYisraˀel.” ... Translation: (23) ... and that at the time of giving [the ducat], he told (24) the previously+mentioned Sete: “Be betrothed unto me with this ducat137, according to the laws of Moses and Israel.” ... ... (60) ... and [it was testified] that the aforementioned Sete said: (61) “Yes”, and that immediately afterwards the said Ribí Yom Ṭov put that same ducat in the said (62) Sete’s hand, and that the said Ribí Yom Ṭov told her: “Be betrothed unto me with this (63) ducat, according to the laws of Moses and Israel.” ... (71) ... And we, the rabbinical court, the undersigned, asked the said Ribí Yaˁaqov, (72) how much time had elapsed since (the ducat’s) bestowal, the moment the said Ribí Yom Ṭov told the mentioned Sete: (73) “Be betrothed unto me”, and so on. ... (101) ... , and then [– it was testified –] that the said Ribí Yom Ṭov told the previously+mentioned Ribí ˀAvraham’s wife: “Madam, call her out here.” ... (104) ... , and that (105) the said Sete went out together with her mother138, and that the aforementioned Ribí Yom Ṭov (106) told the mentioned Sete: “Would you like to receive kiddushin from me?” ... (110) ..., and (111) the said Ribí Yom Ṭov told the maiden again: “Would you like, (112) Sete, to receive kiddushin from me?”, and then, at that moment, (113) the said Ribí Yom Ṭov put the very same ducat in the mentioned Sete’s hand, and the said Ribí Yom Ṭov told (114) the mentioned Sete: “Be betrothed unto me with this ducat, according to the laws of Moses and Israel.” ... 135 Slowing down the narrative pace; close+up. 136 Slowing down the narrative pace; close+up. 137 = Here the Hebrew word péraḥ, literally ‘flower’, which is a kind of Ottoman coin = dukado, as seen in line 61. 138 Cf. in another testimony: ‫אי שאליו פואירה גונטו דילה מאדרי‬, i salyó fwera džunto de|la madre (70). 150 EXAMPLE (3): Consider the following opposition (a 16th+century text): The content clause139 has a preceding tautological object pronoun in the first instance, and it does not have one in the second140: ‫ומידייאש שינטיולו אחי לוי י אנדאבא יו פור טומארלו דישומי‬ 141 ‫פואיש אי א יליואש‬ ‫ ישי לוש דיישי אאיל אה גנאנסייא‬, Pwes, en akeyas komedyas, sintyolo ˀaḥí Leví, ke andava yo por tomarlo, díšome ke|se los dyese a|el a ganansya, ..., ‘Then, in all that commotion, my brother Leví heard that I went to take it (i.e., the money to be invested), he told me that I had better give it to him, (and not handle it myself), for profit.’ (HaMabiṭ, Part III, folio 137, page 2, column II, – no. 82, 97+99); ‫ומו שינטיו י יו ריאה ליבאנטאר איל דינירו די איל די לו י טיניאה שירו ו טודו ﭏה‬ ‫באנדא שי מאש יריר דאר מאש ואינטא ני ראزו‬, Komo sintyó ke yo keria levantar el dinero de el de lo|ke tenia, serró kon todo a|la vanda, sin mas kerer dar mas kwenta ni razón, ..., ‘Since he had heard that I had wanted to take possession of the money, – from what he had –, he refused to budge an inch142, without wishing to give any account or explanation any more, ...’ (ibid., ibid., folio 138, page 1, column I, – no. 82, 129+132).143 3.2.1.2.2.2.2 Specific cases In this section, we concentrate on specific cases in which non+pronominal tail may be used in Judezmo in Erzählte Welt transmission. These are: 1. Beginning of a narrative. Pleonastic (tautological) uses – inter alia, the tail – at the beginning of a narrative cause the characters and the initial circumstances to be more accentuated, in order to make the initial scene of the narrative more prominent. 139 Jespersen’s term (Jespersen 1965: Part 3 (Syntax), Vol. 2: 23; Ornan 2009: 142; Jespersen 2010: “The system of grammar” (1933): §33+35: 269). 140 Another such opposition, in a text from the year 1921 (probably Sofia), with the verb supi, ‘I knew (that ...)’, ‘I learned (that ...)’ is in Noseˀ ˀEfod, no. 30, (folio 150, page 1), 13+14, as opposed to 43+44. This responsum is discussed in Perez’s article (2000), which is also available at http://folkmasa.org/av/av08g03.htm. 141 Should have been ‫א ילייאש‬. 142 Cf. the Spanish colloquial expression cerrarse a la / en / de banda, ‘to refuse to budge’, ‘to take an uncompromising stance’ (RAE Dictionary, the entry ‘banda’). 143 I availed myself of the translation made by Benaim (2011: 436+443). 151 This accentuation of the characters and/or the initial circumstances may be seen in the following examples (for tail constuctions in Judezmo and Spanish, see §3.2.1.2.2.2.2.1 below): In English: presenting the subject of the song or tale, when introducing a ballad, by means of It was/is ... (now archaic), – thus making this character more accentuated. Examples of such openings: It was a mayde of brentenars She rode to myll vpon a horse.; Itt was a blind beggar, had long lost his sight, He had a faire daughter of bewty most bright.; It is an ancyent Marinere, And he stoppeth one of three.; It was an English ladye bright..And she would marry a Scottish knight.; It is the miller’s daughter, And she is grown so dear.; It was the great Alexander, Capped with a golden helm.; It was a little captive cat Upon a crowded train His mistress takes him from his box To ease his fretful pain.144 The same principle is followed in Coptic, in which the beginning of a story may be constructed as a cleft sentence, where the focalized element is the character of the narrative – a Coptic way to begin a story: e.g., ⲟⲩⲣⲱⲙⲉ ⲉⲛⲉⲁϥ ⲙⲁⲩ ϣⲏⲣⲉ ⲥⲛⲁⲩ (Mt. xxi 28, Lk. xv 11), lit., ‘it was a man who had two sons’, i.e., ‘there was a man who had two sons’145; somewhat similarly in Judezmo, which might begin a story with es ke ..., ‘it (= the story) is that ...’, highlighting the opening, in a way, e.g., ‫– ונטימוס לה‬ ,‫ אי איס י אטראס מוגוס אנייוס אביאה או בואי גידייו‬:‫ דישו טיאו איزרה‬,‫ מי פיزה‬, ‫ –פישי‬... ,‫דיל סי" די ליאאו‬ ..., SUNXULA: Kóntemos la [= konseža] del si[nyor] de Liaw! – EZRÁ: Pišín, mi fiža. I es ke, atrás mučos anyos, avia un bwen džidyó, ..., ‘SUNXULA: Tell us the story about Mr. Elijah the Prophet! – EZRÁ: Straight away, sweetheart. And the tale runs as follows: Many years ago, there was a good Jew, ...’ (El Rizón 13: 7 (1938); Bunis 1999b: 613 bottom). Cf.: ‫טי בו אה דיزיר או‬ ... ‫ אי איס י ייו מי טופאבה איל אוטרו דיאה‬.‫סי ריטו‬, BULISA: Te vo a dezir un sekreto. I es ke yo me topava el otro dia ..., ‘BULISA: I am going to tell you a secret: I was present, the other day, ...’ (El Rizón 12: 38 (1938); Bunis 1999b: 587 middle); ‫ איל פאטו איס י ואנדו‬,‫נו בוס בו אלארגאר מוגו‬ ... ,‫ אנייוס‬18 ‫ייו אירה די‬, EZRÁ: No vos vo alargar mučo. El fato es ke kwando yo era de 18 anyos, ..., ‘EZRÁ: I am not going to keep you much longer. The fact is that when I was 18 years of age, 144 OED, the entry ‘it’, 2d. 145 Polotsky 1971a: 256: §33, with this and more examples. 152 ...’ (El Rizón 13: 4 (1938); Bunis 1999b: 604 bottom). Cf. also in older Russian, ‘то’, ‘It is that ...’, and twice сидит, ‘is sitting’, – the initial scene is thereby made more prominent –, at the beginning of the plot, in the following poem: Не сияет на небе солнце красное,/ Не любуются им тучки синие:/ То за трапезой сидит во златом венце,/ Сидит грозный царь Иван Васильевич., ‘It is not that the beautiful sun is shining in the sky, it is not that the gray clouds feast their eyes thereupon: It is that there is sitting at table, wearing a golden crown, there is sitting the terrible Tsar Ivan Vasilyevich.’146 Below are several examples of “simple”, uncomplicated tautologies (pleonasms) in the initial part of a narrative, in some languages: The first element is italicized, the second – repeating the first – is set in bold typeface: Modern Hebrew: Yeš lahem, leloxame hašayetet, harbe meod al halev. (An opening of a TV news report. Roni Daniel. Channel 2, Israel. June 2010); .‫ בְּ לִ י סוֹף‬ׂ‫אָר‬-ׂ‫יום שֶ ל עֶ ֶרב פֶּ סַ ח נ ְִראָה ל ֹו לְ עֻזִּ יָהוּ הַ קָּ טָ ן אָר‬, (An opening of a story)147; tautological infinitive, ... ‫ ;הָ יֹה הָ יָה‬Russian: fairy tales’ opening: Жил был .../ Жил да был ..., – lit., ‘There lived and there was ...’ –, ‘There was once ...’, ‘Once upon a time ...’; Danish: Den grimme Ælling. Der var saa deiligt ude paa Landet; det var Sommer, Kornet stod guult, Havren grøn, Høet var reist i Stakke nede i de grønne Enge, og der gik Storken paa sine lange, røde Been og snakkede ægyptisk, for det Sprog havde han lært af sin Moder. Rundtom Ager og Eng var der store Skove, og midt i Skovene dybe Søer; jo, der var rigtignok deiligt derude paa Landet! Midt i Solskinnet laae der en gammel Herregaard med dybe Canaler rundt om, og fra Muren og ned til Vandet voxte store Skræppeblade, der vare saa høie, at smaa Børn kunde staae opreiste under de største; der var ligesaa vildsomt derinde, som i den tykkeste Skov, og her laae en And paa sin Rede; hun skulde ruge sine smaae Ællinger ud, men nu var hun næsten kjed af det, fordi det varede saa længe, og hun sjælden fik Visit; de andre Ænder holdt mere af at svømme om i Canalerne, end at løbe op og sidde under et Skræppeblad for at snaddre med hende.148, ‘The Ugl y Duckling. The country was very lovely just then – it was summer. The wheat was golden and the oats still green. The hay was stacked in the rich low meadows, where the stork marched about on his long red legs, chattering in Egyptian, the language his mother had taught him. 146 Barkhin 1936: 92 [Lermontov 1896: 230b: Part I]. 147 Yehudá Štéynberg, ‫ אגדות וספורי חג ומועד‬:‫למועדים‬, Tel Aviv: Sreberk, the year 1949, p. 5. 148 Andersen 1913: 365+366. 153 Round about field and meadow lay great woods, in the midst of which were deep lakes. Yes, the country certainly was lovely. In the sunniest spot stood an old mansion surrounded by a deep moat, and great dock leaves grew from the walls of the house right down to the water’s edge. Some of them were so tall that a small child could stand upright under them. In among the leaves it was as secluded as in the depths of a forest, and there a duck was sitting on her nest. Her little ducklings were just about to be hatched, but she was quite tired of sitting, for it had lasted such a long time. Moreover, she had very few visitors, as the other ducks liked swimming about in the moat better than waddling up to sit under the dock leaves and gossip with her.’149 2. Violent or dramatic events. – are frequently expressed by pleonastic means: For uses of pleonasm, and their occasional clarification by way of cinematic methods, see §3.1.3.1.1. In respect to the instances of violent and dramatic events that we shall provide here, in Judezmo and other languages, these cinematographic techniques may be applicable for describing the tautologies in a better way: The cinematographic analogy in these examples might be one or more of the following: zoom in, close up, tracking shot, rotation, slow motion, and freeze. It goes without saying that appropriate background music would be of aid with reference to such scenes. Examples taken from different languages (the Judezmo and Spanish examples will be presented in §3.2.1.2.2.2.2.2): The first element is italicized, the second, recurring one, is in bold: Modern Hebrew: examples from: (a) ,‫לא די שאינו יכול להעניק לך מה שראוי לו לבעל נאמן להעניק לאשתו‬ ‫ ומוצא הוא את החדר ריק מכל וכל‬... .‫חושש הוא ללבך הנקוב לילות שממון וציפייה רבים שמא ייתרוקן מאהבה אליו‬ ‫ נופחת ונופחת בחוסר‬,‫]דהינו בלעדיך[ והארון חסרה בו שמלתך היפה והוא מבין ששוב את נופחת באבריך עליצות וחדוה‬ ‫ עד שהבשר מאיים לפרוץ מבעד לעור המתוח עד דק הרוטט לצלילי‬,‫ למראה עיני הצופים המשולהבים‬,‫דעת ובשכחה עצמית‬ ...‫הכנור‬150; (b) .‫ עד מוות‬,‫ ליאון‬,‫ ג'ויה מוכה ביד בנה‬:‫ לוס אֶ ס ָפּנְטוֹס‬,‫הפחדים תקפו אותה עכשיו‬151; (c) ‫ובו בזמן רואה‬ ... ‫ מוכים בין סוסים מעולפים למחצה‬,‫דרכים‬-‫ מוקפים שודדי‬,‫ את בנה ואת בעלה מתגוננים‬,‫את ליאון‬152; (d) in the following clause, the masculine singular zero morpheme of ‘notef+ø’, ‘dripping’, represents the noun ‘šot’, ‘a whip’153, and thus repeats it. Although this repetion is inevitable, the placement of notef ø not immediately after šot makes this tautological zero+morpheme be more emphasized. 149 Andersen 1945: 70. 150 Tor+Raz 1989: 31. 151 Ibid. 152 Ibid. 153 As shows Goldenberg 1995: Ch. III, “Adjectives”: 6+11. 154 Note also the focalizing word order (vešot raa Refael), causing the object šot to be focal (similarly in Judezmo and Spanish – §3.1.2.2.1.1): ... ,‫ נוטף דם‬,‫ ושוט ראה רפאל‬..., ... and Rephael saw a whip, dripping blood, ...’154; the medieval Hebrew: ‫[ גדלה רשעתה כי ביו‬,]‫ עד שכ]ל["כ‬... ‫א']חד[ ב שה איزה תואנה ועלילה ונת וטטו והיא ברוע מעלליה ל חה ע* א']חד[ והכהו לבעלה על ראשו מכה‬ [‫עצומה מאד עד כי נב עה ראשו כי כל כוונתה היתה להרוג אותו ע]ל["י]די[ ההכאות הה והוכרח ה]רב["ר]בי‬ 155 ... ‫משה הנزכר לברוח מ העיר‬, as opposed to the non+pleonastic uses: ‫שיהרגו לבעלה‬156; ‫ו נא את‬ ‫אשתו‬157; Arabic, the Dhofari dialect (Oman): [jigbeˈru:nha: ˈomm"es’s’ulˈt’a:n], ‘they burried (‘her’ added) the sultan’s mother’158; Polish: The deictic element to, ‘this’, points at the whole clause, or part of it, and thus, properly speaking, repeats it. ‘W sobotę wieczorem wracam więc w muzułmańskim autobusie z kolejnej wyprawy, kiedy to natykamy się na ulicy na pochód Żydów z okazji szabatu, którzy na znak protestu niezwłocznie zaczynają rzucać w nasz autobus kamieniami i kopać w opony.’, ‘Then, returning on Sabbath eve on a muslim bus from one more trip, we (lit., ‘this’ is added here) come across Jews marching on occasion of the Sabbath, who, as a sign of protest, at once begin throwing stones at our bus, and kicking its tyres.’ (Internet, a blog at the Website http://katarzynapiwecka.pl/); cf. a surprising turning point (Modern Hebrew): Vepitom [hacarfatim] salxu lo leCezar Frank (César Franck) [al kax] šehu belgi velo carfati! (A narration about César Franck, February 2012). 154 Ibid.: 32. 155 Paraḥ Maṭṭé ˀAharón, Part II, no. 106, (folio 146, page 2), 32+35. I thank Professor Yaron Ben+Naeh for this text. 156 Ibid., 56. 157 Ibid., 28. 158 Rhodokanakis 1911: Vol. II: 205: §100a. 155 3.2.1.2.2.2.2.1 Tail at the beginning of a narrative159 We could retrieve two Judezmo instances of a tail at the beginning of a narrative from the treasury of the Džoxá160 stories161: (1) Palavrikas de amor. Una vez Djoha le disho a la madre ke se kere despozar, i la madre le topó una novia buena. Kuando Djoha fue and’eya, la novia no le sta avlando nada. Le disho la madre: “Mira, tu, kuando vas a ir ande la novia tuya, dizile palavras dulses!” Djoha se hue ande la novia i le disho: “Halva!... Baklava!... Tishpishti!...”, este modo de palavras. La novia no avló nada, ni meneyó afilu una seja. Se hue Djoha ande la madre, le disho: “Mamá, ya le dishi todo lo ke me dishites, ma… nada! Ni a, ni bu, ni kukurikukú!” Asta ke la madre le disho: “Mira, Djoha, kuando vas a ir otra vez, dizile palavras… huertes… ansina…, ke lo token al korason! Palavras huertes le vas a dizir!” Se hue Djoha ande la novia, le disho palavras huertes. La novia, tanto se spantó de estas palavras, ke se tapó la kavesa kon la sharpa i se fuyo. Le disho la madre, kuando tornó: “Ke, ijo? Ke hue, Djoha?” “Ke ke te diga, madre?” le disho Djoha, “Yo le dishi las palavras huertes, ma eya… se fuyó d’onde mi!” “I kualo le dishites?” le demandó la madre. “Le dishi: Klavos!... Pirones!... Kuchiyos!...” disho Djoha. “E!” disho la madre, “Siguro ke se va fuyir!!” Ansi Djoha se kedó sin la novia., ‘Words of love. Once upon 159 Spanish examples: Bassanio, un veneciano que pertenece a la nobleza pero es pobre, pide + , , que le preste 3.000 ducados que le permitan enamorar a la rica heredera Porcia., , ‘Bassanio, a Venetian who is of noble rank, but being poor, asks his best friend, Antonio, a rich merchant, to lend him 3000 ducats, that would enable him to win Portia’s love, the wealthy heiress.’ (The opening words of the plot summary of The Merchant of Venice, in the Spanish Wikipedia); the so+called medium (Spanish medio), self+ centered, use (§3.2.1.3 below) Éra - in narratives’ opening, ‘(Once upon a time) there was’, having the delocutive singular element – appearing in the verb éra - – repeated through the reflexive (Bello 1903: §334a: 382, with examples: Érase una vieja/ De gloriosa fama [Luis de Góngora y Argote (1561 – 1627)]; Érase un hombre a una nariz pegado [Francisco Gómez de Quevedo Villegas y Santibáñez Cevallos (1580 – 1645)]), same in Polish był - % , żył - % , mieszkał - % (Doroszewski et al. 1966: Vol. VIII: the entry ‘sobie’: 472b), in Hebrew – cf. an opening of a poem: . . . /‫נחה לה אמונה‬, ‘Faith is resting ... ’ (Internet), the feminine singular delocutive mark appears twice. 160 Džoxá is a famous character in funny stories and anecdotes of the Sephardi Ottoman folklore, and also of the folklore of the neighbouring residents in the Ottoman region. 161 I am deeply indebted to Professor David Bunis for directing me to these potential cases of tail in this specific genre. The spelling in these two examples is as it appeared originally. 156 a time Džoxá told his mother that he would like to get engaged, and his mother found a good bride for him. When Džoxá went to see her, she would not talk to him. His mother told him: “Look, when you go to visit her, tell her sweet words!” Džoxá went and met the bride, and said to her: “Halva!... Baklava!... Tishpishti!...”, and so on. The bride did not utter a word, nor did she even raise an eyebrow. Džoxá went to his mother, and said: “Mom, I said to her everything you told me, but it changes nothing! Not a sound!” Then his mother told him: “Look, Džoxá, when you go and see her next time, tell her... strong... words, so that they touch her heart! You’re going to tell her strong words!” Džoxá went to see the bride, and said some strong words to her. The bride was so frightened, that she covered her head with a scarf, and ran away. His mother said to him when he returned: “What, son? What was going on, Džoxá?” “Oh boy!” said Džoxá, “I told her the strong words, but she... ran away from me!” “And what did you tell her?”, his mother asked. “I told her: Nails!... Forks!... Knives!...”, Džoxá replied. “Eh!”, the mother said, “Of course, in such a case, she would run away!!” That is how Džoxá was left without a bride.’ (Narrated by Valentina Tsoref – 1987, published in Koén+Sarano 1991)162. (2) Djoha + “Di si kierre el Dyo.” Una noche antes de echarse a dormir, Djoha le disho a su mujer, “Si aze luvia amanyana me va ir al tiatro. Si no aze luvia me va ir al kampo.” “Deves de dezir, si kierre el Dyo,” le konsejo su mujer. “Si kierre o si no kierre el Dyo, yo me va ir al uno o al otro.” Dize su mujer, “Djoha, di si kierre el Dyo.” Dize Djoha, “En dinguna manera lo va dezir, yo me va ir.” El dia ke vino, estava aziendo luvia. En el kamino, los soldados del rey lo vieron, y le metieron a lavorar arremendando el kamino del sarai. Ya se izo muy tadre en la noche kuando lo desharon a ir a su kaza. Aharvo en la puerta y la mujer demando, “Kien es?” Djoha dize, “Si kierre el Dyo, kerrida mujer, so yo.” Moral: Nunka subestima tu dependensia en el Dyo o en tu mujer., ‘Djoha + “Say God willing.” One night before going to sleep, Djoha tells his wife, “If it rains tomorrow, I shall go to the theater. If it doesn't rain I shall go to the park.” His wife advises him, “You must say, God willing.” Djoha says, “God willing or not, I am going to one or the other.” His wife says, “Djoha, say God willing.” Djoha replies, “In no way will I say it. I am going.” Next day it is raining, and Djoha starts out to the theater. He has not gone far before he is stopped by the King’s troopers. They force him to work all day repairing the road to the palace. It is very late when he is released. When he gets home, it is very late, he 162 I thank Derya Agis for this story shown in one of her presentations. 157 knocks on the door and his wife asks, “Who is it?” Djoha says, “God willing, my dear wife, it is I.” Moral: Never underestimate your dependence upon God or your wife.’ (An Internet Website of the Foundation for the Advancement of Sephardic Studies and Culture, http://www.sephardicstudies.org/CHUTZPAH+WEVOS.html). 3.2.1.2.2.2.2.2 Tail in clauses representing violent or dramatic events163 These examples incorporate tails in clauses representing violent or dramatic events: (1) ‫ גו פארה אשטו וינישטיש א י פארה‬#‫ גו לי אינפושו אר' אברה בר ﭏיעزר די‬#‫אי רבי יאודה רופוש די‬ ‫פאزיר שימאטה‬, I ribí Yeudá Rufus dičo le164 enpušó a|ri[bí] ˀAvraham bar ˀEliˁézer dičo.165 “Para esto venistes/+š akí, para fazer šematá?”, ‘And the said Ribí Yeudá Rufus pushed the aforementioned Ribí ˀAvraham bar ˀEliˁézer. “Is it for this reason that you came here, to make a big noise?”’ (Maharašdam, Ḥošen Mišpaṭ, no. 5, 26+28). (2) ‫פיגו די לה הרפאלה ו סו מאדרי הנز' לי איש ופיאה אלה מאדרי אי לי‬ 5 ‫פיליאבא יאודה‬ 5 ‫ סי‬... ‫גאנינה‬ 4 ‫דיزיאה נאעאליט‬, ... se peleavan Yeudá, fižo de la haRefaˀela, kon su madre hanniz[kéret], le 163 A Spanish example: Entonces salió Nicolasón de la iglesia muy furioso y mató la mula ., ‘Then Nicolasón went out of the church very furious, and killed Nicolasín’s mule.’ (Aurelio Macedonio Espinosa, (ed.), Cuentos populares de Castilla y León, Vol. II, Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1988, Story 327: “Nicolasín y Nicolasón”: 202). However, this instance is not neat with respect to the discussed issue, because its dative le signifies also possession of an inalienable entity (see §3.3.1.2). 164 Le for lo, i.e. the phenomenon of leísmo, is attested already in the early Old Spanish. This tendency was caused by several factors, among which the need of a clear masculine+feminine distinction, (rather than the existing clear case distinction). – The dative le is ambiguous, so one of the tendencies was to make le as accusative+and+dative masculine, and la as accusative+and+dative feminine). Another factor was the inclination to use le for accusative animate objects, – the way they have the preposition a placed before a noun, making it look like a dative case, thus corresponding to le –, and to use lo for accusative inanimate ones (Lapesa 1981: §97.7: 405+406; and see Wagner 1914: Part II: §82: 129, who claims that this phenomenon is sometimes attested in modern Constantinople Judezmo in cases where both the object pronoun and the a+prepositional phrase appear, and provides an example: mosa). We can find, at different stages of Spanish over time, the usage of empujar with yamó a la in CORDE, by entering the following strings: le empuj* (= any item beginning with the letters le empuj), le enpuj*, le empux*, le enpux*. 165 Or: ... a|ri[bí] ˀAvraham bar ˀEliˁézer. Dišo: “...”. 158 eskupia a|la madre i le dezia: “Naˁalet džaniná166!”, ‘... Yeudá, the son of Refaˀel’s wife167, and (she, =) his said mother fought, he spat upon the mother, and told her: “A curse to your soul!”’ (Mahariṭ, Part II, ˀEven Haˁézer, no. 43, – folio 59, page 2, column 1 –, 160+162; also in Mahariṭac Haḥadašot, Part I, no. 25, page 43, column 1). (3) ‫ אי לואיגו סי טינבלארו טודו איל בית די אי לו ריסיביירו אל רב ו כבוד מויי גראנדי אי לי דיירו‬... ... ‫אאיל או ספר תורה אי סו בראסו אי לי דימאנדארו‬, ... I lwego se tenblaron todo el beðín168 i lo resivyeron al rav kon kavoθ169 muy grande i le dyeron a|el un séfer Torá en su braso i le demandaron: ..., ‘... And immediately, all the (heavenly) court was trembling, welcoming the Rabbi very respectfully, and they put a Torah scroll under his arm, asking him: ...’170 (Séfer Damméseq ˀEliˁézer, folio 4 [cited in Bunis 1999a: Ch. XXI: 346+347]). 166 Cf. the testimony which follows this one (however, here there is no tail): ‫ אישוברי פאלאבראש ו שו מאדרי לי דייו‬.. . ‫דישו נאעליט גא חבישינה‬ 4 ‫איגו אי איל סואילו אי לי איס ופייו אי לה ארה אי לי‬ 5 ‫או אריפו'שו אילה‬, ... i|sovre palavras kon su madre, le dyo un arrepušón, i|la ečó en el swelo, i le eskupyó en la kara i le dišo: “Naˁlet džan x+/ḥabisiná!”, ‘... and regarding words exchanged between him and his mother, he gave her a jab, and knocked her down to the floor, and spat in her face and told her: “A curse to your malicious soul!”’ (Mahariṭ, Part II, ˀEven Haˁézer, no. 43, – folio 59, page 2, column 1 –, 172+175). In the word naˁ(a)let, ‘a curse’ (borrowed into Turkish from Arabic), there occurred an euphemistic metathesis, the switching of l and n, each taking place of the other. I thank the participants of the workshop Arabic in the Ottoman Empire (University of Cambridge, April 21+22, 2016), and Professor David Bunis (personal communication), for clearing up for me the Turkish utterances. 167 Cf. Mahariṭ, Part II, ˀEven Haˁézer, no. 43, – folio 59, page 2, column 1 –, 172 (similarly on folio 59, page 1, column 1, bottom): ‫בכר רפﭏ גאנו‬ # ‫יאודה גאנו‬, Yeudá Ganón be[n] ke[vod] ri[bí] Refaˀel Ganón, ‘Yeudá Ganón, the son of the honoured Ribí Refaˀel Ganón’. Hence, we conclude that haRefaˀela = the Hebrew definite article ha + Refaˀel, her husband + the feminine ending a = ‘Refaˀel’s wife’. Similarly, there is another such example in another responsum, in which the wife of a professional may be denoted by adding the suffix a: ‫מוגיר די או ברבירו‬, 5 mužer de un barbero, ‘a barber’s wife’, ‫מוגיר דיל ברבירו‬ 5 ‫לה‬, la mužer del barbero = (a variant in that text) ‫לה ברבירה‬, la barbera (Máyim ˁAmuqqim, no. 41 (answered by Elijah Ben Haim), (folio 70, page 1, column II), 40, 47+48, and 63 respectively). Same in Spanish: barbera = ‘mujer del barbero’, in RAE Dictionary, the entry ‘barbero, +ra’. 168 ‫בית די‬, i.e., Hebrew bet din. 169 ‫כבוד‬, i.e., Hebrew kavod. 170 As a cinematic way of representing this, a panorama shot can be also an option. 159 (4) ‫ אי‬,‫ מה סי מי ייריש אزאר איסטה טאדרי מיزמו‬.‫ נו לו בו אה טומאר‬,‫–אה איסטי סינייור פאדרי‬ ‫ אפואירה‬,‫אי טודו איסטי טיימפו‬ .‫ דימי פור מארידו אל י בינו ו בוחור‬.‫ דימילוס ו אוטרו‬, ‫דארמי ידושי‬ ‫ די י נו סאלי לה נובייה אפואירה‬.‫אל באראנדאדו נו סאביא י וزה סי איסטאבה פאסאנדו אה לה אודה‬ ‫ י גינטי די פארטי די לה נובייה סי מיטיירו אי מידייו אי‬,‫ בו לו בו אה דיزיר אי ורטו‬, ‫דימאנדאבא טודוס? אינפי‬ ‫ ייה בוס אزיש‬.‫ סי ייزו מוגה מאאיסטריאה פארה דיزירסילוס‬,‫ מה‬.‫לי דישירו טודו אל נובייו אי אה סוס פאריינטיס‬ ‫ י סי פואי די אאי ו לוס סולייוס ו סוס מו וס‬,‫ דילה ארה די לימו י סי לי איزו אל נובייו‬,‫אונה אידיאה‬ .‫אינ ולגאנדו‬, “A este, sinyor padre, no lo vo a tomar. Ma si me kyereš kazar esta tadre mezmo, i darme kidušim, démelos kon otro. Deme por marido al ke vino kon Boxor.” En todo este tyempo, afwera al varandado, no savian ke koza se estava pasando a la udá. “Deké no sale la novya afwera?” demandavan todos. Enfín, vo lo vo a dezir en kurto, ke džente de parte de la novya se metyeron en medyo i le dišeron todo al novyo i a sus paryentes. Ma, se kyižo muča maestria para dezírselos. Ya vos azeš una idea, de|la kara de limón ke se le izo al novyo, ke se fwe de aí kon los suyos kon sus mokos enkolgando., ‘“Father, I am not going to marry this man. But if you wish to marry me off this very afternoon, and bestow kiddushin on me, do that with another (man): Give me for a husband the one who came with Boxor.” For all this time outside – in the front room – no one knew what was going on in the room. “Why doesn’t the bride come out?”, everybody asked. Eventually, to make a long story short, the people on the bride’s side intervened (placated), telling the groom and his relatives everything (that had happened). A high level of skill was needed to say this to them171. You can imagine that the groom made a terribly wry face, and left the place with his company, deeply ashamed.’ (El Rizón 13: 4 (1938); Bunis 1999b: 605 middle). (5) En el aire se podia sintir ke algo ‘non de kada dia’ le pasava a Isak + ansi ke despues de la tefila ninguno de los prezentes non desho el lugar para korrer al fecho, komo djeneralmente + sino todos esperavan para sintir loke sta pasando. ‘One could feel it in the atmosphere that 171 Dezírselos means here dezir + les [which is expressed by se + the final s] + lo. Marking the dative as plural by adding s at the end of the double object pronoun. This phenomenon of giving, in this manner, a plural mark (because of the dative plural signified) s to se, which does not express number and gender, also exists in Spanish in the Americas, – Lapesa 1981: §133.2: 588. 160 something extraordinary was going on with Isaac, so that after the prayer no participant budged from his place, in order to go and do their errands, as usual. All waited to hear what was taking place.’ (La megila de Saray, Ch. I, p. 21). 3.2.1.2.2.3 Specific states 3.2.1.2.2.3.1 Tail with fixed syntagms – unconditioned tautology Such a case is seen in the Satirical Series in the cleft sentence expression i kyína ke me/le/etc. kayó/vino172, or kaye, ‘and woe is me!’, ‘and woe to him/etc.’, lit., ‘and a true lament, misfortune is what betides SOMEBODY’. The object pronoun is obligatory, being a part of this fixed syntagm. Thus, if one wishes to include a noun, or to emphasize the object pronoun, one utters first its corresponding proclitic object pronoun, and then adds the noun, or a + pronoun, – after kayó. Here are the examples found in the Satirical Series: (1) .‫טו טי ריزיס ו טו אביסה אי יינה י מי אלייו י מי איסטאס פאزיינדו ומו לה ניגרה איסטריאה‬, BENUTA: Tu te rižes kon tu kavesa i kyina ke me kayó ke me estás fazyendo komo la negra estrea., ‘BENUTA: You are acting according to your own desires, and poor me, that you are taking me for your cruel fate.’ (Aksyón 10: 2621 (1938); Bunis 1999b: 420 middle). (2) ‫ סו מוزיר גאנגה י ייה סאבי י סו ייו י לי איבה ייבאר אל‬,‫ומו סי בה אסינטאר אלאדו די מי‬ .‫מארידו? יינה י מי בינו אי לה אביסה‬, SUNXULA: Komo se va asentar alado de mi, su mužer Čančá ke ya save ke so yo ke le iva yevar al marido? Kyina ke me vino en la kavesa., ‘SUNXULA: How on earth is his wife Čančá going to sit beside me, knowing that it is I who was about to marry him?! It is a real headache for me.’ (El Rizón 12: 40 (1938); Bunis 1999b: 591 middle). (3) ‫ מאמלואיز אי‬,‫ סוס אונה מונטאנייה די אגואה י איסטאס אינטרימיטידו אינטרי ונטאר איל אומיר‬... .‫ אי יינה י מי אלייו אמי‬,‫ אי איסטה סימאנה ו איל פיסאח סיני‬, ‫תהלי‬, DŽAMILA: ... sos una 172 See also Nehama 1977: 320b. Furthermore, there is a similar construction kyina ke (±no) OBJECT PRONOUN kayga/tombe (ibid.: ibid.; El Rizón 4: 41 (1929) – Bunis 1999b: 370 top; El Rizón 12: 38 (1938) – Bunis 1999b: 586 middle; El Rizón 13: 1 (1938) – Bunis 1999b: 597 bottom). 161 montanya de agwa ke estás entremetido entre kontar el Ómer, Mamloez i Teilim173, i esta semana kon el Pésax Sení, i kyina ke me kayó a|mi., ‘DŽAMILA: ... you are a mountain of water, tucked between counting the Omer, Me’am Lo’ez and the Psalms, and this week the Second Passover too, and woe is me!’ (Mesažero 4: 1125 (1939); Bunis 1999b: 430 top). (4) ‫ י טו נואירה טייני‬,‫מה טי אינ לאבאטיס ו ואנטו באزיאו איי אי נו איי אי יינה י מי אלייו אמי‬ .‫ראزו ואנדו אפוריאה‬, DŽAMILA: Ma te enklavates kon kwanto vazio ay i no ay i kyina ke me kayó a|mi, ke tu nwera tyene razón kwando kafurea., ‘DŽAMILA: But you didn’t budge [from our son’s shop], dealing with one empty person/thing and another174, and woe is me, so your daughter+in+law is right when she gets angry [at you].’ (Mesažero 2: 578 (1937); Bunis 1999b: 473 bottom). (5) ‫ לה אירימה בה פאריסיר פירטו אל שורובו אי יינה י מי אליי אמי י‬,‫ דיל ביני ו‬,‫מה אמאנייאנה‬ .‫לה י סומפורטה אי י סי גורמה סי ייו‬, BENUTA: Ma amanyana, del viniko, la érema va pareser pertukal shurubú i kyina ke me kaye a|mi ke la ke somporta i ke se gorma se yo., ‘BENUTA: But because of the wine (you are drinking now), the bloody tomorrow is going to be awesome175, and woe is me, the person who has to bear and endure it is me.’ (Aksyón 11: 2965 (1939); Bunis 1999b: 424 middle). (6) ‫ י אברא לו אנדאס אי‬,‫ י אברא אפיס‬,‫ני מאס ני מאנ ו י לאבורימוס אי דיאה די שבת‬ .‫ אי יינה י לי אלייו אלה אומה‬,‫ י אמיני אוטומוביליס‬,‫סינימאס‬, EZRÁ: Ni mas ni manko ke lavoremos en dia de šabad/θ176, ke avran kafés, ke avran lokandas i sinemás, ke kaminen otomobiles, i kyina ke le kayó a|la umá177., ‘EZRÁ: [He encourages people] to do nothing less than to work on the Sabbath, open cafés, open restaurants and cinemas, operate cars, and this shall be a disaster for our nation.’ (Aksyón 10: 2568 (1938); Bunis 1999b: 375 top). 173 ‫תהלי‬, i.e., Hebrew Tehillim, ‘Psalms’. 174 Lit., as much as somebody/something vain (empty) both which exists and which does not exist. 175 Or: ‘your damn urine (la érema [urina]) is going to look like orange juice’. (Thanks to Professor David Bunis for this possible translation). 176 ‫שבת‬, i.e., Hebrew ‘šabbat’. 177 ‫אומה‬, i.e., Hebrew ‘ˀummá’. 162 In the same way, in Sahidic Coptic, the verb say followed by the things said, always takes the pronominal object it first, and only then, it is expanded by the speech (ϫⲱ ⲙⲟ ⲥ ϫⲉ ... / ϫⲟⲟ ⲥ ϫⲉ ...).178 3.2.1.2.2.3.2 Tail+pleonasm for purposes of indubitability This use was found predominantly in wills, – many of them, last wills upon death –, since it is very important in such texts to display information accurately and emphatically concerning who the beneficiary is, which actions were taken and are required, and so on.179 Here are several instances from wills: (1) ‫פוגה די מי כתובה שילה אינפריزינטו אמי פאדרי ומו טינגו‬ 5 '‫פאסט' לה פרושטיר‬4 ‫טודו איל רישטו‬ ‫דיגו‬ 5 , Todo el resto, fast[a] la proster[a] foža de mi ketubbá, se|la enprezento a|mi padre, komo tengo dičo, ..., ‘All the rest, up until the final (or: next180, i.e., the second) sheet of my ketubah, is conferred by me as a gift on my father, as I have said, ...’ (the year 1621, Mahariṭ, Part II, ˀEven Haˁézer, no. 44, 16+18).181 (2) ‫י טיניאה‬ ‫ ל י דיישי אאו יתו‬5‫דונה פאטה בת ה"ר יע ב ' וארו נוחו עד שצותה מחמת מיתה וز‬ ‫י לי ונפליישי אה איל‬ ‫שו מאדרי אי אزה שוברי ואטרו שיינטוש אש' י לי דיויאה לה מאדרי אה איל יתו‬ . ‫יתו דיגו די לה מונידה י טייני אי ומירגינה אשטה אנטדאד די מיל אש‬, Dona Fata bat ha[rav] ri[bí] Yaˁaqov [Be]n Varón, nuḥó ˁeden, šeccivvetá meḥamat mitá, vez[é] [ha]lla[šón]: Ke dyesen a|un yatom ke tenia su madre en kaza, sovre kwatro syentos as[pros], – ke le devia la madre a el yatom –182, ke le kunplyesen a el yatom dičo183 de la moneda ke tyene en Kumirdžiná184, asta 178 Layton 2000: §514(a): 424. If ‘it’ was to be missing, then the verb would be interpreted as the homonymous verb sing (Crum 1939: 755b+756a) (Professor Ariel Shisha+Halevy, personal communication). 179 Rather similarly – §3.1.2.2.2.3.2. The formulations explaining tautology in RAE Grammar 1894 (see §3.1.3.1.1) are very insightful in this case. 180 The adjective p(r)ostero, ‘following’, ‘next’, (< Latin posterus) (exists in Old Spanish, see in CORDE), but more plausible here is the meaning ‘last’, ‘final’, as the Latin superlative formation of the aforementioned adjective, postremus, means (Professor David Bunis, personal communication). 181 The scholarly edition of this text is presented in Várvaro & Minervini 2007: 170+172. 182 This case also belongs to the category CLAUSES OF EXPLANATION/CLARIFICATION (§3.2.1.2.2.1.5 above). 163 kantidad de mil as. ..., ‘Dona Pata (or: Fata), the daughter of Ribí Yaˁaqov Ben Varón, – may he rest in peace –, who ordered (the following) upon death, and this was stated: There should be given over four hundred aspers to an orphan, whom her mother supported at home, – which the mother owed to the orphan –, and be completed to the sum of one thousand aspers, – for the said orphan –, from the money she has in Kumirdžiná. ...’ (Leḥem Rav, no. 205, 1+5).185 (3) "‫ גה ز' אלפי ות‬#‫וزה נוסח צואתו ביו ד' ח' לאלול משנת הש"א דיزי י לי אה די דאר אשו הי‬ ... ‫אשפירוש‬, vezé nússaḥ cavvaˀató beyom dálet, ḥet leˀelul miššenat 5301: Dize ke le a de dar a|su hiža zayin ˀalafim vetav+qof ásperos, ..., ‘and this is the wording of his will, (dictated) on Wednesday, Elul 8, 5301 (= the year 1541): He says, that he will give his daughter 7500 aspers, ...’ (Maharašdam, Ḥošen Mišpaṭ, no. 313, 5+6). (4) See §3.2.1.2.2.1.2.2 above, example (1). Additional examples in186: Maharašdam, Yoré Deˁá, no. 168, (folio 113, page 1), 26+27; Divré Rivot, no. 124, (folio 73, page 1), 5+7; Paraḥ Maṭṭé ˀAharón, Part I, no. 39, (folio 86, page 1), 10+11 and 28+29; Dibber Mošé, Part II, no. 71, (folio 73, page 1), 11; Kérem Šelomó, Ḥošen Mišpaṭ, no. 72, (folio 200, page 2), 29+30. 3.2.1.2.2.3.3 A non+tautological case: the reinforcer ‘todo’ The term reinforcer used here is taken from Arabic grammarians. They employed the term ²ِ ْiَ , tawkīd, or ²ِ ْ َ , ²ِ ªَ , (taˀkīd, tākīd), ‘corroboration’, ‘corroborating element’187 (Širbīnī 183 This case also belongs to the category CLAUSES, EXPRESSING DIRECTIVE MODALITY (JUSSIVE MOOD) (§3.2.1.2.2.1.2.2 above). 184 This is a conjectural transcription of the place name Κοœοτηνή (Greek), Gümülcine (Turkish), Гюмюрджина (Bulgarian), in the region of East Macedonia and Thrace, northeastern Greece, where there lived a Jewish community (Wikipedia). Cf. references to this place in Emmanuel 1963: Vol. I: #380: 168; #420: 185; #908: 405, and fn. 4; id. 1968: Vol. II: #1084: 493; #1343: 619 (spelled ‫ ;)יומורג'ינה‬#1445: 665 (spelled ‫)קיומורג'ינה‬. I am grateful to Yacov Tal Toledano and Ted Callaghan, at http://www.toledanogathering.com, for providing a lead on this toponym. 185 Thanks to Professor Yaron Ben+Naeh for bringing this text to my attention. 186 I thank Professor Yaron Ben+Naeh for directing me to most of these texts. 187 = ²ّ iَ ُ ْ َ‫أ‬, ˀal+muwaqqid (Širbīnī 1981: 294). 164 1981: 294+311).188 Corroborating, reinforcing elements, following the modified element, might be ٌ ِ َ / ُ َ ْ َ‫أ‬/ ‫ﱞ‬f²ُ , kullun/adžmaˁu/džamīun, ‘all (of something)’ (ibid.: 302); ُ ْ ‫أَ "ﱠ‬, ˀannafsu, ‘(him+, her+, etc.)+self’ (ibid.: 300); etc. E.g., &ْ ُ')‫ ﱡ‬²ُ ‫ْ ُم‬iَ% ‫ َء ْأ‬ª َ , džāˀa l+qawmu kulluhum, ‘the people came, all of them’ (ibid.: 302). Modern Coptic linguists denote this concept as reinforcer, augens, or Verstärker. 189 Todo ( a, os, as), put in addition to an object pronoun, and placed later in the sentence, may delusively look like pleonasm, – the pronoun seems redundant –, but this is not the case190, – todo specifies, provides a fuller description of ‘all of’, about the pronoun191. Examples: (1) .‫איל אבולטה איל גינגירא אי לוס ייאמה אה טודוס‬, El abolta el čingirak i los yama a toðos., ‘He rotates (the handle of) the magneto192, and calls them all.’ (ˀEliyyá R. Karmona, El Džugetón 5: 47 (the year 5674 (1913+4)): 3+4; cited in Bunis 1999a: Ch. X: 191). (2) ... ;‫ אלי י מי לו יטיס טודו פור לאס גואיבאס די לוס אוزוס‬,‫ סורבינטינה ניגרה‬, ‫טייניס ראزו‬, EZRÁ: Tyenes razón, sorventina negra. Kale ke me lo kites todo por las gwevas de los ožos.193, ‘EZRÁ: You are right, you bad woman. You have to sponge me of everything.’ (Aksyón 10: 2797 (1938); Bunis 1999b: 394 bottom). (3) Between two acquaintances – Reˀuvén to Šimˁón: Yo vos mando tal merkansia; toparé grasya en tus ožos si pwedrás venderla toda o partida de eya tanto ke no verás de ponerlo todo en panyo enserrado ..., ‘I am sending you these goods; it would be greatly appreciated if you could sell them, or part of them, so that you should not have to wrap it all in a piece of cloth ...’ (In 188 Cf. also Goldenberg 1971: §39: 77. 189 Verstärker – Polotsky 1971b: 398: fn. 1, and the whole article; reinforcer – Shisha+Halevy 1988: 273; the Celtological term augens – Shisha+Halevy 1986: §6.0.0.1: 155+156. 190 And, indeed, GRAE (Vol. I: §16.14n: 1247+1248) calls an added todo ‘falso doblado’ (= a false reduplicated one). See also the sentence Su madre Cf. Tú te 191 192 sabes quiere ., ‘Their mother loves them all.’, in Leonetti 2007: 136: §2: ex. (3). , ‘You know it all’ (said ironically) (Bello 1903: §330d: 377). Cf. the discussions in Širbīnī 1981: 300, 302. ‫גינגירא‬, čingirak (Turkish çıngırak) means ‘a little bell’. On the older telephones, turning a crank on the calling telephone spun a magneto, producing an alternating or ringing current. Thus the second party got a ring. That is why the magneto is called čingirak. 193 Cf. English ‘The winner takes it all.’; this English ‘it’, and ‘lo’ in this Judezmo example, seem to be semantically empty, given the semantic tinge ‘ALL’ by the following ‘all’, ‘todo’. 165 Jacob Xulí’s Me’am Lo’ez on Exodus, the year 1733, – in the scholarly edition García Moreno 2004: §III.3.2.1.1: 225). (4) ‫אי לוש אינטירימוש אה טודוש טיריש‬, i los enterrimos a todos terés, ‘and we burried them, all the three’ (Torat Mošé – Modern Edition, Ḥošen Mišpaṭ, no. 28, 16+17). 3.2.1.2.3 Conclusion In the previous subchapters dealing with tails, we first examined co+occurences of an object pronoun with the syntagm a + PRONOUN. Then the use of tails as noun phrases etc. in discourse was analyzed, and a number of subcases were observed (questions, directive modality, and others). As for narration, we discussed some instances of minimal opposition in §3.2.1.2.2.2.1, and showed that some cinematographic interpretations might be helpful; then we saw tail usages at the beginning of a narrative and in clauses representing violent or dramatic events. Further, several specific cases were demonstrated. 3.2.1.3 VERB + REFLEXIVE PRONOUN as medium (middle, medio) This sub+chapter deals with the so+called medium (also middle194, mediopassive195, in Spanish terminology medio196) “voice”, – what is also termed in Spanish linguistics . (Andrés Bello)197, or . /0 $ . (in contrast with oraciones reflexivas propiamente dichas) (Amado Alonso)198, as well as the syntagms having so+called 0 . 199 , also termed 0 122 . (Marcelo Taibo calls all these el ‘se’ medio y aspectual201). 194 Kemmer 1993. 195 Hundt 2007. 196 Taibo: §1.3: 10+11; §1.4: 13; Lehmann 2009: §2.1: 151. 197 Taibo: §1.2: 6; Bello 1903: §331: 377. 198 Taibo: §1.2: 6+7. 199 Bello 1903: §330d: 376+377; Taibo: §4.1.1: 75. Also named ‘self+benefactive’ (Kemmer 1993: 17). 200 Taibo: §4.1.1: 76: fn. 56; 77. 201 Taibo: §1.4: 13. 166 Medium (middle) voice (diathesis), as opposed to active voice and passive voice (if exists), is found in certain ancient Indo+European languages, such as Sanskrit202 and Classical Greek203, having separate morphological endings. The Indian grammarians define this voice as ‘word for oneself’, as opposed to active voice – ‘word for another’.204 In Spanish and some other modern languages, the equivalent is verbs having a reflexive object, ‘oneself’ or ‘for oneself’.205 These constructions might have a variety of meanings206 (Judezmo examples will be enclosed in 202 Cf. Kemmer 1993: 18, 23. 203 Kemmer 1993: 1. 204 “For my first group of verbs I take those in which the middle forms, in contrast with the active, denote an action carried out by the subject for himself, in his own province and interests. One may compare here the terms coined by the Indian grammarians for active and middle. They call the active forms ‘parasmaipadam’, lit. ‘word for another’, and the middle ‘ātmanepadam’, ‘word for oneself’. In other words, they use the ātmanepada[m] forms for marking a use of a verb in which the action benefits the agent. So, the middle is used when the action of the verb affects something that belongs to the subject+agent.” (Wackernagel 2009: Lecture I, 22: 164). And cf. Bello 1903: §334a: 380+381: “Bien es verdad que si fijamos la consideración en la variedad de significados que suele dar á los verbos neutros [= intransitivos, ibid.: §328: 367] el caso complementario reflejo, percibiremos cierto color de acción que el sujeto parece ejercer en sí mismo.” 205 Hundt 2007: 10. The Modern Hebrew “dative” corresponding usage is with the preposition le , followed by a pronominal suffix, whose signified is identical with that of the verb, e.g., hu halax lo, (cf. also le acm , e.g., ‫אנחנו‬ .‫ איננו יודעים איך הוא חי בלעדינו‬.‫ חי לעצמו‬,‫ עולם אילם‬.‫ ריק מאיתנו‬,‫משאירים את העולם מאחורינו‬, Eyal Megged, ‫א יך לח י ו ת‬, Tel Aviv: Yedioth Ahronoth & Chemed, 2010, Part I, §14); and the “accusative” equivalent is binyan hitpaˁel (Taube 1997: §3.1.2.1: 104+111; §3.1.4+§3.1.5: 119+121), e.g., hitbacea. Actually, medium in languages having no unique morphology for it – unlike Sanskrit and Classical Greek – has no exact limits, is not clearly defined: For example, in Spanish, a transitive verb + an accusative literal reflexive object (lavarse, ‘wash oneself’; vestirse, ‘dress oneself’), and the cases of reciprocal se, ‘each other’, might all be considered to be medium, because they all have the reflexive element ‘oneself’, se. However, these cases do not fall under the definition of medium, because they are explicitly active. Furthermore, on the other hand, ‘dative of interest’, although also accompanying verbs which can be explicitly active, is considered medium, because this dative functions differently than the verbal objects, dative and accusative (Taibo §4.1.1: 77, citing the linguist Gómez Torrego). 206 These meanings can many times be discerned, when being opposed to the parallel non+reflexive usage, if exists, and if has almost the same meaning. Bello (1903: §330d: 376+377; §334: 380+383) and Taibo (§4.2: 87+98) make these comparisons as to Spanish, and the same will be done by us further down with regard to Judezmo. Such minimal pairs, one of whose members in each pair is medium, also exists in some other languages, like French, Hungarian, and Old Norse (Kemmer 1993: 21). 167 brackets207; Spanish examples will be provided in the footnotes): a change of state208 (trokarse, ‘to change’) or position209 (menearse, ‘to move’, ‘to get going’), psychological processes210 (kesharse, ‘to complain’), – what may at times be contrasted with passive constructions, where the affecting agent is more salient (trokado, ‘(be) changed’; meneado, ‘(be) moved’), – and that is why medium occasionally conveys agentless211 or intentionless212 semantics; the following significations may be named a self centered mode of action (Aktionsart) 213: ‘dative of interest’214 207 208 I am grateful to Professor David Bunis for providing some typical examples. % á vista del peligro (Bello 1903: §331: 378), ‘They get frightened in view of danger’; Las olas azotadas por el viento % 0 (ibid.: ibid.: ibid), ‘The waves, lashed by the wind, became rough’; Cuando empezaba la carrera, yo salía rápido … y a los setenta y cinco yo iba delante de todos, pero de los setenta y cinco a los cien metros, allí era adonde . % uno, ‘When the race was starting, I was setting off quickly ... and outrunning everyone at the point of seventy+five (metres), but at a distance of between seventy+five and one hundred metres, my competitors were already losing heart’ (Taibo: §3.3.1: 53 [CREA, Mexico]). 209 Millones de personas cada día buscando el descanso reparador, ‘Millions of people go to bed (in the middle of) every day, in pursuit of the refreshing rest’ (Taibo: §3.3.1: 53 [CREA, Spain]). 210 Era un movimiento que lo encabezaba un jesuita, padre argentino… En esa época $ del problema habitacional, ‘There was a movement led by a Jesuit, an Argentinian Father... In those days he worried about the housing problem’ (Taibo: §3.3.1: 53 [CREA, Chile]). 211 Kemmer 1993: 30; Taibo: §5.1.2: 107; cf. Bello 1903: §335: 383. 212 Cf. Bello 1903: §335: 383; Taube 1997: §3.1.2.1: 104+111; §3.1.4+§3.1.5: 119+121. 213 Shisha+Halevy 1986: §6.1.5.2: 182. Cf. Polish, in which the dative reflexive pronoun sobie, ‘to/for oneself’, is employed with a verb, thus together expressing this self centered mode of action. Doroszewski’s Polish dictionary (1966: Vol. VIII: the entry ‘sobie’: 471b+472b) lists the senses of VERB + sobie: I. Wyraz o charakterze ekspresywnym nadający wypowiedzi styl potoczny, trochę nieokreślony [= An utterance of expressive function, contributes to the colloquial, and slightly undefined, style] (cf. Andrés Bello’s description in Taibo: §4.1.1: 75: “para dar un tono familiar o festivo a la oración”); II. Bywa używany po czasownikach oznaczających ruch przestrzenny (często oddalanie się), uwydatnia zwykle zmniejszone zainteresowanie się mówiącego kierunkiem, celem tego ruchu [= Employed after verbs, signifying spatial motion (often moving away); (sobie) usually highlights the speaker’s little interest in the direction or destination of this motion]; III. Łączy się często z czasownikami oznaczającymi lekceważenie, kpiny, żarty itp. [= Often attached to verbs representing contempt, scorn, joking, and so on] (e.g., Ty sobie żartujesz, ..., ‘You are joking (lit., for yourself), ... ’); IV. Łączy się często z czasownikami oznaczającymi zaspokojenie głodu, pragnienia lub innych potrzeb [= Frequently attached to verbs expressing alleviation of hunger, thirst, or other needs] (e.g., kurzył sobie, ‘he was smoking (lit., for himself)’); V. Wzmacnia formy trybu rozkazującego [= Reinforces imperatives] (e.g., Idź sobie, ..., ‘Go (lit., for yourself), ... ’). 214 Which Bello calls dativos superfluos: Bello 1903: §330d: 376+377; Taibo: §4.1.1: 75. 168 = self+benefactive215 (komerse, ‘to eat’, see §3.2.1.3.1.1 below); inchoative216 (irse, ‘to go (implying leaving)’, see §3.2.1.3.2 below), but may also be resultative217; volition / intention / control / responsibility218 (probably occasionally morirse, ‘to die a natural death’, and cf. §3.2.1.3.2 infra) (but sometimes quite the opposite – involuntariness / intentionlessness219); a more complete predication, in contrast with one expressed by a non+reflexive construction220 (venirse, ‘to come’, see §3.2.1.3.1.2 below). 215 Kemmer 1993: 17. Also called in Latin dativus commodi (= dative of benefit/convenience/interest); found in Old Spanish as well (Wagner 1914: Part II: §83: 129). Examples: $ diez arepas por cuarenta bolívares, ‘He ate (lit., ‘for himself’ added) ten arepas (corn cakes) for forty Venezuelan bolívars’ (Taibo: §4.1: 75 [CREA, Venezuela]); Es una gran persona de todas maneras, ¿verdad?, y, bueno, él $ esta bebida, ‘He is a great person in all respects, isn’t he? And well, he drank (lit., ‘for himself’ added) this beverage’ (ibid.: ibid.: ibid. [CREA, Paraguay]); Y mi marido, morado de la risa, porque él por poner una alfombra de un bus + $ diez mil pesos en una tarde, ‘And my husband, red of laughter, because by putting a carpet taken from a bus, he earned (lit., ‘for himself’ added) ten thousand pesos in one afternoon’ (ibid.: ibid.: ibid. [CREA, Costa Rica]). 216 Cf. Kemmer 1993: 30. E.g., dormirse, ‘to fall asleep’; despertarse, ‘to wake up’; El niño se ha dormido (= ha empezado a dormir), ‘The child has fallen asleep’, vs. El niño ha dormido (= ha terminado de dormir), ‘The child has slept’ (Taibo: §4.2: 88+89, and fn. 72; same in García 1975: Ch. I: §1.2.2: 4). Ahorita 0 la muchacha de la casa, la que tenía diez, once años con nosotros [= ahorita está a punto de irse la muchacha de la casa], ‘Now the girl is going to leave home, who has spent ten, eleven years with us.’ (Taibo: §4.2: 94 [CREA, Venezuela]). 217 , ‘The girls, for example –, Las chicas, por ejemplo, cuando yo digo que Literatura es Castellano, when I tell them that literature is the Spanish language, nearly die.’ (Taibo: §4.2: 94 [CREA, Argentina]); 3 $ una asistenta rubia y eficiente. [= la buscaba y no sé si la encontró], ‘He was seeking a blonde and efficient cleaner.’, as opposed to El director % $ una asistenta rubia y eficiente. [= la buscó y la encontró], ‘The director searched for a blonde and efficient cleaner.’ (Pérez Vázquez 2007: §2: example 9); Juan wall’, vs. Juan 218 $ el muro, ‘Juan climbed over the $ el muro, ‘Juan has climbed over the wall’ (ibid.: §3). Thus estarse – Bello 1903: §334a: 381; Taibo: §4.2: 95. Cf. 4 ice skated all afternoon in the ice rink.’ vs. toda la tarde en la pista de hielo., ‘We , dándonos una tremenda costalada., ‘We ice skated, and had a bad fall.’ (Pérez Vázquez 2007: §2: example 10). Cf. also the following possible opposition: Pedro ‘Pedro died’ (He may have been killed), vs. Pedro $, $, ‘Pedro died’ (He definitely was not killed) (García 1975: Ch. I: §1.2.2: 4+5; §1.3: 7+8). 219 Disculpe, llego tarde porque , ‘I beg your pardon, I am late because I overslept’ (Taibo: §4.2: 95: fn. 77). 220 See examples, and a possible explanation, further on. This gives a feeling that the action represented by the reflexive construction is somewhat accentuated, salient, – as suggest Pérez Vázquez 2007: §2.1 (about Spanish) and Koén+Sarano 1999: 59 (about Judezmo). 169 The following sections will deal with the cases in Judezmo in which a verb may be used both with a reflexive pronoun as a self centered mode of action (Aktionsart) (see the term above), and without it, both of which have almost the same meaning. E.g., irse/me/etc. vs. ir, and thus morirse/morir, dormirse/dormir, komerse/komer, embezarse/embezar, etc. We shall trace the differences in meaning between the two types of syntagms. Furthermore, it should be noted that the choice of a reflexive / non+reflexive usage, and their nuances of meaning, may very much be bounded by the region and period of Judezmo. Since it was necessary to confine the thesis within certain length bounds, in some cases we provided only the locations of the examples in the corpora. 3.2.1.3.1 Medium as a self centered mode of action in Besprochene Welt221 transmission The discussion will be divided into observations of certain meanings. Most of the examples were taken from the Satirical Series. 3.2.1.3.1.1 Self+benefactive The reflexive use of the verbs komer and bever that we have seen in texts appears to carry self+benefactive (‘dative of interest’) connotations. Cf. also Doroszewski et al. (fn. 213 supra) about the parallel Polish sobie (“Frequently attached to verbs expressing alleviation of hunger, thirst, or other needs”). Examples of komerse vs. komer: (1) # : ‫ סי לוס‬5 ‫ לוס‬,‫ פולייוס‬11 ‫ אי לה גו ה ייה סאלייו‬.‫י סיפאס י ייו איסטו מוגו בואינה‬ .‫ ומייו איל גאטו‬, Ke sepas ke yo estó mučo bwena. I la čoka ya salyó onze poyos; los sinko se los komyó el gato., (from a letter) ‘Just know that I am really well. And the egg+laying produced eleven chicks; five were eaten by the cat.’ (Aksyón 11: 3044 (1939); Bunis 1999b: 513 top); El figo bweno se lo kome la graža., ‘The good fig is eaten by the crow.’ (An aphorism meaning that the luxurious things in this world are fated to be destroyed) (Nehama 1977: 210b); Yo so padre, yo me komo la karne., ‘I am the father, I eat the meat.’ (An aphorism about a selfish person, 221 See §1.1. 170 wanting everything for himself only222) (Alkalay 1984: Ch. 25: 120). In contrast with non" reflexives (# ): .‫ פור לוס ואירנוס לו דישו‬,‫סי ומייו איל בואיי‬, Si komyó el bwey, por los kwernos lo deshó., ‘If he has eaten the bull, he (nevertheless) left (i.e., did not eat) its horns’ (A saying which means that one did not finish one’s work properly223) (Aksyón 11: 2965 (1939); Bunis 1999b: 425 top); ... ,‫סי טי פאבלו פירוס י מי ומא מיס ארניס‬, Si te favlo, peros ke me koman mis karnes., ‘If I talk to you, let dogs eat my flesh, (so I had rather not do that).’ (Mesažero 4: 1265 (1939); Bunis 1999b: 563 top). (2) In the dictionary of Perez & Pimienta (2007) one finds instances having negative connotations. That is to say, the self+benefactive action is perceived as egoism: komerse el zehut i el kavod, ‘to abuse someone’s generosity (ibid.: 470c), hospitality (ibid.: 252b)’224; komerse a uno de gritos, ‘to “eat someone alive” by screaming’ (ibid.: ibid.). We came to the same conclusion regarding % 0 5 6, ‘to drink’, examples: non"reflexive (% 0 ): Aksyón 10: 2832 (1938) – Bunis 1999b: 456 bottom; Mesažero 4: 1284 (1939) – Bunis 1999b: 486 middle; (imperative) Aksyón 10: 2780 (1938) – Bunis 1999b: 522 bottom; reflexive (% 0 ): El Rizón 12: 27 (1937) – Bunis 1999b: 394 bottom; El Rizón 13: 9 (1938) – Bunis 1999b: 616 middle, see the sentence in §3.3.2.1.4, example (3c); (imperative) Askyón 10: 2804 (1939) – Bunis 1999b: 400 bottom.225 Furthermore, an addition of a reflexive pronoun might happen also to verbs, not usually having it. This was the case of yorar, ‘to cry’: In the Satirical Series corpus, this verb does not have a reflexive usage, as the said self+centered mode of action. However, there was witnessed 222 Or, alternatively, about a responsible person who, when there is a problem, has to “eat his own flesh” in order to solve it; in this case though, me would not be a dative of interest. (I thank Professor David Bunis for bringing this additional meaning to my attention). 223 Perez & Pimienta 2007: 76c. 224 Literally, ‘to (enjoy) eat(ing) (somebody else’s) merit and honour’. Also, this expression has another meaning: ‘to squander all one’s income’ (ibid.: 470c), in this case the reflexive use of this verb probably carries a resultative nuance. 225 Cf. also with kagar, ‘defecate’: ‫ אי סו פאגה‬...‫ייו מי א‬, EZRÁ: (Said contemptuously) Yo me ka[go] ... en su fača. (Aksyón 10: 2568 (1938); Bunis 1999b: 375 top). 171 such usage once, as a causticity technique, so+called asteism (ἀστεϊσœός)226, by way of employing the same syntactic pattern which the addressee just used: BOXOR: No pwedo sentir, Džamila. En estos dias se kafra? – DŽAMILA: Si, en estos dias se yora la luvya menuda a un šop komo ti ke me estás entiznando i boyadeando. ‘BOXOR: I cannot hear that, Džamila. Does one blaspheme in these (High Holy) days? – DŽAMILA: Yes, in these days the drizzle cries above a pighead like you, who is making me suffer.’ (Mesažero 2: 556 (1937); Bunis 1999b: 385 bottom). This free pronominal attachment is also found in Modern+Hebrew Israeli songs, – but this time not as asteism, but, probably often, due to metric constraints. We do not wish to say that in the instances below, it is only metric constraints that caused the pronominal addition, but they seem to be an important factor. Examples: ("‫בתוך כל ;מי שאהב לו – עוד צפויות לו אהבות רבות )"מי שחלם‬ ("‫ אם תעוף ;יום בא והולך לו )"יום רודף יום"( ;אלה מתחבאות להן שנים )"ימים של קיץ‬,‫ היא תעוף לה רחוק‬,‫יפה הציפור‬ ("‫ )"העץ הוא גבוה‬.‫ מה אכפת לציפור שהעץ הוא ירוק‬,‫ מה אכפת לו לעץ‬,‫הציפור‬, cf. also the repetition here ‫מה‬ ‫ אם היא אמרה שהיא אוהבת רק אותך כל ;אכפת לו לעץ‬,‫ לך לשם‬,‫ אז לך איתה‬,‫אם היא אמרה שהיא אוהבת רק אותך כל כך‬ ("‫ לך לך איתה לשם )"לך איתה‬,‫ אז לך איתה‬,‫ ואני תקוע בחליפת חיינו )"האהבה ;כך‬,‫את שוב לובשת לך שמלת כלה‬ ("‫ אני יושב לי )"שתיים ;וקוף שרוקד לו צ'ה צ'ה צ'ה )"אמא ודני"( ;נשם לו בשקט )"קפה טורקי"( ;הישנה‬,‫שתיים בלילה‬ ("‫ ויושבת פתאום על אבן חדה מחוץ למעגל )"נערת הרוק"( ;בלילה‬,‫מטיילים לנו עם כוכבים ;או שהיא קמה לה פתאום‬ ("‫ אבל ;מה אני מבקש לי? )"שניים"( ;הולך לי בגשם )"לא יודע מה עובר לך בראש"( ;)"ציור‬... ‫אבל הנה מזדחל לו הספק‬ ("‫ ולבי לבי דופק לו לאחור )"געגועיי לגעגועים‬... ‫ הזמן זורם לו לאחור )"דוד ;הנה בא לו המחנק‬,‫כשהוא פורט על המיתר‬ ("‫ לא אנוד ממנו )"על הדרך עץ עומד"( ;ושאול‬,‫ תועה לי בשבילי החיים )"גרגר חול"( ;אל העץ אעופה לי‬,‫וניצב לו ;הולך‬ ("‫ועוד חלום שלי ;אני חוזר לי אל ביתי )"שיר סתיו"( ;כי השער ייפתח לו )"מנעי קולך מבכי"( ;בלילה )"לו הייתי פיראט‬ (‫זה מעגל שמסתובב לו על ציר משומן )"כשהיינו ילדים"( ;ממריא לו ובוכה )שיר הפרחה‬. 3.2.1.3.1.2 A more complete predication We notice that the reflexive constructions of the verbs venir and ir often have a more complete predication than their non+reflexive parallels.227 The reason for this might be that if one does something for oneself – as this reflexive syntagm literally denotes (as opposed to the mere construction one does something, less catching one’s eye, less arresting one’s attention), – then it 226 The Forest of Rhetoric, the entry ‘asteismus’; OED, the entry ‘asteism’. 227 This issue, or to be more precise, the issue of incomplete predication, was discussed by Polotsky (1957: 110, fn. 1; 114, fn. 1) with respect to Ancient Egyptian (the pattern gm.n.ı̓ sw ... , ‘I found him (IN A CERTAIN STATE)’). 172 means that the utterer wanted the nexus, created by the verb, to be more included in the predication of the sentence, i.e., in its rheme228, than in the case of the non+reflexive construction. Below there are examples of the forms vine / me vine, ‘I came’: Reflexive229: ‫ פינה י איגימוס לוס פי אדוס אי לימפיי ו לימפיי ו מי‬,‫ ]ביר אט אליבאנה[ סי דיزי‬... .‫ביני אל באפי ו טולייו‬, ... [birkat alevaná] se dize, fina ke ečimos los pekados i limpyiko limpyiko me vine al bafiko tuyo., ‘... [Kiddush levanah was] recited, until we forsook our sins, and nice and clean I have come back to your snug bosom.’ (Mesažero 5: 1596 (1940); Bunis 1999b: 382 bottom); – :‫ סונחולה דייו אונוס ואנטוס סורבוס אי אימפיסו אנסי‬.‫לה סירבידירה טרושו לוס אפיס אי סאלייו‬ ‫ אאי אנדי אפוزא לוס‬,‫ מי פואי אה סירביר אי אונה אزה סיר ה דיל לו ס‬,‫ואנדו ייו מי ביני די איס ופייה‬ ... .‫אוטומוביליס‬, (La servidera trušo los kafés i salyó. Sunxula dyo unos kwantos sorvos i empesó ansí:) “Kwando yo me vine de Eskopya, me fwe a servir en una kaza serka del Luks, aí ande apozan los otomobiles. ...”, ‘The servant brought the dishes of coffee and went out. Sunxula took several sips, and began to say: “When I came from Skopje, I went to work as a servant in a house near Luks, where cars are being parked. ...”’ (El Rizón 12: 33 (1938); Bunis 1999b: 575 bottom – 576 top). Non"reflexive: .‫אנסינה נו סאליאמוס פור לה אליי ני טורנאבאמוס אינדיפלאדוס ומו ביני אויי‬, Ansina no salíamos por la kaye ni tornávamos endeflados komo vine oy., ‘This way we never went out to the street and came back embittered, like I did today.’ (Aksyón 10: 2548 (1938); Bunis 1999b: 453 middle); ‫ אסינדה סי בייני אינדיפלאדו איס פור י סינטי‬,‫די טי אל דייו י נו פאבליס בינוטה‬ ... ,‫אה לאס מוزיריס י אבריאירו דוגה אאי דילאנטרי לה ניפטארה‬, De ti al Dyo, ke no favles, Benuta; asindá si vine endeflado es porke sentí a las mužeres ke avryeron duča aí delantre la niftará, ..., ‘For Heaven’s sake, please don’t talk, Benuta; If I, as it is, have come back embittered, this is 228 For theme and rheme, see §3.1.1. 229 Interestingly, as these examples (vine vs. me vine) show, and thus also the instances of va VERBIMPERATIVE vs. vate ALLATIVE/ELATIVE, (±i) VERBIMPERATIVE further down, the reflexive uses (= a more complete predication) go hand in hand – for some reason – with frequent inclusion/indication of the destination/origin of the motion, in the clause. I owe Professor David Bunis my thanks for this observation. 173 because I heard the women drawn into a quarrel there, in front of the deceased, ...’ (Aksyón 11: 3124 (1939); Bunis 1999b: 460 bottom). An opposition of fwe / me fwe, ‘I went’: ‫ סי‬,‫ פואי אה טופאר אה מארי ה נו לו טופי‬,‫אברי פיزה‬ .‫פואי אי ביאزי‬, Abré fiža, fwe230 a topar a Marika, no lo topí; se fwe en vyaže., ‘Dear, I went to find [the driver – a guy named] Marika (sic), I did not find him; he is on a trip.’ (Aksyón 11: 3031 (1939); Bunis 1999b: 500 top); ‫ ייאברו‬,‫ מי בינו לה אידיאה‬,‫ייו מי פואי אה פאزירליס איל אבי‬ .‫ די פאزיר אונה שא ה‬,‫סונחולה‬, Yo me fwe a fazerles el kavé, me vino la idea, yavrum Sunxula, de fazer una šaká., ‘I went to make coffee for them, I came up with the idea, Sunxula darling, to play a trick.’ (El Rizón 13: 9 (1938); Bunis 1999b: 616 top). And these are locations of instances of the verb ir(se) that we have gathered, having the locutive singular or plural vaya / vayamos, as opposed to me vaya / mos vayamos, ‘that I/we go’: reflexive: Mesažero 4: 1143 (1939) – Bunis 1999b: 464 middle; Aksyón 11: 3031 (1939) – Bunis 1999b: 500 top; non"reflexive: Mesažero 5: 1596 (1940) – Bunis 1999b: 384 top; El Rizón 12: 12 (1938) – Bunis 1999b: 437 middle; Mesažero 2: 578 (1937) – Bunis 1999b: 472 bottom. It is worthwhile indicating these further observations: In Spanish, there are Me reí, ‘I laughed’, in contrast with Reí, ‘I laughed’, the latter occasionally implying that there was something to laugh at, to ridicule231. In this regard, consider the following Judezmo example, having the opposition fazer burla – fazerse burla: ‫ زי בורלה ושאלנו לו עוד די י פיزו בורלה‬#‫אי דישו מי פי‬, I dišo: “Me fizi burla.” Vešaˀalnu lo ˁod, deké fizo burla., ‘and he said: “I mocked him.” Then we asked him further why he mocked him.’ (Torat Ḥayyim, Part I, no. 82, 29+30). The same principle might possibly be seen in English in the opposition [They] % (with bled having a less complete predication), vs. So it (i.e., the arm) % all over the place, ., (with bled up having the same meaning, but a more complete predication).232 Cf. also Russian, the utterance 230 This example is a piece of evidence that even though fwe could be avoided (due to the homonymous form of ser, viz., ‘I was’), by saying me fwe, it still did not deter the speaker from using the non+reflexive form. (Disregarding the context (syntactic and semantic) point of view, – things that, of course, contribute to the proper understanding of the verb). 231 García 1975: Ch. I: §1.2.2: 5. 232 The whole passage is in Tannen 1989: 119+120: example (18): lines 4 and 37. 174 ‘let us get married’, both having perfective aspect, but the latter below possessing the typical perfective prefix по : давай женимся (a less complete predication, – these words are supplemented by additional ideas in the sentence), vs. давай поженимся (a more complete, self+ sufficient, predication) (One may see the examples on Google). Cf., in this respect, the following Judezmo instance: ‫שיניור דוטור פור ינו ווש אزאש פואיש איש ראزו י אزיש פארה טיניר היגוש‬, Senyor dotor, porké|no vos kazaš? Pwes es razón ke kazeš, para tener hižos., ‘Doctor, why don’t you get married? After all, there is a reason for you to do so, – to have children.’ (Maharašdam, ˀEven Haˁézer, no. 166, 10+11). Another interesting opposition, which conforms to our aforesaid description, is of the imperative sequences ‘va VERBIMPERATIVE’ (va being non+reflexive, thus carrying a less complete predication), as opposed to ‘vate ALLATIVE233/ELATIVE234, (±i) VERBIMPERATIVE’ (vate being reflexive, thus carrying a more complete predication). This goes hand in hand with another fact, that the juncture, i.e., the degree of linkage235, between va and the next imperative is strong, and this is not so in the case of vate. Here are the findings: 0 VERBIMPERATIVE: I. Negative feelings are expressed: ‫ בה פאز לו‬,‫אימפוסטימאדו י נו טי ביאה ראסה די דיزבאניסידו‬ ... ,‫ י ייריס‬, BENUTA: Empostemado ke no te vea, rasa de dezvanesido. Va faz lo ke kyeres, ..., ‘BENUTA: I wish I never saw you abscessed, you chatterbox. Go do what you want, ...’ (Aksyón 10: 2797 (1938); Bunis 1999b: 395 top); .‫בה ונטאסילו אה דיליסייה טו אירמאנה‬, DŽAMILA: Va kóntaselo a Delisya tu ermana., ‘DŽAMILA: Go tell it to your sister Delisya.’ (Mesažero 2: 556 (1937); Bunis 1999b: 386 middle); ‫ בה לאבאטי לה ארה י‬,‫ בה‬,‫ ייו י נו ביביירה‬... . ‫פאריסיס או מאיימו‬, BENUTA: ... Yo ke no bivyera, va, va lávate la kara ke pareses un maymón., ‘BENUTA: ... I wish I hadn’t been alive, go, go wash your face, because you look like a monkey.’ (Aksyón 11: 2953(?) (1939); Bunis 1999b: 418 top); ‫ בה מיר אמי פאנטופלאס‬... 233 The term means ‘motion towards’; which implies here the destination. 234 The term means ‘motion outwards’; which implies here the origin. 235 For the definition of juncture, see Matthews 1997: 192. For usage of this term in relation to syntax, cf. Shisha+ Halevy 2004. 175 .‫ אי לה סוגראנה פאס ואל‬,‫ רומאניאה פאס ואל‬,‫פאס ואל‬, BENUTA: ... va mérkame pantuflas paskwal, romania paskwal, i la sograna paskwal., ‘BENUTA: ... go buy me slippers kosher for Passover, a romania (a hair covering made of muslin for married women) kosher for Passover, and a comb which is kosher for Passover.’ (Aksyón 11: 2953(?) (1939); Bunis 1999b: 418 bottom). II. Neutral (non+negative) sayings: ... ‫ בה פאز לאס ליגאס טימפראני ו‬... , ... va faz las lidžas tempraniko ..., ‘... go take your thermal baths early ...’ (Aksyón 10: 2683 (1938); Bunis 1999b: 497 bottom); ‫בה איגאטי‬, Va éčate, ‘Go to bed’ (Aksyón 11: 2965 (1939); Bunis 1999b: 425 middle); ... ‫שה בה יטאמי איל אוטרו אנטארי אי איל חאראגי‬, ša, va kítame el otro antarí i el xaračín ..., ‘come on, go bring me the other nightshirt and the nightcap ...’ (Aksyón 10: 2626 (1938); Bunis 1999b: 427 middle); ‫בה טומה‬, Va toma, ‘Go take (them)’ (Mesažero 5: 1474 (1940); Bunis 1999b: 434 bottom); ‫בה מיראביר אלגונה ביزינה י טי אינגה או גארו‬, va miraver alguna vezina ke te inča un džaro, ‘go find some neighbour, so that she will fill you a jug’ (Aksyón 10: 2818 (1938); Bunis 1999b: 545 top); ‫בה מיר אטי ייאגור‬, va mérkate yagur, ‘go buy yourself some yoghurt’ (Mesažero 5: 1557 (1940); Bunis 1999b: 572 middle); ‫בה פאס איל פיסאח‬, va fas el Pésax, ‘go organize and make the Passover celebration’ (El Rizón 13: 7 (1938); Bunis 1999b: 613 bottom). 0 ALLATIVE/ELATIVE, (± ) VERBIMPERATIVE: ‫ מירה ביר יי סופרי די‬,‫באטי אל אישפיטאל‬ ... ‫דולור די סיزאס אי בוסטיزוס‬, vate al ešpital, mira ver kyen sufre de dolor de sežas i bostežos, ..., ‘go to the hospital, see who suffers from a brow+ache and yawning, ...’ (Mesažero 5: 1344 (1940); Bunis 1999b: 409 middle); ‫בואינו אונה ביز י איס אנסינה באטי אסו אزה י פאסאלי לה אורה‬ .‫ ו מאסאלי וס די ליי‬, Bweno – una vez ke es ansina, vate a|su kaza i pásale la ora kon masalikos de ley., ‘Good – once this is so, go to her house and entertain her, recounting stories from Tora.’ (Mesažero 4: 1143 (1939); Bunis 1999b: 464 bottom); ,‫בואינו סי איס אנסינה באטי אי טו אלה ישיבה‬ ‫דיספיגאטי די אי אزה‬, Bweno – si es ansina, vate i tu a|la yešivá, despégate de en kaza, ‘Good – if this is so, go, you too, to the yešivá (the house of study), leave the house’ (Aksyón 11: 3142 176 (1939); Bunis 1999b: 466 middle); ‫באטי די א י אי דישה אי ריפוزו אה איסטי בואי אומברי‬, vate de akí i deša en repozo a este bwen ombre, ‘go away from here, and leave in peace this good man’ (El Rizón 13: 7 (1938); Bunis 1999b: 615 top). The examined difference may also be regarding dormir(se) – see both uses throughout a dialogue in: Mesažero 3: 638 (1937) – Bunis 1999b: Passage 97: 548+550. 3.2.1.3.2 Medium as a self centered mode of action in Erzählte Welt236 transmission In narrative passages of the rabbinical responsa corpus, illustrating the use of Judezmo especially before the 19th century (but cf. below also the 20th+century example from Noseˀ ˀEfod), the commonest opposition of the discussed kind is ir–irse (and their inflexion). As in Spanish, irse implies leaving, whereas ir implies the process of moving. Examples of this opposition within the same text: Torat Ḥayyim, Part I, no. 82 (see most of the text plus translation in §3.1.3.2, example (1)), in lines 20, 39, 54, as opposed to lines: 26, 31, 38, 39, 44, 47, 53, 58, 76, 77; HaMabiṭ, Part III, no. 82, (folio 137, page 2, column II), 103, vs. (folio 138, page 1, column I), 120; Maharšax, Part II, no. 134, (folio 97, page 1), 21, 24, 45, vs. 39+40; Maharšax, Part IV, no. 89, (folio 142, page 2), 15 and 17, and (folio 143, page 1), 36, 48, vs. (folio 143, page 2), 53237; Raˀanaḥ, no. 29, (folio 59, page 1, column I), 23 vs. 45; Mahariṭ, Part II, ˀEven Haˁézer, no. 35, (folio 40, page 2, column II), 94, and (folio 41, page 1, column II), 217, vs. (folio 41, page 1, column I), 145, and (folio 41, page 1, column I), 161; Mixtam LeDavid, ˀEven Haˁézer, no. 1, (folio 140, page 1), 50, vs. (folio 140, page 2), 74; Noseˀ ˀEfod, no. 25, (folio 142, page 1), 9 vs. 21. This difference in meaning as to this verb exists in Spanish as well, and is widely discussed in Spanish linguistic literature.238 Similarly observed in the Hebrew of the rabbinical responsa, – in Maharḥaš, (folio 162, page 1, column II – page 2, column I), no. 35, ‫ לו‬,‫והל‬, ‫והלכה‬ ‫לה‬, as opposed to this verb without the preposition le (‫והלכנו‬, ,‫הל‬, ,‫והל‬, ‫הלכו‬, ‫שהלכה‬, ‫)והלכה‬. Cf. 236 See §1.1. 237 See the sentence in §3.1.3.2.1.1, example (1). 238 Taibo: §4.2: 94; Pérez Vázquez 2007: §2: examples (6) and (8), and the disputations about them. 177 also the opposition salir–salirse in Maharí ben Leb, Part I, no. [23], (folio 59, page 1), 12 vs. 17: Leaving is more marked with salirse than with salir. The opposition morir–morirse in Mixtam LeDavid, ˀEven Haˁézer, no. 1239, could be that of a less/more complete predication (for this topic, see above, §3.2.1.3.1.2). 3.2.1.3.3 Conclusion In utterances such as se komyó, me vini, vos kazaš, as opposed to somewhat synonymous komyó, vini, and kazaš, we have sometimes found semantic characteristics such as self benefactive and a more complete predication. Our discussion was divided, as usual, into two types: discourse and narrative. 3.2.2 Clitics In Judezmo, the existence of clitic elements is actually reflected very spectacularly, both in graphics of older texts (occasionally) – where they might be written in one word, i.e., together with the stressed unit, to which they stick, or/and with another clitic240 (see the examples that follow) –, and in phonetics of the Judezmo northern Balkan dialects – where they undergo vowel reduction, being unstressed241 (the examples will be shown in the paragraph which will follow the next one). Judezmo (older) instances: ‫שילודי‬, = se lo de, ‘this should be given’ (Kérem Šelomó, Ḥošen Mišpaṭ, no. 72, 23); ‫דימי‬, = de mi, ‘from me’ (Divré Rivot, no. 4, folio 11, page 2, column I, the first and seventh lines); ‫ שו‬#‫נושדי‬, = nos dišo, ‘he told us’, ‫טומאשלו‬, = tomas/+aš lo, ‘you hereby take it’ (Maharšax, Part IV, no. 89, 12 and 24 respectively); ‫שילה ומיש‬, = si la komes/+ eš, ‘if you eat it’ (ibid., ibid., no. 38, 8+9); ‫אילי ורטארו‬, = i le kortaron, ‘and they cut’ (ibid., 239 (Folio 140, page 2), 72 and 74, in contrast with: (folio 140, page 1), 19, 31, 57, and (folio 140, page 2) 65. 240 In standard modern Spanish, as well as in modern Judezmo texts, however, spelling in one word is only in the case of enclitic object pronouns, e.g. (Spanish) hacérmelo. 241 About the reduction of unstressed vowels in Judezmo in the regions to the north of Greece, see Quintana Rodríguez 2006: §2.1.2.3.1: 41+47; for clitics – 44+45; for clitics in Bulgaria – §2.1.2.3.1: 45 [citing Kunchev 1976: 154]; for the final a – §2.1.2.4: 57+61. 178 ibid., no. 87, folio 141, page 2, the sixth line); ‫ יו‬#‫שימיפוי‬, se|me|fuyó, ‘she escaped on me’ (Maharḥaš, no. 35, folio 162, page 2, column II, the fifth line from the end); ... ‫אילודיריש‬, = i lo direš: “...”, ‘and you should say this’, ‫אסו אמינו‬, = a su kamino, ‘lit., to his way’ (from Segullot lišˁat nesiˁá, a manuscript); ‫יאשי פארטי‬, = ya se parten, ‘lit., they already go out’, ‫אילדו בירגילי‬, = el Don Virdžili (an eighteenth+century ballad “Virgilios”, Bosnia, a manuscript242); ‫אטולוز‬, = a tu luz, ‘lit., to your light’ (documents of the Dönme group243); and even in a relatively modern text (from 1909): ‫טילודו‬, = te lo do (te|lo|dó), ‘I give this to you’ (ˀAvné Haˀefod, Part I, “Haˀeven haššenit” (ˀEven Haˁézer), no. 13, folio 166, page 1, column I, the seventh line). Examples of clitic, morphologically separate elements in northern Balkan texts: l arespondyo, ‘he answered him’ (La megila de Saray: Ch. I: 20); d vjarnis, ‘of Friday’, d l s tjempus buenus, ‘of the good old days’, ja savi k estus tjempus maz nunka no s van turnar, ‘she knows that these days will never return’ (Jevrejski Glas 10: 3 (1937): 7+8). 3.2.2.1 Proclisis and enclisis The Spanish RAE Grammar 1771244 shows all of the combinations – all being possible – of using the object pronouns with INFLECTED FORM + INFINITIVE (as its COMPLEMENT). More widely, this also shows that both orders (OBJECT PRONOUN – INFLECTED VERB, and INFLECTED VERB – OBJECT PRONOUN) were possible in the Spanish which was described by that 1771 edition245: 242 In: Armistead & Silverman & Šljivić+Šimšić 1971: 21 (the last two lines), and 22 (the first line), respectively. 243 In: Feldman 2007: 18. 244 Part II: Ch. II: Article IV: 247. Somewhat similarly also a century later, in RAE Grammar 1894: 202. Interestingly, in archaic Spanish, the use of proclitic pronouns was avoided at the beginning of prosodic units (Lapesa 1981: §58.2: 218, and see a discussion of this topic regarding pre+expulsion Jewish Ibero+Romance texts in Minervini 1992: Vol. I: §4.5.2: 111+112), cf. the same phenomenon in modern Galician (Saco y Arce 1868: §139: 161: fn. a; §139.1+§139.2: 161+162). On possible locations of an object pronoun with infinitives in standard Modern Spanish, see GRAE: Vol. I: §16.12+§16.13: 1233+1242. 245 This is stated clearly in RAE Grammar 1771: Part II: Ch. II: Article IV: 246, with a general remark added, that the difference between the two orders may at times make a semantic distinction, and at times the choice is arbitrary. 179 voy á buscar : voy á buscar : salgo á divertir : sálgo voy á buscar : á divertir : salgo á divertir : quieren burlar : quiéren burlar : quieren burlar . (TYPE I) (TYPE II) (TYPE III) The above+mentioned facts are reflected at older stages of Judezmo as well, whereas the modern usages are more restricted, – as will be presented in the following sections. 3.2.2.1.1 With an inflected verb In the 16th+17th+century responsa (the Early Middle Period246), – except for object pronouns, used enclitically, and not proclitically, with directive modality247 verbal forms, namely imperatives, subjunctives and gerunds (both in Judezmo and Spanish, in all periods) (e.g., Judezmo and Spanish ámalo, ‘love him’; Judezmo ‫ אמביزינסי‬/ ‫אמביزיסי‬, ambézese / ambézensen, ‘(towards (an) addressee(s)) ‘learn (sg./pl.)’248, or ‘let him/her/them learn’249, Salonika/Monastir Judezmo ‫אמביزאנדובוס‬, ambezándovos, ‘(towards (an) addressee(s)) ‘learn (sg./pl.)’250) –, enclitic object pronouns could be employed – as far as we could see – 246 The Early Middle Period: 1493 – c. 1728 (Bunis 1992: 405). 247 Directive modality connotes the speaker’s degree of requirement of conformity to the proposition expressed by an utterance (Glossary of Linguistic Terms, the entry ‘directive modality’; Palmer 1986: 97+98). 248 Bunis 1999a: Ch. IX: §9.2.1.1: 181. 249 Spanish instances: Bástennos estos dos testimonios., ‘Suffice it for us to see these (aforesaid) two pieces of evidence’ (Weinrich 1968: Ch. I: 16); Véase el ejemplo ... / Véanse los ejemplos ..., (with a passive meaning, lit., ‘let the example(s) be seen’) ‘See the example(s) ... ’. 250 Bunis 1999a: Ch. IX: §9.2.1.1: 180+181. For gerunds used to express directive modality, see §3.1.2.3. Anyway, in this case – of an indeclinable verbal form –, since there is no near, syntactically related, inflected verb, the clitic pronoun will inevitably stick to the end of the indeclinable form (§3.2.2.1.2 below). 180 accompanying verbs of the KANTÓ251 and KANTA tenses only, the latter (i.e., KANTA + AN ENCLITIC) was found only as performative – see below, §3.2.2.1.1.1.252 Examples of KANTÓ + AN ENCLITIC: ‫פואישי‬, fwese (i.e., with reflexive se), ‘(he) went’ (Maharí ben Leb, Part I, folio 59, page 1, – no. [23], 10); ‫שינטיולו‬, sentyolo, ‘(he) heard this’, ‫פואישי‬, fwese (i.e., with reflexive se), ‘he went’ (HaMabiṭ, Part III, folio 137, page 2, column II, – no. 82, 97 and 103 respectively), ‫הינגולו‬, 5 hinčolo/henčolo, ‘lit., (it) filled it up, blew it out’ (ibid., ibid., folio 138, page 1, column I, – no. 82, 126); ‫דימנדארונלי לה ארטה‬, demandáronle la karta, ‘(they) asked him for the letter’ (Maharšax, Part II, no. 134, 55+56); ‫בולטושי‬, boltose, ‘(he) turned (to)’ (Maharšax, Part III, no. 59, 11); ‫אשינטושי‬, asentose, ‘(he) sat down’ (Maharšax, Part IV, no. 44, 5; also in Torat ˀEmet, no. 6, 7, ‫אפארטושי ;)אשינטוסי‬, apartose, ‘(he) moved away’ (Máyim ˁAmuqqim, no. 41 (answered by Elijah Ben Haim), (folio 70, page 1, column II), 59. Moreover, occasionally, within the same text, KANTÓ + AN ENCLITIC was used (sometimes) in reporting clauses (as verba dicendi, such as ‘to say’, ‘to ask’, ‘to answer’) of the court members and in witnesses’ testimonies, while A PROCLITIC + KANTÓ – elsewhere in witnesses’ testimonies and the words of the court. Thus in: Torat Ḥayyim, Part I, no. 82253, 251 For the definitions of KANTÓ, KANTA, and so on, see §3.1.2.1: fn. 13. 252 And when it comes to the periphrastic tenses, we mean the inflected auxiliary verb. (However, we have not witnessed in our examined corpora any auxiliary verb having an enclitic object pronoun.) We also bear in mind the analytic variants of the tenses KANTARÁ – i.e., (H)A (DE) KANTAR or KANTAR (H)A –, and KANTARIA – i.e., I(V)A (A) KANTAR. For the ancestors of KANTARÁ – (H)A (DE) KANTAR and KANTAR (H)A – in Spanish (and Judezmo), see Penny 2002: §3.7.8.4: 209+211. For the order CANTAR–AN ENCLITIC OBJECT PRONOUN–(H)A in older Spanish, see ibid.: 210. Cf. similarly in older Judezmo, e.g., ‫דימאנדרמיאה‬, demandar|me|a (= nowadays me demandará), ‘he will ask me (for)’ (Maharašdam, Ḥošen Mišpaṭ, no. 52, 28). About a semantic and pragmatic opposition (in older Spanish) between the analytic ((H)A CANTAR and CANTAR (H)A) and synthetic (CANTARÁ) constructions, it is referred by Penny 2002 (§3.7.8.4: 211) to Company Company & Medina Urrea 1999. On the development of the CANTARÁ verbal form in Late Latin, inherited by Romance languages, see Benveniste 1968. For the latter tense –, the construction I(V)A (A) KANTAR in Modern Judezmo, see Bunis 1999a: Ch. XX: §20.1: 333+337. 253 See §3.1.3.2, footnotes 108 and 110, and the text in example (1) there. 181 reporting clauses: díšome (3 times), díšile (7 times), note also the “historical present” dízeme, but also: le diši (5 times), me dišo (3 times), le dišo; elsewhere: no se me fizo, la metyó, se reó, me enganyó, lo enganyó, se fwe (2 times), me turúšo, le di, lo topí, me reí, me fizi, se lo buškí, la kargí, me olvidí, no me akordí, me la kitaste, no lo kitastes/ ásteš, no me sakastes/ ásteš; Maharšax, Part II, no. 134254, reporting clauses: tornáronle a|dezir, dišéronle, demandáronle, demandámosle (for the modern ‘le demandimos’), but also: le demandimos, le demandaron (2 times), le dišeron, mos dišo, mos rogó; elsewhere: lo dyo, la alsó, no se tomó, los fweron maḥarimim, me avryó, me forsó, me fizo, mos yamó, le dimos, le fizimos, se lo mostrí, lo fwe a pezar, los yeví, te tornaste; Mahariṭac, no. 144 (=Maharam Galante, no. 52), reporting clauses: díšome (4 times), díšile (3 times), but also: le preguntí; elsewhere: lo tomaron, les mandó (‘he sent them’), los vidi (2 times), me torní; Raˀanaḥ, no. 29255, reporting clauses: respondyole, respondyome, díšile, but also: le demandó (2 times), le dišo; elsewhere: le dyeron; see also a rather similar state of affairs in Maharí ben Leb, Part I, folio 13, pages 1+2, – no. 9. Moreover, the enclitic cases are often the cases when the discussed verbal construction, and, at times, with a subject pronoun added, are the only elements of the reporting clause, which gives the impression of a somewhat fixed, fossilized syntagm, like the indeclinable, so+called defective, Latin inquit, ‘said/says he/she’, used for reporting clauses256. As the above examples show, KANTÓ + AN ENCLITIC was used in reporting clauses, and otherwise in the form of delocutive. All this, and also the fact that the KANTÓ tense, in itself, belongs essentially to Erzählte Welt (§1.1) transmission257, point out that KANTÓ + AN ENCLITIC had a clear Erzählte Welt character.258 Thus, there is the following opposition: (delocutive only) kantoLO and kantáronLO = Erzählte Welt, vs. (any person) LO KANTÓ = Besprochene Welt. (In the table below – see the explanations infra – this principle is followed also in the biblical Ladino texts, although, it should be noted, they constitute a separate stylistic register, and should be treated as such259). In Biblical Hebrew, this opposition may be expressed 254 One may see the scholarly editions of the text in Várvaro & Minervini 2007: 160+163; Benaim 2011: 460+468. 255 Benaim 2011: 365+372. 256 Panhuis 2006: “The verb”: §114: 64. 257 Weinrich 1968: Ch. II: 51+52, Ch. III: 61+65, Ch. IV: 96. 258 On the other hand, performative (KANTA + AN ENCLITIC) is purely Besprochene Welt (§1.1). 259 Thanks to Professor David Bunis (personal correspondence) for this methodological guideline. 182 as vayyif ˁal vs. paˁal, respectively, as presented by Polotsky (1985) – same is shown in Niccacci 1990, throughout – (and there was the equivalent opposition in Ramesside Egyptian), with this example (2 Samuel xii 26+27): ‫ְאָכים‬ ִ ‫ַויּ ָ ִ֣לּחֶם יוֹ ָ֔אב בּ ְַר ַ ֖בּת בּ ְֵנ֣י ע ַ֑מּוֹן ַויִּל ְ֖כּ ֹד ֶא‬ ֖ ִ ‫ת־ע֥יר ַהמְּלוּכָ ֽה׃ ַויִּשְׁלַ ֥ח יוֹאָ ֛ב ַמל‬ ‫ת־ע֥יר הַמָּ ֽי ִם׃‬ ִ ‫אֶל־דָּ ִו֑ד וַיֹּ֙א ֶמ ֙ר נִל ַ ְ֣ח ְמתִּ י ב ְַר ָ֔בּה גַּם־ל ַ ָ֖כדְ תִּ י ֶא‬260. And indeed, one sees, as to Gen. xxxvii, in Biblical Hebrew, in Ferrara Bible 1553, Ladino Bible 1739 1745: Part I, and also in another Ladino version shown in Subak 1906: 180, vayyifˁal, and kantoLO and kantáronLO forms in narrative utterances, and paˁal and LO KANTÓ in discourse: 7 3 % 899: 3 % 8;:< The version (Ladino) in Subak 1906: 180 ‫אי טומארונלו אי‬ I tomáronlo i ečáronlo a el pózo 8;=9 Y tomaronlo y echaron a el al pozo Y sentaronse por comer pan ‫איגארו אאיל אאיל פוزו‬ ‫אי אסינטארונסי פור‬ ‫ומיר פא‬ Y torno a sus hermanos ‫אי טורנו אסוס אימאנוס‬ Y conosciola ‫אי ונוסייולה‬ animalia mala lo comio y atristosse ‫ﭏימאנייא מﭏה לו ומייו‬ ‫אי ﭏימונייוסי‬ Biblical Hebrew Verse number ‫ַו ִ֨יּ ָקּ ֻ֔חהוּ ַויַּשְׁ ִל֥כוּ א ֹ֖תוֹ ה ַ֑בּ ֹ ָרה ְוהַבּ֣ וֹר ֵ֔רק‬ ‫ֵא֥ין בּ֖ וֹ ָמֽי ִם׃‬ 24 I asentáron por komér pan ‫ַויֵּשְׁ ב ֮וּ לֶ ֽ ֱאכָל־ ֶלח ֶ֒ם ַויִּשׂ ְ֤אוּ ֵעֽינֵיהֶם֙ ַויּ ִ ְר ֔אוּ‬ ‫שׁ ְמעֵא ִ֔לים בּ ָ ָ֖אה ִמ ִגּל ָ ְ֑עד‬ ְ ִ ‫ְו ִהנֵּה֙ א ְֹר ַ ֣חת י‬ ‫שׂ ִ֗אים נְכ ֹא ֙ת וּצ ִ ְ֣רי ו ָ֔•ט הוֹל ִ ְ֖כים‬ ְ ֹֽ ‫ֵיהם נ‬ ֣ ֶ ‫וּגְ ַמלּ‬ ‫ְהוֹריד ִמצ ָ ְֽריְמָה׃‬ ִ֥ ‫ל‬ 25 I tornóse a suz ermános ‫ֹאמר ַה ֶיּ֣לֶד אֵי ֶ֔ננּוּ ַו ֲא ִנ֖י‬ ֑ ַ ‫ַו ָיּ֥שָׁ ב אֶל־ ֶא ָ ֖חיו וַיּ‬ ‫ִי־בֽא׃‬ ָ ‫ָ ֥אנָה ֲאנ‬ 30 I konosióla ‫ִירהּ וַיֹּ֙א ֶמ ֙ר‬ ֤ ָ ‫ַויַּכּ‬ 33, the first part béstia mála lo komió ‫כּ ְ֣ת ֹנֶת ְבּ ִ֔ני ַח ָיּ ֥ה ָר ָ ֖עה אֲ כ ָָל֑תְ הוּ ָט ֥ר ֹף ט ַ ֹ֖רף‬ ‫יוֹסֽף׃‬ ֵ 33, the second part i alemuñóse ‫שׂמְ•תָ֔ יו ַו ָיּ֥שֶׂם ַ ֖שׂק ְבּ ָמתְ ָנ֑יו‬ ִ ‫ַויִּק ַ ְ֤רע יַעֲק ֹ ֙ב‬ ‫ַויִּתְ אַ ֵ ֥בּל עַל־בְּנ֖ וֹ י ִָמ֥ים ַרבִּ ֽים׃‬ 34 This topic, including another opposition within the sphere of Erzählte Welt, may be summarized in the following table – see explanations and references thereafter (for the purpose of orthographical simplification, by the Judezmo form KANTÓ and KANTAVA we meant also the Spanish CANTÓ and CANTABA): 260 I thank Ya’ar Hever for focussing on this issue. 183 moves the plot forward, “foreground” (as regards ? only) (> in general ? with an object pronoun (older Judezmo / older Spanish) Older Judezmo/Spanish (delocutive only) kantoLO and kantáronLO 3 ? Older Judezmo/Spanish (any person) LO KANTÓ Biblical Hebrew paˁal (> Judezmo/Spanish KANTÓ French CHANTA Biblical Hebrew vayyifˁal “background”, “relief” (i.e., as shape, metaphorically) Judezmo/Spanish KANTAVA French CHANTAIT Biblical Hebrew (ve)+(x)+paˁal Coptic, Chaha (“converters”): Coptic ⲛⲉ Chaha b in banä For the terminology “foreground”/“background” regarding narrative in Biblical Hebrew, and the opposition vayyifˁal – (ve)+(x)+paˁal, see Niccacci 1990: §3: 20; §15: 36. On “relief”, see Weinrich 1968: Ch. VIII: 224+273. A Modern Spanish instance of the opposition CANTÓ – CANTABA in narrative, is ibid.: ibid.: 238+242. For French CHANTA – CHANTAIT, ibid.: ibid.: 224+231; O’Meara 1976: 66; and for Old French in the Song of Roland, see Fleischman 1990261. As for an example of KANTÓ – KANTAVA (CANTÓ – CANTABA) in earlier Spanish and earlier Judezmo, and of vayyifˁal – (ve)+(x)+paˁal in Biblical Hebrew, one may see the verbal forms at the beginning of the story of Joseph and his brothers, Gen. xxxvii 1+6, in Ferrara Bible 1553, Ladino Bible 1739 1745: Part I, and in Biblical Hebrew, below respectively262: (verse 1) E estuuo Yahacob; ‫שׁב יַע ֲ֔ק ֹב ;אי איסטובו יע ב‬ ֶ ֣‫( ; ַו ֵיּ‬2) Yoseph de edad de diez ysiete años era apasçȇtan; ‫ די אידאד די דיزיסייטי אנייוס אירה פאסיי‬+‫שׁנָה֙ ָה ָ֨יה ;יוס‬ ָ ‫שׂ ֵ ֤רה‬ ְ ‫שׁבַ ֽע־ ֶע‬ ְ ‫יוֹ ֞ ֵסף בֶּן־‬ ‫( ;ר ֶ ֹ֤עה‬2) i truxo Yoseph a su fama mala; ‫יוֹס֛ף ֶאת־דִּ בּ ָָת֥ם ָר ָ ֖עה‬ ֵ ‫( ; ַויּ ָבֵ ֥א‬3) E Ysrael amaua a Yoseph; ‫אי‬ +‫אָהב ֶאת־יוֹ ֵס ֙ף ;ישראל אמאבה אה יוס‬ ְ ִ ‫( ; ְוי‬4) Y vieron sus hermanos q̑ a el amaua su padre mas ֤ ַ ‫שׂ ָר ֵ֗אל‬ que todos sus hermanos y aborreçieron a el; ‫אי ויירו סוס אירמאנוס י אאיל אמאבה סו פאדרי מאס י‬ ‫שׂנ ְ֖אוּ א ֹ֑תוֹ ;טודוס סוס אירמאנוס אי אבוריסיירו אאיל‬ ְ ִ ‫אָהב ֲאבִיהֶם֙ ִמכָּל־ ֶא ָ֔חיו וַ ֽיּ‬ ֤ ַ ‫( ; ַויּ ְִר ֣אוּ ֶא ָ֗חיו כִּ ֽי־א ֹ֞תוֹ‬5) Y soño Yoseph sueño y denunçio a sus hermanos: y añadieron mas aborrescer a el; ‫ סואינייו אי‬+‫אי סונייו יוס‬ ‫ַיּוֹס֥פוּ ֖עוֹד שׂ ְ֥נ ֹא א ֹתֽ וֹ ;דינוסייו אסוס אירמאנוס אי אינייאדיירו מאס אבוריסיר אאיל‬ ִ ‫; ַויַּחֲ•֤ ם יוֹ ֵס ֙ף ח ֲ֔לוֹם ַויּ ֵַגּ֖ד ְלא ָ ֶ֑חיו ו‬ 261 I thank Dr. Amir Zeldes for this information. 262 I thank Dalit Assouline – personal communication – for shedding light upon this subject. 184 (6) Y dixo a ellos; ‫ֵיהם ;אי דישו אאילייוס‬ ֑ ֶ ‫ו ַ֖יּ ֹא ֶמר ֲאל‬. As for converters in Coptic and Chaha (a Semitic+ Ethiopian language): For ⲛⲉ+ – Shisha+Halevy 2007: §1.1: 29+137; for b in banä – Ya’ar Hever, personal communication – a conference, June 17+19, 2009. In contrast, in the Salonika texts Satirical Series and Ester Matalón, – from the Late Modern Period263 –, both of the aforesaid tenses (KANTÓ and KANTA) would already employ solely proclitic object pronouns.264 3.2.2.1.1.1 Performative Performative utterances “do things with words” 265, “an act meant to be considered as carried out at the very time of – and by – being announced”266. As Cromwell & Grossman (2010: 159: footnotes 39+40) present it, performative is also called Koinzidenzfall (German)267 and synchronous present. Performative may be expressed through certain verbal forms in languages. Examples: Present Simple in English: I promise; I apologize268; I name this ship the ‘Queen Elizabeth', – as uttered when smashing the bottle against the stem; I give and bequeath my watch to my brother – as occurring in a will; I bet you sixpence it will rain tomorrow.269; perfect (56ª ‫ا‬, viz., faˁala) in Arabic270; ⲉϥⲥⲱⲧⲙ (ⲉⲓⲥⲱⲧⲙ) in Coptic271; sḏm.n.f in Egyptian272. In 16th+17th+century Judezmo, several instances of KANTA + AN ENCLITIC were found, all being performatives. A number of these were betrothal formulas, constructed either as a declaration, Tómaslo/Tomašlo por qiddušín. (or the like), ‘You hereby take this as kiddushin.’, ‘You do take this as kiddushin.’, or as a question, Tómaslo/Tomašlo por qiddušín? (or the like), 263 The Late Modern Period: World War I to the present (Bunis 1992: 412). 264 And this could be said probably about all the other Judezmo dialects in the Late Modern Period. 265 As the title of Austin’s book (1962) reads. 266 Cromwell & Grossman 2010: 159: fn. 41 [citing Shisha+Halevy 1986: 78: fn. 92]. 267 Koschmieder 1965: 26+34. 268 Austin 1962: Lecture IV: 45. 269 Ibid.: Lecture I: 5. 270 Wright & Caspari 1896: Vol. II: Part III: “The verb”: §1(d): 1. 271 Cromwell & Grossman 2010: 159, and fn. 42 for further items by Shisha+Halevy. 272 Cromwell & Grossman 2010: 159: fn. 40 [referring to Gunn 1924: 69+74]. 185 ‘Do you hereby take this as kiddushin?’273: Maharšax, Part III, no. 59: Tómasla [= la tasa de vino] por qiddušín de tu fiža; Kyesla [= kyéresla] por qiddušín de tu fiža; (in the decision part) Kyeslo por qiddušín de tu fiža; Maharšax, Part IV, no. 89: Tómaslo/Tomašlo por qiddušín (several times both in the interpellation and decision parts); Mahariṭ, Part II, ˀEven Haˁézer, no. 38: Tómaslo por qiddušín (both in the interpellation and decision parts). Cf. also a pre+expulsion letter in Jewish Ibero+Romance (Minervini 1992: Vol. II: Text no. 24, line 1: 276; Vol. I: §4.5.2: 111): ... ‫פידו ווש די מירסיד י‬, Pído vos de mersed ke ..., ‘I ask you to ...’. Cf. the English performative I do take this woman to be my lawful wedded wife, as uttered in the course of the marriage ceremony; this is a nexus+focussing construction with do274, – the structural analysis of I do take is the same as that of ‘I do understand.’ above in §3.2.1.2.2.1, paragraph (4)(A). Cf., from a will in English, (also, probably, a performative): First, I do humbly beg pardon .... Interestingly, in 20th+century Bulgaria, this performative formula took the form of the progressive construction: (the year 1909) ‫איסטו טילו איסטו דאנדו פור ידושי‬, Esto te|lo estó dando por qiddušín., ‘This I hereby give to you as kiddushin.’ (ˀAvné Haˀefod, Part I, “Haˀeven haššenit” (ˀEven Haˁézer), no. 13, – folio 165, page 2, column I –, 10 and 17+18); (the year 1919) . ‫ ו איסטי א טו טי איסטאס אزאנדו ו איל אי איס דושי‬, Kon este akto te estás kazando kon el, i es qiddušín., ‘By this act, you hereby get married to him, and this is kiddushin.’ (Noseˀ ˀEfod, no. 22, – folio 137, page 2, column II –, 55+56). Cf. the English performative utterance I am writing to you275. Besides the kiddushin formulas, we saw this sentence: ‫דוטי פור ונשיגו י טורניש אטראש י‬ ‫נו טי מאטי ומו מאטארו אה יצח ﭏמירידי‬, Do|te por konsežo ke tornes atrás, ke no te maten, komo mataron a Yicḥaq Almeridi(?)., ‘I advise you to go back, so that they will not kill you, like they did to Yicḥaq Almeridi(?).’ (Mahariṭac, no. 144, 9+10). This enclitic usage reflects the fact, that Judezmo chose a distinctive behaviour for an object pronoun, in the case of perfomatives. Similarly, in some languages, object pronouns behave differently in performative utterances: Coptic – out of line with the Stern+Jernstedt 273 In some cases, it was hard to understand from the context, which of the two was uttered. 274 Professor Shisha+Halevy, personal communication. 275 Cromwell & Grossman 2010: 159. 186 rule276, Finnish and Southern Paiute – (with imperatives) in the form of nominative, and not accusative277. As for older Spanish, – somewhat similarly as in the examined 16th+17th+century Judezmo instances –, we could observe in the CORDE examples, performative tendencies towards, e.g., doyte, ‘I give you’ (cf. the Judezmo example in the foregoing paragraph), as opposed to te doy otherwise. Cf. Calila y Dimna: “... Et yo, señor, dote por consejo de ser anviso.”, “... And I, O king, advise you to be sharp [i.e., to make haste and put the ox to death278].”279; “... et dote plazo de tres días a que busques buen lugar en que ...”, “... and I hereby give you a maximum period of three days, for you to look for a good place where ...”280; but (a performative to a far lesser degree): “Et yo non te dó este ejemplo si non por que ...”, “And I have given you this example only in order that ...”281. 3.2.2.1.2 With indeclinable verbal forms: infinitive and gerund 3.2.2.1.2.1 With no near syntactically related inflected verb In accordance with the above+mentioned scheme presented by RAE Grammar 1771 in §3.2.2.1, when there is no near syntactically related inflected verb, – to which the clitic could, otherwise, also be attached (types I and II in §3.2.2.1 above) –, there is no other way but for the clitic to attach to the end of the infinitive or gerund (viz., type III). Examples: infinitive: por toparse (Maharšax, Part IV, no. 89, 34); por verlo (Raˀanaḥ, no. 29, – folio 59, page 1, column II –, 63); para darle (Maharḥaš, no. 35, folio 162, page 2, column II, the ninth line from the end); sin el favlarle nada, ‘without his telling him anything’ (Mahariṭ, Part II, ˀEven Haˁézer, no. 35, folio 41, page 1, column I, the twentieth line from the end); de dešarmos (Aksyón 11: 2934 (1939) – Bunis 1999b: 412 middle); de asentarme (Aksyón 11: 3148 (1939) – Bunis 1999b: 489 bottom); para asentarse (Aksyón 10: 2780 (1938) – Bunis 1999b: 522 bottom); gerund: dándosela (Maharí ben Leb, Part I, no. [23], – folio 59, page 1 –, 27); paresyéndonos (Máyim 276 Cromwell & Grossman 2010: 159, and fn. 42 for further items. 277 Sadock & Zwicky 1985: 175: example 65. 278 Kalilah and Dimnah: “Story of the lion and the ox”: 32: line 2. 279 Calila y Dimna: Ch. III: 74. 280 Ibid.: Ch. XVII: 278. 281 Ibid.: Ch. IV: 112. 187 ˁAmuqqim, no. 41, 28); espantándome (Aksyón 11: 3106 (1939) – Bunis 1999b: 391 top); en kontándome (Mesažero 4: 1125 (1939) – Bunis 1999b: 430 top). However, the said statement is not necessarily true: It is possible in medieval Spanish282, in Judezmo – in the 16th+17th+century rabbinical responsa, as well as in some Balkan Judezmo dialects (Sarajevo, Salonika, Skopje, Monastir)283, to place a proclitic object pronoun before an infinitive284 (we shall call it ‘type IV’). See Quintana Rodríguez 2006: 164+170, with examples of the above+mentioned periods and places, regarding infinitives, both as complements of inflected verbs285, and with no accompanying inflected verb. These constructions might be not unknown in other Judezmo dialects: for Jerusalem, see ibid.: 164: fn. 258 [after Bunis 1988: 13]. As for gerunds, we find Spanish examples in CORDE , e.g.: non lo amando (the year 1440); no se lo quitando (the year 1540, and another text – 1604); otro de otra se quexando (the year 1546); Pero no se conociendo, ¿se hablaran las dos? (the year 1928). This type IV, (both with no near inflected verb, and with an existing one), is relatively seldom found in the Satirical Series (para se merkar ..., ‘in order to buy for herself ...’, Mesažero 4: 1008 (1939) – Bunis 1999b: 407 bottom; de se ver, Mesažero 5: 1480 (1940) – Bunis 1999b: 488 middle; no te deskuydes de me mandar letra, Aksyón 11: 3037 (1939) – Bunis 1999b: 501 bottom). 3.2.2.1.2.2 With a near syntactically related inflected verb All the three positions of a clitic object pronoun used with an infinitive or gerund286 – types I, II, and III (see §3.2.2.1 above) –, may be seen at the various stages of Judezmo. In older 282 So also in the Regulations of Valladolid (the year 1432), – see an example in fn. 286 below (de lo envyar). 283 In both spoken and literary uses in these dialects – I thank Professor David Bunis for this important annotation. 284 But not a gerund, as opposed to existence of such instances in medieval Spanish (examples will follow). Moreover, it should be noted that there is a preposition that precedes this sequence (i.e., PREPOSITION–PROCLITIC– INFINITIVE), as already observed by Quintana Rodríguez (2006: 164). Thanks to Professor David Bunis for these observations. 285 However, if we are not mistaken, no pure examples of this case (as a complement of an inflected verb) as regards some of the aforesaid Judezmo dialects, and the 16th+17th+century responsa, are provided in the mentioned work. 286 The discussed constructions should not be confused with the identical ones, of types I and II, in which the clitic object is the complement of the inflected verb. E.g., me fizo ir (type I), ‘he had me go’ (Maharšax, Part II, no. 134, – folio 97, page 2 –, 69); šamosver (type II), ‘let us see’ (Askyón 10: 2804 (1939) – Bunis 1999b: 400 top); mos 188 Judezmo, type II (i.e., a pronoun attached enclitically to an inflected verb), was employed to a limited extent, – with the exception of directive modality forms (see §3.2.2.1.1 supra) –, because of the state of affairs concerning enclitics following inflected forms, described in §3.2.2.1.1 supra; whereas in modern Judezmo – in light of the facts presented ibid. – for all we know, type II may be used solely with directive modality forms. On type IV, see above in §3.2.2.1.2.1. Examples: Type I: with infinitive, – it should be noted, that in the 16th+17th+century responsa – those examined by us –, this type was encountered much more often, than the conjoint type III: se kyerian ir (Torat Mošé – Modern Edition, Ḥošen Mišpaṭ, no. 28, 9); lo fwe a pezar (Maharšax, Part II, no. 134, – folio 97, page 1 –, 21); no se pweden kazar (Mesažero 5: 1326 (1940) – Bunis 1999b: 481 middle); with gerund: me anda akusando (Máyim ˁAmuqqim, no. 41, folio 70, page 1, column II, the fifteenth line from the end); te está paresyendo (Aksyón 10: 2568 (1938); Bunis 1999b: 375 bottom); se va trokando (El Rizón 4: 41 (1929) – Bunis 1999b: 370 bottom). Type II: with infinitive: tornáronle a|dezir (Maharšax, Part II, no. 134, 10); déšate goler (Maharšax, Part IV, no. 89, 35); déšalo dezir (Aksyón 10: 2669 (1938) – Bunis 1999b: 433 bottom); Déšate dar a entender., ‘Let (them) understand you(r situation).’ (El Rizón 12:40 (1938) – Bunis 1999b: 591 middle); with gerund: It was hard to find an example, but there should definitely exist ones. Type III: with infinitive: keria salirse (Maharí ben Leb, Part I, no. [23], – folio 59, page 1 –, 12); fwe a vižitarlo (Raˀanaḥ, no. 29, – folio 59, page 1, column I –, 45); no pweden kazarsen, (and in the sentence that follows this, there is no se pweden kazar, seemingly in order to avoid repetition) (El Rizón 13: 22 (1938) – Bunis 1999b: 623 bottom); with gerund: está metimos a korer (type I), ‘we started to run’ (Ester Matalón: Ch. 7: 32 bottom). At times, the object pronoun is ambiguous, viz., relating to both the inflected verb and the indeclinable one. E.g., the aforementioned me fizo ir (= ‘me fizo’, and, possibly, ‘irme’); i los traia a vender, ‘(he) brought them (the cheeses) for sale’ (= ‘los traia’ and ‘venderlos’) (Maharšax, Part III, no. 103, 12); esto no me empedyó de tornar, ‘this did not prevent me from coming back’ (= ‘me empedyó’, and, perhaps, also ‘tornarme’) (Ester Matalón: Ch. 6: 27 bottom); (here the first verb being an infinitive as well) de lo envyar fazer saver, ‘to send it (= this matter) to make know it’ (= ‘envyarlo’ and ‘fazer saverlo’) (from the Regulations of Valladolid (the year 1432), Minervini 1992: Vol. I: 203; Vol. II: 72: line 250). 189 yamándote (Bunis 1999a: Ch. V: §5.6.2: 138); iva engrandesyéndose (Ladino, i.e., holy scriptures’ translation, I Samuel ii 26, in Ladino Constantinople Bible 1873). Here are some additional observations: (1) It is stated in GRAE (Vol. I: §16.12f: 1236), that type I, with an infinitive, may signify prospective meaning, an actor’s intention, look to the future, regarding the action to be made, expressed by the infinitive, and that otherwise, type I is rather avoided (e.g., the action represented by the infinitive was already completed beforehand; see details there). However, the Judezmo examples that we have collected, were not extremely numerous, so as to see if such a distinction is reflected in Judezmo, too. (2a) It was possible to see, that not all the inflected verbs, having an infinitive or gerund as their complement, hold the same grammatical status: The more such a verb is grammaticalized as an auxiliary, the more freely can one avail oneself of its service for the disjointed types I and II. Cf. the following type III/IV instances: no kedó de areskunyarse, ‘did not stop scratching herself’ (Aksyón 11: 3124 (1939) – Bunis 1999b: 460 bottom); tyenen gana de se ver de si para si287, ‘they desire themselves, to see their own selves’ (cf. also paragraph (2b) below) (Mesažero 5: 1480 (1940) – Bunis 1999b: 488 middle); el padre i la madre no tuvyeron fwersa de azerles nada, ‘the father and the mother had no power to put obstacles in their way’ (cf. also paragraph (2b) below) (Wagner 1914: Part II: §84.4: 130); at Ladinokomunina, there is a certain person (Rosina, Florida) who uses the “echo”+construction288, combining type I and type III, with the verbs: ir (±a) – clearly grammaticalized, dever de, tener de, (also with desidir de). However, in her utterances, type III, with no echoing, was attested with preferar de: types I + III (echoing): va a ir (4 times), van a ir , va ir (2 times), desidyó de ir ; but type III (no echoing): preferaron de ir deven de ir , tuvo de ir , . (2b) Another important factor is how far the infinitive/gerund is from the verb, (viz., whether there are elements, having their own stress, – and how many –, which separate the former from the latter), – the greater the distance, the less plausible will be the option to use types I and II. (Cf. Torat Ḥayyim, Part I, no. 82, 31+32: ke 0 287 kon la barka ). See about the construction # VERB(se) (PREPOSITION +) (PRONOUN X) para (PRONOUN X AS COMPLEMENT) # in Wagner 1914: Part II: §86: 131. 288 §3.2.2.1.3 infra. 190 (3) Additionally, for type III in various modern Judezmo dialects, see Quintana Rodríguez 2006: §4.1: 163+164. For types I and III in the Constantinople dialect, – Wagner 1914: Part II: §84.3+§84.4: 130. In the Salonika Satirical Series corpus, there is a strong preference for type I over type III.289 This also seems to be the case in the Salonika novel Ester Matalón as well (e.g., no lo pwedia alkansar, Ch. 6: p. 27 middle; non me pwedo entregar, Ch. 6: p. 29 middle). 3.2.2.1.3 The clitic pronoun which echoes (uttered twice) Occasionally, we find in Judezmo the phenomenon (also attested in Spanish290) of repeating the clitic. The examples are too scarce to form any conclusions as to the conditions under which these uses are generated. Examples: (1) la pwede tomarla (Séfer Damméseq ˀEliˁézer – the year 1862, by Eliezer b. Šem Ṭov Papo – spoke in the Sarajevo dialect –, folio 129, page 1 [cited by Quintana Rodríguez 2006: §4.2: 166: fn. 259])291 (types I + III292). (2) ?‫ י טאפאנדוטי לוס אוزוס טי איסטו ייו‬, Ke, tapándote los ožos te estó yo?, ‘What, am I covering your eyes?’ (Aksyón 11: 3142 (1939); Bunis 1999b: 465 middle) (types I + III, inverted construction; for this kind of word order, see §3.1.2.2.1.1, examples 12+13). (3) Spoken instances of the Constantinople dialect: la kita se l’estava yindo, se lo estava yevándoselo, ‘the ex+wife (of the dying soldier) was going out, (and) was bringing this/it to him’ (types I + III); lo se lo meldó este turko, ‘this Turk read this for him’; s’está tokándose oro, i l’está dizyéndole a la luna, ‘he is touching gold, and is telling the moon’ (types I + III) (Varol+ Bornes 2008: 267).293 289 I thank Professor David Bunis for pointing this out to me. 290 See in CORDE: le dandole (the year 1487, also in another text – 1541); dado que no le quisiese darle (the year 1492) (types I + III); se hacíanse (the year 1549); Y no le quieren hazelle limosna ni le quiere buscalle.; le quizo desterralle (the year 1595) (types I + III); also from a modern song, the year 1966: Dale, dale que da ,/ dale, dale que le dí,/ tenme que me caigo/ y ¡adiós, me caí! 291 And as Quintana Rodríguez notes (ibid.), the formulation of this utterance was not altered in the Smyrna edition of this book (Vol. I, Smyrna, 1877, folio 110, page 2). 292 See §3.2.2.1 above. 293 Similarly, additional Constantinople examples in Wagner 1914: Part II: §84.4: 130. 191 (4) The Salonika dialect, an oral example, from the year 1988: Penimos mučo de los salvarlos, ‘We tried hard to rescue them’ (Quintana Rodríguez 2006: §4.2: 166) (types IV294 + III). (5) In Ladinokomunina: deven de ir , tuvo de ir , va a ir (4 times), desidyó de ir van a ir , va ir (2 times), (written by Rosina, Florida) (types I + III). 3.2.2.2 Matters as regards sequence of two clitics 3.2.2.2.1 me + se, and te + se295 In the 16th+17th+century responsa (the Early Middle Period296), we could see both orders: se me two times, with “dative”297 me of so+called indirect affectedness (i.e., the actor was, in one way or another, affected by the action)298, and, once, me se, – with “accusative” me: (1) ‫יו פינסאבה מאנדאר לגיסי ו אישטה נאבי אי נו שי מיפיزו ומו לו שאבי מוי ביי שמעו‬, Yo pensava mandar legisí kon esta nave, i no se me|fizo, komo lo save muy byen Šimˁón ..., ‘I had intended to send my brother+in+law with this ship, but it was not carried out, and Šimˁón knows it very well ...’ (Torat Ḥayyim, Part I, no. 82, 4+6). 294 See §3.2.2.1.2.1 above. 295 I thank Professor David Bunis and Dr. Aldina Quintana for initial information, and for giving me an incentive to investigate this subject. 296 The Early Middle Period: 1493 – c. 1728 (Bunis 1992: 405). 297 We have put the terms dative and accusative in inverted commas, because the dative+accusative opposition is neutralized as regards me (and te). 298 This ‘dative (or its equivalents) of indirect affectedness’ (Lambert 2010: Ch. 2: 22+86; Ch. 3: §3.3.2: 108+120) can be observed in Judezmo and other languages, e.g., Modern Hebrew, English (ibid.: Ch. 2: §2.4.4: 75+76, on me/him, etc.), German (ibid.: Ch. 3: §3.3.2: 108+120). Judezmo instances: See these uses of me in Torat Ḥayyim, Part I, no. 82 (the text is in §3.1.3.2, example 1. E.g., lines 18+20: No dešeš mi bala sino ke la kiteš i la pongaš en vwesa kaza); ‫ אי אגורה י מי טי באס אה ליבאנטאר‬,‫אסינדה ייה נו מי דאס בידאס די ביביר לה נוגי אינטירה טוסיינדו‬ . . . ,‫אור בו יר‬, Asindá ya no me das vidas de bivir la noče entera tosyendo, i agora ke me te vas a levantar or bóker., ‘You anyway give me no peace, coughing all night long, and now you are going to get up with the sun.’, – so+called dativus incommodi [= dative of disadvantage/inconvenience/harm], found in Old Spanish as well, Wagner 1914: Part II: §83: 129 – (Mesažero 5: 1564 (1940) – Bunis 1999b: 379 bottom). 192 (2) ‫ יו אימאנדי פור אילייא‬#‫אורפאנה י מי שירויאה אי שימיפוי‬ # ‫יו טיניאה אונה‬, Yo tenia una órfana ke me servia, i se|me|fuyó, i mandí por eya, ..., ‘I had an orphaned girl who was serving me, then she escaped, and I sent (a person) to bring her, ...’ (Maharḥaš, no. 35, folio 162, page 2, column II, the sixth line from the end, and the following ones). (3) ‫אי דישו אגורה אישטו בוראגו אי נו שי לו י דירי ואנדו מי שי אנט]ר[וגארה לו דירי י אגורה אישטו‬ ‫בוראגו‬, I dišo: “Agora estó borračo, i no se lo|ke diré. Kwando me se ente[rr]ogará, lo diré, ke agora estó borračo.”, ‘And he said: “Now I am drunk, and I do not know what I am going to say. (So) when I am asked, I will say that right now I am drunk, (and nothing more).” (Maharšax, Part IV, no. 89, 31+33). In the latter sequence above, (3), the pronoun me, being “accusative”, is probably more prominent than in the former one (1+2). Such were also the results in certain 19th+20th+century Spanish299 literary works in Corpus del Español, where there are many more findings, which contain both orders: in examples having me se or te se, me or te was found to be, in a way, more prominent, than in se me or se te instances. This is illustrated in the examples provided in Appendix 3 at the end of this thesis. In Modern Judezmo, the sequence me se and te se, – perhaps, having been formerly a marked one, in the manner presented above –, is, on the whole, the only one in use.300 Thus in the Satirical Series corpus, – all the instances with me were me se, and se me was not even once attested. However, one might occasionally find the opposite order as well, yet me se and te se are prevalent: In the dictionary of Perez & Pimienta (2007), there are 26 examples of me se301, and 299 As for standard modern Spanish though, the sequence se me and se te, is the sole one being accepted (GRAE: Vol. I: §16.11a: 1229). Lapesa (1981: §116.9: 472) writes that in modern Spanish, the anteposition of me or te to se is regarded as uncultured, although in certain regions, te se is tolerated. More on the non+standard me se and te se in Peninsular and Latin+American Spanish, – in Millán Chivite 1997+1998: 168, and fn. 7. Amado Alonso’s grammar identifies this usage as a common error (Millán Chivite 1997+1998: 168 [Alonso & Henríquez 1967: 94]). 300 Bunis 1999a: Ch. XVI: 278: §16.5.4. 301 Perez & Pimienta 2007: 38c, 51a, 69b, 114a, 156a, 159b, 190a, 197c, 223a – 2 times, 263a, 303a, 312c, 313a, 320c, 330a, 341b, 371c, 393c, 399b, 408a, 425a, 428a, 433c, 440c, 463a. 193 only two – of se me302. As for Ladinokomunita, both orders may be found there: me se is used more frequently than se me, but both are numerous. Some of the se me utterances there might be influenced by se me used in Spanish and French, – if, e.g., one lives in a Spanish+speaking or francophone country –, but surely not all of the instances. Moreover, there are several users employing both sequences. There is presumably an opposition between the two orders, seen in Ladinokomunita, or at least a tendency towards an opposition, but we found it difficult to discern it. This problem, waiting for a more thorough analysis of the Ladinokomunita corpus, and related, possibly, to factors such as language loss, influence of other languages, etc., warrants further study. 3.2.2.2.2 The sequence se l ..., instead of le(s) l ... The development of this sequence in Old Spanish was – by and large303 – as follows304: Latin illī(s)DATIVE illud/illum/illam/illa/illōs/illāsACCUSATIVE > due to palatalization ([l] + a front vowel), we get Old Spanish [ʒe lo(s)/la(s)] (written ge lo(s)/la(s))305 ; due to the morphological attraction306 to the sequence having a reflexive pronoun (viz., se l ) (and the closeness of [ʒ] to [s̺ ]307/[s]), this became se l . 302 Ibid.: 109c, 126a. 303 Specialists’ opinions are not unanimous about his topic (GRAE: Vol. I: §16.11j+§16.11l: 1233). 304 As presented ibid., and in: Wagner 1914: Part II: §74: 126; García 1975: Ch. I: §3.2: 27+28, see also the fn. there; Lapesa 1981: §91.4: 369; §96.6: 397; Taibo: §2.1: 14+15. 305 One sees in CORDE, that the sequence le lo – later having been replaced by ge lo – was common until the mid+ th 14 century. In the 16th century, le lo appeared only once. On the other hand, as pointed out by Wagner (1914: Part II: §74: 126) ge l flourished in the 15th century, and began vanishing (becoming se l ) in the 16th. As written in GRAE: Vol. I: §16.11j: 1233, even still at the beginning of the 20th century, there were registered remnants of the previous form, [ʑe l+], in Spanish of Santo Domingo and New Mexico. 306 It is interesting to mention in this respect another kind of attraction – a phonological one, also in the field of diachronic linguistics –, termed by Martinet (1955) traction; see his description of French in Hauteville (Part I: §2.17: 51; §2.28: 59+60). 307 See the list of symbols, transcription symbols, and conventions, paragraph 4.1. See a citation from de Nebrija’s work (the year 1517) – in Lapesa (1981: §96.6: 397) – about the interchangeability of [ʒ] and [s̺ ] in his days. 194 As regards these developments, Judezmo was neither conservative nor innovative: In the 16th+17th+century responsa (and thus in later Judezmo308), we found only the later construction, se l .... E.g., se [= le] los dyese a|el (HaMabiṭ, Part III, no. 82, folio 137, page 2, column II); se [= les] lo mostrí (Maharšax, Part II, no. 134); se [= le] lo sakaron (Mahariṭ, Part II, ˀEven Haˁézer, no. 35, folio 40, page 2, column I middle); se [= le] lo ayudó a kargar (Mahariṭ, Part II, ˀEven Haˁézer, no. 35, folio 41, page 1, column I middle); se [= le] lo buškí (Torat Ḥayyim, Part I, no. 82); se [= le] los di (Mixtam LeDavid, ˀEven Haˁézer, no. 1). 3.2.2.3 Dative deixis towards the allocutor, without referring to the specific lexical contents expressed This is use of te which orients deixis to the allocutor, and thus calls his attention and/or designates the dialogic essence. Such use can be found both in Erzählte Welt and Besprochene Welt transmissions (§1.1). Below, there is a passage from a short story in the Salonika press from 1913. By te, the reader was referred to. The example thereafter is Besprochene Welt. (1) (The text was written using Hebrew letters; below is a transcription), El xarrif del fižo yevó al otro dia la bolsa de asúkar, i myentres ke el kulevro estava embrolyado komyendo la dulsura, te le dyo una satirada i le kortó la medya koda. El kulevro ečó un salto, se le sareó al garón del mansevo, i te lo afogó., ‘On the next day, the shrewd son brought the sack of sugar, and while the snake was being confused by eating the sweets, he gave it a chop and cut off a half of its tail. The snake took a jump, wrapped itself around the lad’s neck, and suffocated him.’ (From an unindentified periodical from Salonika). (2) .‫פור י איס די חאנו ה איס י טי לו איסטו בוש אנדו ו טאנטו איחטיزאר‬, Por ke es de Xanuká es ke te lo estó buškando kon tanto ixtizar.309, ‘It is because it’s since Hanukkah (that I have not 308 For Modern Judezmo: Bunis 1999a: Ch. XVI: 277+278: §16.5.2; Wagner 1914: Part II: §74: 126+127. As for pre+ expulsion Jewish Ibero+Romance texts from Castile and Aragon, the form ge lo was found to be abundant (especially in Castile) by Minervini (1992: Vol. I: §3.2.1: 76), and there is also one occurence without palatalization, le lo (ibid.). 309 But the insertion of te here could also be due to asteism (see discussion in §3.2.1.3.1.1 above, towards the end of that subsection): ‫ –פור י איס די חאנו ה איס י‬.‫–די חאנו ה י לו ארימאטיס אלה טאבלה דיל לאבאדור י נו טי לו טו ארו נינגונו‬ .‫טי לו איסטו בוש אנדו ו טאנטו איחטיزאר‬, DŽAMILA: De Xanuká ke lo aremates a|la tavlá del lavador ke no te lo 195 seen the candle), I have been looking for it so desperately.’ (Mesažero 4: 1095 (1939); Bunis 1999b: 422 top). This phenomenon of deixis referring to an entity beyond the matters that are spoken about, can be found in languages, thus, e.g., in a Caucasian language Abaza310. Furthermore, such an element (and also elements such as and, or, not, if, because, this is why, etc.) has to do with the locutor’s “spirit”, “mind” (what is called by the Port+Royal grammar esprit311), as opposed to lexical elements. The same use is observed in Polish (Erzählte Welt and Besprochene Welt utterances) and Hebrew (Besprochene Welt): Polish examples: in Szymczak 1996: Vol. I: 270a: the entry ‘ci (I)’ (lit., ‘to you’, ‘for you’): Erzählte Welt: Było you’) six of us.’; Besprochene Welt: Masz guns!’; A to that!’; To nas sześcioro., ‘There were (plus literally, ‘to los!, ‘Here’s (+ ‘to you’) an amazing thing!’, ‘Great dopiero! , ‘A pretty business this (+ ‘to you’)!’, ‘Well, I never!’, ‘Can you beat heca!, ‘What a brouhaha (+ ‘to you’)!’. Modern Hebrew: Such forms are especially noticeable with intransitive verbs: Since they have no arguments whatsoever, the indirectness, the detachment, of the inserted dative pronoun, can be seen more clearly . Examples: Yeš kaele [meavtexim] šešomrim šmone šaot beyemama, aval yeš kaele šešomrim / esrim šaot beyemama; kamu / anašim [šehitxilu litmox bi] (Nir Barkat, an interview, October 10, 2013); Paam haiti omed / kaxa [becura kazot, betnuxa kazot]. (showing the addressee the manner his posture used to be, now having changed, May 2013); Hayom [kvar] lo itpašru / hayom. (November 2012); yored [= poxet] / exad (a calculation). Cf. a Mishnaic Hebrew example: )‫ ֵאי ל‬Dֶ ‫ ָד ָבר‬E‫ה ְו ֵאי ְל‬Fָ Dָ )‫ ֵאי ל‬Dֶ ‫ ָא ָד‬E‫ ֵאי ְל‬Dֶ ,‫ ָבר‬Gָ ‫ ִהי ַמ ְפ ִליג ְל ָכל‬Hְ ‫ ְו ַאל‬, ‫ ִהי ָבز ְל ָכל ָא ָד‬Hְ ‫ ַאל‬,‫א)מר‬ ֵ ‫א ָהיָ ה‬9‫ה‬ 312 : ) ‫ ָמ‬, ‘He used to say: Despise not any man, and discriminate not against any thing, for there tokaron ninguno. (‘No one touched it [= the candle] since Hanukkah, when you destroyed it in the sink.’) – BOXOR: Por ke es de Xanuká es ke te lo estó buškando kon tanto ixtizar. 310 Anderson & Keenan 1985: 277+278. 311 Arnauld & Lancelot 1803: Ch. XXIII: 382. In our case, te makes the content personally addressed to the allocutor (I thank Professor David Bunis for this formulation). 312 Babylonian Talmud, ˀAvot, Ch. IV, Mishnah 3 (originally in the Mishnah, Pirke aboth, Ch. IV, Mishnah 3 – Thanks to my dissertation reviewers for this note). 196 is no man (literally, ‘to you’) that has not his hour, and there is no thing (literally, ‘to you’) that has not its place.’313 3.2.2.4 The allocutive plural object pronoun os for vos As for the allocutive plural object pronoun, in Old Spanish, there was competition between the etymological vos, and its development os.314 The result in Modern Spanish overall, was the triumph of os only315, whereas in Modern Judezmo only vos has been retained.316 It should be noted that, as in Judezmo, there is vos in some Ibero+Romance languages, such as Mirandese317 and Galician318. In the 16th+17th+century rabbinical responsa (the Early Middle Period319), both vos and os are attested, but os turns out to be a weaker competitor than vos: Just two, very early, instances of os were found by us: Maharí ben Leb, Part I, no. [23], (folio 59, page 1), 17: ‫בולביאוש א ה‬, volveos [= imperative volvé + os] aká; HaMabiṭ, Part III, folio 137, page 2, column II middle, – no. 82, 88: ‫ י אוש איש ריבא‬, ke os eskriva. 313 The Soncino Babylonian Talmud: Ovos, translated into English with notes, reformatted by Reuven Brauner, Raanana, 5771 (= 2011), www.613etc.com, p. 24b. 314 Wagner 1914: Part II: §73: 126; Luria 1930: §82: 146. Vos being still, and the only variant, in de Nebrija’s grammar (1492: Part V (Libro quinto): Ch. iii: folio h.ii.: page 2) – as noted by Wagner 1914: ibid. Os began to be in wide use at the end of the 15th century (id.: ibid.). 315 Researchers’ works we have consulted, never mentioned any existence of vos in any variation of Spanish. 316 Bunis 1999a: Ch. V: §5.6.5: 139. Os is also absent in Haketia (Wagner 1931: 230). 317 Leite de Vasconcellos 1900: Vol. I: §193: 352. 318 Saco y Arce 1868: §139.1: 161, whereas the Galician object pronoun os = Spanish los. 319 The Early Middle Period: 1493 – c. 1728 (Bunis 1992: 405). 197 3.2.2.5 The case of the enclitic sen In 20th+century Judezmo, enclitic sen completely, or nearly completely, replaced se, when marking plural.320 This phenomenon is not peculiar to Judezmo, and although the form is unaccepted in standard Spanish, it may be seen in older Spanish, as well as in modern regional Spanish in Iberia and Latin America, and also in the popular (viz., vernacular) Portuguese conjugation of the verb haver.321 There were several possible motivators for this change: (a) The pronoun se is overloaded with information, it is too vague: It may be used as both accusative and dative, both singular and plural, and both masculine and feminine. The state might be even more grammatically unexpressed when this pronoun is employed enclitically, because many times in this case, se is attached to infinitives or gerunds, which themselves lack indication of number and gender, and thus, neither the infinitive / gerund, nor the reflexive se, mark these grammatical categories. For this reason, sen, – with n added probably by analogy to the verbal delocutive plural ending (e.g., present indicative an, en)322 –, signifying delocutive plural, adds precision.323 (b) Shifting forward (or doubling) of the phoneme, at times morphophoneme, n, to the end of a stress unit, as witnessed in regional Spanish in Iberia and the Americas, and also in Judezmo324; the final n one gets as a result (at times se n) could catalyze the discussed phenomenon: 320 Bunis 1999a: 134+135, especially §5.4.1.3 (Modern Judezmo); dialects: Salonika – Lamouche 1907: 984, and indeed so in the Satirical Series corpus; Monastir – Luria 1930: §82: 146; Constantinople – Wagner 1914: Part II: §76: 127. 321 Lamouche 1907: 984; Wagner 1914: Part II: §76: 127 (inter alia on popular Portuguese); Luria 1930: §82: 146, quoting al marcharsen ellos; por querersen mucho no han de estar; Millán Chivite 1997+1998: 169 (citing vinieron a bañarsen), and 168: fn. 7; Bunis & Adar+Bunis 2011: 460: fn. 83. Amado Alonso’s grammar identifies this usage as a common error (Millán Chivite 1997+1998: 169 [Alonso & Henríquez 1967: 93]). 322 Lamouche 1907: 984; Wagner 1914: Part II: §76: 127; Luria 1930: §82: 146. 323 Cf. also expressing plurality by s in se lo , for se [pl., actually ‘les’] lo, both in Spanish and Judezmo, see §3.2.1.2.2.2.2.2, example (4), fn. 171. 324 This phenomenon (i.e., shifting forward or doubling of the phoneme or the morphophoneme n) in Judezmo is not very rare, also in writing; the underlined Spanish forms in the following examples may be found in Judezmo use as well; I thank Professor David Bunis for the consultation, and for these valuable pieces of information. 198 Shifting forward or doubling of the phoneme n, in popular Iberian Spanish (Lapesa 1981: §116.9: 472): sié tese [= (el/ella) se siente]. Shifting forward or doubling of the morphophoneme n, representing delocutive plural, in popular Iberian Spanish, in Latin America, and in Judezmo: Spanish: [díganme >] dígamen; cállensen (ibid.: ibid.: ibid.); demen, ‘denme’; “delen dinero”, ‘denle’; siéntesen o siéntensen, for ‘siéntense’; hágalón, ‘háganlo’ (in Río de la Plata); míremelán, ‘mírenmela’ (in Río de la Plata) (ibid.: §133.2: 588+589).325 Judezmo: (the year 1746) ‫סיפאסי‬, sépasen [= sépanse]326; (not later than 1906) kumpyéronsen los syelos327. The enclitic sen, already widespread in the 19th century328, begins to be attested in the 18th century, – as early as, at least, 1746329. The precursor to sen could be the case in the book Fwente Klara (Salonika, 1595330), as notes Subak 1906: 130+131, referring to the following findings by Grünbaum 1896: 121: Kapítulo 4. Se prova muy klaro ke el klaro, ke el kapítulo nun gímel de Yešaˁyá profeta, nel kwal se fundan estos savyos de ˀEdom a provar por el la mwerte de Yešú, ser un grande sonbayamyento., ‘Chapter 4. It is proven more than very clearly, that chapter 53 of Isaiah the prophet, on which (lit., in which) these sages of Edom base themselves to thereby prove (lit., prove they) Jesus’s death, is a great enticement’. – Such a form, Grünbaum writes, appears only once in this book. And Grünbaum found, in another source (with no indication of name and year), also the form ser (Grünbaum 1896: ibid.: fn. 1). As was recently pointed out by Quintana (2014: 73) (and I thank Matthew Dudley for calling my attention to that), seren indeed appears occasionally in 16th+century Judezmo texts, this form being the 325 More examples can be seen in Luria 1930: §82: 146. 326 Bunis & Adar+Bunis 2011: 460: fn. 83. 327 See fn. 331 below. 328 Ibid. 329 As presented by García Moreno (2003: 127: §1.3), one finds no pweden sostenerse las ˀummot sin Yisraˀel, ‘the nations are not sustainable without Yisraˀel’, in Isaac Magriso’s Me’am Lo’ez on Exodus, the year 1746. A 1764 instance is cited by Bunis & Adar+Bunis (2011: 460: fn. 83), – the form ‫טופארשי‬, toparsen, which is in Magriso, Meˁam Loˁez, Bammidbar. 330 Bunis 2011: 74, 52 (now in a modern edition by Pilar Romeu Ferré, 2007). 199 personal infinitive construction in Portuguese, thus incorporated into Judezmo therefrom, i.e., ser, ‘to be’, + delocutive plural, ‘they’. In the 20th century, one may find uses of sen even in Ladino (viz., the Bible and sacred texts translations)331, although its language is, generally speaking, archaizing and conservative332; whereas, to the best of our knowledge, the form used in pre+20th+century Ladino editions was only se. 3.2.3 Conclusion To finalize this lengthy chapter concerning object pronouns, in which heterogeneous topics were presented, we would like to direct the reader to the summary chart, the column exhibiting the object pronouns, in Appendix 1. 331 Examples: kumpyéronse los sielos (for Gen. ii 1?, ‫ ַויְכֻלּ֛ וּ הַשָּׁ ַ ֥מי ִם ְוה ָ ָ֖א ֶרץ ְוכָל־ ְצב ָָאֽם׃‬, Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.), as quoted by Subak (1906: 130); Haggadah, Salonika 1970: 91: y no pudieron por detadràrse (‫וְ•א יָכְלוּ ְלהִתְ ַמ ְה ֵמ ַהּ‬, and (they) could not tarry). 332 On Ladino, see Sephiha 1982; Díaz+Mas 1986: 101; Alvar 1986: Ch. VI: 43+46; Bunis 1996. 200 Chapter 3.3 Possessive pronouns 3.3.1 Introductory notes Before the types of the Judezmo various possessive pronominal (which are often adjectival1) constructions are discussed, we would like to provide some important introductory general linguistic notes. 3.3.1.1 Various multiple meanings of the possession syntactic relation and the attribution syntactic relation It must be noted, that ‘possessive pronouns’ is just a “code”,name for a large variety of semantic relations which do not necessarily have to do with possession. Multiple kinds of relation2, at times even taken to some point of extremity, may be seen in various languages. In much the same way one finds attributive relations, e.g. (a) genitive constructions, such as: a compound of two nouns (nominal compound, annexion, ‫סמיכות‬, 0123‫)إ‬3; the constructions NOUN 1 See §3.3.2 below. 2 Cf. Goldenberg 1995: Part II: §3: 3. And cf. Spanish grammars, which tend to define the relation denoted by possessive pronouns more broadly, as pertenencia, ‘belonging’ (RAE Grammar 1771: Part I: Ch. IV: Article IV: 45; Bello 1903: §124: 131). 3 See Goldenberg 1995: Part II: §2: 2,3: “The purely,grammatical nature of the genitive, irrespective of any possible semantic relationships ... ... there is no point at all in classifying or enumerating concrete senses of genitive constructions. .. . it could also be equally shown in genitive expressions such as the Arabic GHI ‫[ ٲھرام‬ˀahraːmu Mis’ra] ‘the pyramids of Egypt’, QRSTU‫ ا‬O2P [baːbu l,hajkali] ‘the door of the temple’, VIXI VUWI [mawlidu Muħammadin] ‘Muḥammad’s birth’, ّOXU‫ ا‬QH[ [fas’lu l,ħubbi] ‘season of love’, `UTa O]‫[ _وا‬ˁawaːqibu d͡ʒahlihiː] ‘the consequences of his ignorance’, ‫ف‬fh 0UfU e[ [fiː laylati s’ayfin] ‘on one summer night’, ‫وة‬Tlm‫ن ا‬2aj[ [find͡ʒaːnu l, qahwati] ‘the cup of coffee’, ‫ة‬Ga‫رة أ‬2Sn [sayyaːratu ˀud͡ʒratin] ‘a taxi cab’ and the like, the meaning hidden behind the genitive being different in each case. So also in Ethiopic betä nəguś ‘king’s house’, betä moqəḥ ‘prison’, nəwāyä ˁəṣ́ ‘vessel of wood’, mänbärä mängəśt ‘throne of the kingdom’, mänbärä ˁamäṣ́ā ‘throne of iniquity’ or ‘seat (tribunal) of wickedness’, bäwiˀa hagär ‘entering (into) the city’, məwwutä addām, ‘who has died for man’, səqulä fäyyāt, ‘crucified like a thief, or: with thieves’, fəṭurä märet ‘created of dust’ &c. The same could also be shown in other languages, and it has indeed been treated in the linguistic literature”. For a great semantic variety of relations between the two nouns in this NOUN NOUN compound in English and German, see – and thanks to Dr. Amir Zeldes, who provided me with all this following bibliography, and additional important details thereon – for English: 201 of NOUN in languages like English, Spanish4 and Coptic; (b) attributive,relation derivational affixes, that the head (nucleus) of the word they are in, is semantically associated, in one way or another, with the signified5 of the element to which the affix is attached. Thus, for example, the nisbah6 (Arabic *iyy7, Hebrew *i, Ancient Egyptian *y8); or the Turkish affixes *li9 and *ci10. In the examples below, drawn from diverse languages, we shall present some interesting meanings of possessive pronouns: Downing 1977 (which has the famous ‘apple,juice chair’), Levi 1978, ten Hacken 2009: Ch. 4: 54,77; for German: Fanselow 1981, Heringer 1984 (where there is used the example ‘Fischfrau’, which is often referred to). 4 Cf. regarding the preposition de in RAE Grammar 1771 (Part I: Ch. IX: 210): “El oficio y régimen de esta preposición es tan vario, que será difícil notar todos los usos que tiene.”, “The function and government of this preposition is so variegated, that it would be difficult to list all the uses it has.” 5 I.e., the Saussurean signifié. 6 An Arabic term, meaning ‘attribution’, ‘relationship’. Cf. . . . •َmِ‫ إ‬... O َ €َ َj, ‘to attribute (something) to (someone/something)’. 7 Wright 1896: Vol. I: 149,150: §249: “The relative adjectives ..., ... ُ‫ت‬2َP€ َ ‡ِّ mَ‫[ ا‬a,nnisabaːtu] (relationes), are formed by adding the termination ‫ ــ ِ ىﱞ‬to the words from which they are derived, and denote that a person or thing belongs to or connected therewith (in respect of origin, family, birth, sect, trade, etc.). E.g. ‫•ﱞ‬3 ِ ْ‫[ أَر‬ˀard’iyyun] earthly, from ٌ‫[ أَرْ ض‬ˀard’un] the earth; ... ‫•ﱞ‬jِ € َ ‫ﺣ‬ َ [ħasaniyyun] descended from êl*Ḥasan (ُ•َ€‫ﺣ‬ َ mْ َ‫[ ا‬ˀAl,ħasanu]); ‫•ﱞ‬Iِ SِI•َ [tamiːmiyyun] belonging to the tribe of Tèmīm (‫‘ﱞ‬SِI•َ [Tamiːmun]); ‫•ﱞ‬lِ ’ ْ Iَ ِ‫[ د‬dimašqiyyun] born or living at Damascus ُ•’ ْ Iَ ِ‫[ د‬Dimašqu]; ... ‫•ﱞ‬€ ِّ ‫ﺣ‬ ِ [ħissiyyun] relating to sense (‫ﺣ–ﱞ‬ ِ [ħissun]), perceptible by one of the senses; ... ‫•ﱞ‬jِّ ‫إ‬ [ˀinniyun] from •‫إ‬ ‫[ ﱠ‬ˀinna] truly, verily.” 8 Gardiner 1957: §79: 61,62. 9 “The addition of *li (4 [phonetic alternants]) to a noun makes an adjective or noun mean ‘characterized by or possessing whatever the original noun represents’.” (Lewis 1977: 45: §86). E.g., the Turkish noun çiçek, ‘flower’, and its derivation çiçek*li, both having entered into Judezmo, mean in it – the former – ‘flower’, and the latter (čičeklí) – ‘full of flowers’, ‘flowered’ (as regards fabric etc. – patterned with flowers), and ‘one wearing a flower on the lapel of his/her garment’ (Perez & Pimienta 2007: 82c). 10 (My extra information – in square brackets): “*ci/*çi (4 [phonetic alternants]) denotes regular occupation or profession, like our ‘,ist’. ... kapı, door, gate; kapıcı, porter, doorkeeper [‘one whose occupation is to be a security guard standing at the gate, the door, etc.’]; ... eski, old; eskici, rag,and,bone man [‘one whose occupation is to collect old things and sell them’]; . ..” (Lewis 1977: 69: §113). Cf. fener, ‘lantern’; (nautical) ‘lighthouse’, and its derivation fenerci, ‘dealer of lanterns’; (nautical) ‘keeper of lighthouses’ (Okçugil 1945: 151b). (The above words also entered Judezmo – I thank Professor David Bunis for this comment: kipidží (Nehama 1977: 268c; Perez & Pimienta 2007: 233a); eskidží (Nehama 1977: 188c; Perez & Pimienta 2007: 164b)). 202 (1) The subject or object of an action. Furthermore, as often discussed by linguists, there might occur a subject/object ambiguity of possessive syntagms, (as well as attributive ones11). Examples: as object, Spanish: ... un volumen que retrata fiel y puntualmente la sociedad sefardí en el corazón de la Europa de los últimos siglos y que abre un enorme abanico de posibilidades para adentrarse en su estudio.12, ‘... a volume that portrays faithfully and accurately Sephardic society in the heart of Europe of the past centuries, and provides a broad range of possibilities to thoroughly study it.’; Biblical Hebrew: ‫אַ ֲהבָתָ ם‬, ˀahavatam – both ‘their love’ (i.e., as subject), and ‘love for them, love of them’ (i.e., as object): ‫אָבדָ ה ְו ֵ֨חלֶק‬ ָ ‫שׂנ‬ ִ ‫ַגּ֣ם אַ ֲהב ָ ָ֧תם גַּם־‬ ֑ ָ ‫ְאָתם כּ ָ ְ֣בר‬ ֖ ָ ‫ְאָת֛ם גַּם־ ִקנ‬ ‫ַשּׁ ֶמשׁ׃‬ ֽ ָ ‫ ֵאין־לָהֶ ֥ם עוֹ ֙ד לְעוֹ ָ֔לם בּ ְ֥כ ֹל ֲא ֶשֽׁר־נַע ָ ֲ֖שׂה ַ ֥תּחַת ה‬, ‘Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.’13 (Ecclesiastes ix 6), vs. ‫֤ א אוֹ ֵס ֙ף‬Ë ‫ֵיתי ֲאג ְָר ֵ ֑שׁם‬ ְ ‫ֽי־שׁם‬ ָ ‫כּ‬ ֣ ָ ִ‫ָל־רע ָ ָ֤תם ַבּ ִגּ ְל ָגּל֙ כּ‬ ֖ ִ ‫שׂנֵאתִ֔ ים ֚ ַעל ֣ר ֹ ַע מַ ֽ ַע ְללֵי ֶ֔הם ִמבּ‬ ‫יהם ס ְֹר ִ ֽרים׃‬ ָ ‫אַ ֲהבָתָ֔ ם כָּל־‬, ‘All their wickedness is in Gilgal: for there I hated them: for the ֖ ֶ ‫שׂ ֵר‬ wickedness of their doings I will drive them out of mine house, I will love them no more: all their princes are revolters.’14 (Hosea ix 15); as object, Modern Hebrew: lo meahavatenu [hem niku et hašeleg leyad betenu al hamidraxa], It is not for the love of us [that they cleared the snow from the walk near our house]. (December 17, 2013).15 16 11 E.g., The shooting of the hunters was disgraceful. (Matthews 1981: 15,17; 23,24; 172). An additional bibliography at the end of fn. 3 above. 12 From an abstract of: Michael Studemund,Halévy, Christian Liebl, Ivana Vučina Simović, (eds.), Sefarad an der Donau: Lengua y literatura de los sefardíes en tierras de los Habsburgo, Barcelona: Tirocinio, 2013. 13 King James Bible. 14 King James Bible. 15 More Modern Hebrew instances: ktivata – both ‘her writing’ (i.e., as subject), and ‘writing of it (fem.)’ (i.e., as object) – from the Internet: .‫ ;ונדמה לי שזה קו המאפיין את כתיבתה ;מבינה את נושאי כתיבתה ומאוהבת בנשואי ביקורתה‬but: ‫ הגירוי‬.. . .‫ ;המרכזי בבחירת הנושא לעבודה וה"דלק" המניע בתהליך הכנתה וכתיבתה‬.‫תהליך כתיבתה של העבודה היה עבורי תהליך מרגש‬. For a recent study on possessive pronouns in Modern Hebrew in general, see Avioz 2004 (I thank my Ph.D. dissertation reviewers for this important reference). 16 However, some languages may exhibit differentiation as to the syntactic status subject/object: So in Latin, the former expressed by means of adjectival possessive pronouns meus, tuus, and so on, whereas the latter – as a genitive form meī, tuī, and so on (Roby: Part I (1871): Book II: Ch. VIII: 132,133; Part II (1874): Book IV: Ch. XI: 128). Also in de Nebrija’s Spanish grammar it is claimed that a subject of an action is signified by possessive pronouns, while an object – by means of the preposition de. Note, interestingly, his prescriptive statement that ‘I beg your (pl.) mercy, I beg of you (pl.)’ should be expressed as suplico a vuestra merced, instead of the – allegedly – 203 (2) Various other meanings: (2.1) Modern Hebrew: kmo šeamar kodmi, ‘as was told by the previous interviewee17’ (radio, February 2010); Yam Kineret merakez bašfixa šelo [i.e., bašfixa elav, benekudot hašfixa letoxo] harbe nexalim: Gamla, Džilabun, Dan, ..., ‘Sea of Galilee assembles at places of inflow into it18 a great deal of brooks: Gamla, Džilabun, Dan, ...’ (March 27, 2013); [Ze] kmo haAsperger šelxa., ‘[My behaviour] is analogous with that of the Asperger’s [syndrome], about which you were speaking a while back19, [which that certain man has].’ (June 5, 2013)20; ‫הרי‬ erroneous suplico a la merced de vosotros, and this actually reveals potential ambiguity of de + PRONOUN, representing both the objects, and, occasionally, the subjects of an action. “... porque otra cosa es mío, que de mí; tuyo, que de ti; suyo, que de sí; nuestro, que de nos; vuestro, que de vos; porque mío, tuyo, suyo, nuestro, vuestro, significan acción; de mí, de ti, de sí, de nos, de vos, significan pasión. Como diciendo es mi opinión, quiero decir ‘la opinión que yo tengo de alguna cosa’; mas diciendo es la opinión de mí, quiero decir ‘la opinión que otros de mí tienen’; y así, diciendo yo tengo buena opinión de ti, quiero decir ‘la que yo tengo de ti’; tengo tu opinión, quiero decir ‘la que tú tienes de alguna cosa’; así mismo, diciendo es mi señor, quiero decir que yo lo tengo por señor; mas diciendo es señor de mí, quiero decir que él tiene el señorío y posesión de mí. De donde se convence el error de los que, apartándose de la común y propia manera de hablar, dicen suplico a la merced de vosotros, en lugar de decir suplico a vuestra merced; porque diciendo suplico a la merced de vosotros, quiero decir que suplico a la misericordia que otros tienen de vos, lo cual es contrario de lo que ellos sienten; mas diciendo suplico a vuestra merced, dirían lo que quieren, que es: ‘suplico a la misericordia de que acostumbráis usar’; porque no es otra cosa ‘merced’, sino aquello que los latinos llaman ‘misericordia’, así que diciendo el rey: es mi merced, quiere decir ‘la misericordia de que suele usar’; mas diciendo Señor, habe merced de mí, quiero decir, ‘no la que yo tengo, sino la que el Señor tiene de mí’.” (de Nebrija 1492: Part III (Libro tercero): Ch. viii: folio e.v.: pages 1,2; a modern edition – de Nebrija 2011: 75,76). Cf. in Calila y Dimna: “Tengo por bien de partir entre vosotros estos presentes, pues que vos ofrecistes a la muerte por amor de mí.”, “I consider it appropriate to hand out these gifts to you, since you offered to die for the love of me.” (Ch. XI: 217); as opposed to: “... E yo ir té ver e requerir, e mostrar te he mi amor más que tú me pediste.”, “... And I will be coming to visit you and to invite you, and be showing you my love, to a greater extent than you asked me for.” (Ch. XVII: 278,279). 17 Lit., my previous one, i.e. ‘one preceding me’, ‘preceding in relation to me’. 18 Lit., its inflow. 19 Lit., your Asperger’s. Cf., similarly: derex hatiluy šelxa, lit., ‘the subjunctive mood of yours’, viz., ‘the topic of subjunctive mood you were presenting (about 15 minutes ago)’ (June 2010); Russian: Где ж тюльпаны*то твои?, ‘Where are the tulips then, that you said are found blooming in these fields?’ (Lit., ‘Where are your tulips then?’, March 2010). 20 Somewhat similarly in this talkback, following someone’s statement (Internet): 204 ‫ כפי שהוא מבטיח לנו‬,‫ מעל מפת כדור הארץ‬,‫עוד מעט החבר שלך מטהרן ימחק אותך ואת מדינת האפרטהייד שלך גם יחד‬ .... ‫מעל כל במה‬, ‘Soon, your Tehrani friend will wipe you off the face of the earth, and the country in which – as you claim – one has apartheid21, as he promises us here, there, and everywhere, won’t he?’ (Internet); ‫ אתה מאיים עלינו במצדה ומלחמת אחים? זאת‬,‫ אחרי כל הדיבורים על דמוקרטיה‬,‫ולקינוח‬ ?‫ ירים נשק אם הרוב לא ייכנע לו גם הפעם‬,‫הדמוקרטיה שלך? שמיעוט שהתמחה בכפיית עמדתו על הרוב‬, ‘And for dessert, after all that fuss about democracy, you threaten us with a Masada rebellion and a civil war? Is that your vision of / the way you imagine democracy, that you were talking about?22 That a minority that got the hang of forcing their opinion upon the majority would take up arms, if the majority should not surrender to them this time?’ (Internet). (2.2) Polish: Julian Tuwim’s poem “W aeroplanie” (Tuwim 1984: 5): nasza kwoczka, ‘our brooding hen’, with our representing the narrator’s idea ‘the main character (or one of the main characters) of our (mine and yours, the readers) narrative’23. In the next example (from the same poem), me [= moje], ‘my (old, dear) ones’, means ‘the two characters of my poem, – the old woman and her hen’: Jak me [= moje (postacie)] zaczną się szamotać, ‘And my [ones] began rushing about so excitedly’ (ibid.: 624). (Title:) ‫אפרטהייד‬ (Content:) ,‫ סמכויות אכיפה רק בנושא שכר מינימום‬,‫ הממונה על תנאי העבודה שלכם‬,‫ למשרד התמ"ת‬.‫"זכויות העובדים מעבר לקו הירוק בכי רע‬ "‫ סקר חדש מגלה שלא מעט מעסיקים מנצלים את אי האכיפה ומפלים לרעה את עובדיהם‬.‫עובדים זרים ובטיחות בעבודה באזורים שמעבר לקו הירוק‬ (A talkback: title) ‫אפרטהייד זה רק בראש שלך‬ (Content:) ‫ מעבר לכך מסתבר שמדיניות התשלומים והביטוח בפועל של העובדים‬.‫בכתבה אין שום דבר שמספר על אפרטהייד ואפלו לא רומז עליו‬ !!! ‫' !!!! אז האפרטהייד שלך נמצא בעצם בקיבוצים‬67 ‫בשטחים הכבושים ע"י התנחלויות טוב יותר מזה של העובדים בתוך גבולות‬ 21 Lit., your apartheid country. 22 Lit., Is that your democracy? 23 This kind of our exists in other languages as well. To mention just a sporadic example (English): Down our hero went, tearing and being torn, and bumping on the tufts and shrubs until he landed, safe but not very sound, on the bridge below. (Frederick Arthur Bridgman, Winters in Algeria, written and illustrated by Frederick Arthur Bridgman, New York: Harper & Bros., 1890, p. 189). 24 Importantly, we should emphasize that in this book, it is written nie, ‘not’, not me – thereby making this example irrelevant –, and nie should indeed have been the word Tuwim used in this sentence, (see about the surprise,effect construction Jak nie ..., Kiedy nie ..., in Doroszewski et al. 1963: Vol. V: 3a – the entry ‘nie’: §2). However, in many versions of this poem on the Net, the sentence was differently interpreted, having me instead of nie. 205 (2.3) Perhaps the most surprising and extreme instance has been found by us in spoken Modern Hebrew, where šelxa just designated the dialogic essence25, with no additional purpose (not even meaning ‘that one you referred to earlier’): Lo hosifu tkanim, vehauxlusiya šelxa gdela kol hazman. (2013), ‘The number of employment positions available was not increased, but the population26 grows all the time’. 3.3.1.2 On representations of ‘inalienable’ (‘personal,domain’) possession Cross,linguistically speaking, the opposition between alienable27 and inalienable possession is traditionally regarded as a frequent type of possession split (i.e., each being expressed differently).28 Each language may split the two differently. Koptjevskaja,Tamm (2001: 965b [after other sholars]) demonstrates the following universal principle: “Typically, inalienables form a closed set, membership in which can be represented as an implicational hierarchy: ‘If an item on the hierarchy is inalienable, then all the items to the left are inalienable’ ...: KIN TERMS AND/OR BODY > PART,WHOLE29 AND/OR SPATIAL PARTS RELATIONS > CULTURALLY BASIC POSSESSED ITEMS (CLOTHING, TOOLS, DOMESTIC ANIMALS) ”. 25 Cf. another means towards this end – the “dative”, see §3.2.2.3. 26 Lit., your population. 27 Viz., capable of being transferred to the ownership of another; designating or relating to possession which is contingent, temporary, or transferable, rather than necessary or permanent. (OED: the entry ‘alienable’). 28 Koptjevskaja,Tamm 2001: 965b. 29 Cf., for example, parts of plants, represented as inalienable entities (of plants) in some languages. So in Koyukon Athabaskan (Thompson 1996: 656,657); Swahili (Ashton 1963: Ch. XLIV, “Pronouns (Section V)”: 308: “Contracted [inalienable] possessive forms other than those with words denoting living people [‘a friend’, ‘a son/daughter’, ‘a father’, etc.] are occasionally met with, especially in proverbs: Mti ukifa shinale, na tanzuze hukauka., ‘When a tree dies at its root, its boughs dry up also.’; Mnyonyore hanuki, hupendeza mauae., ‘The mnyonyore shrub gives forth no perfume, (and yet) its flowers are pleasing.’; Mkwaju muwi una tumbiriwe., ‘The bad tamarind,tree has its monkey (cf. “birds of a feather”).’”). 206 The formal alienable–inalienable opposition might be expressed in divergent manners in diverse languages.30 In Spanish and Judezmo, one of them is the use of a definite article, being attached to the noun which denotes the inalienable possessed, with no possessive pronoun employed.31 The use of a noun signifying an inalienable entity with no accompanying possessive pronoun goes back to older Indo,European languages (such as Ancient Greek), where the same phenomenon is observable.32 The explanation lies in the fact that, at older stages, the rich Indo, European inflectional morphology of such a noun and of its syntactic environment on the one hand, and the pragmatic grounds that inalienable entities should belong to, or be part of, the person or other object presented in the sentence33 on the other hand, provide enough information to make the possessive pronoun unnecessary. Thus, this syntactic reality in Spanish and Judezmo is probably the result of the said state in older Indo,European languages.34 Although the Spanish and Judezmo inflectional morphology is no longer so rich, the syntactic environment of the possessed noun (inter alia, occasionally, an object dative pronoun referring to the possessor – see below) and the determination of the noun marked by a definite article, still make the possessive pronoun redundant. Here are some Judezmo examples, with all but the last (example (7)) referring to body parts35: (1) ‫אי שא ו משה כה או טישטאמיל די מאנסאנאש אי שי לו ארוג ו אי אילייא לוריסיבייו אי לאש‬ ... :‫מאנוש אי דישפואיש י לו טיניאה אי לאש מאנוש לי דישו‬, i sakó Mošé Kohén un testamil(?)36 de 30 As shown in general in Koptjevskaja,Tamm 2001: 965b,967a. A recent book on possessive constructions, and their relations to inalienable possession is Chappell & McGregor 1996. An additional classic bibliography on inalienability may be found in Shisha,Halevy 1986: 237: the note regarding §1.2.1.1 there, (thanks to Dr. Arlette David for information about this location). 31 For Spanish – see GRAE: Vol. I: §14.7l: 1063. 32 For this topic, see the essays of Bally (1996, originally published in 1926) and Lehmann (2005). 33 Cf. Bally 1996: 42: “in affecting a part of the person, [the states/actions] affect the person in their entirety”. 34 See Bally (1996, originally published in 1926) and Lehmann (2005). 35 We are not sure whether kinship terms in Judezmo or Spanish answer the discussed syntactic description; this is a matter for further investigation. 36 Probably, we have here what seems to be a variant of the word testamal, which is a kind of cloth, (hence a bag made of this material?); I am indebted to Professor David Bunis for this infomation. Another, less felicitous, option is the Ottoman Turkish Ø€‫ط‬, tasst, var. Ø’‫ط‬, tašt, ‘a basin’, ‘a tray’ (Redhouse 1880: 640b). 207 mansanas, i se lo arrožó, i eya lo|resivyó en las manos, i despwés ke lo tenia en las manos, le dišo: ..., ‘thereupon Mošé Kohén took out a bag(?) / basin(?) filled with apples, and tossed it to her, and she received it in her hands, then after she had been holding it in her hands, he told her: ...’ (Maharšax, Part IV, no. 89, 13,15). (2) ‫וכ דישו י לושוישטידוש י טיניאה אינשימה וישטידוס לוס ונישייו מונגו ביי י אירא די דוד‬ ‫אלבעלי וכ איל אנילייו אי איל דידו די פירינגי י איסטונסיש שי לו שא ארו איליוס לו ונוסייו מוי ביי י אירה‬ ‫איל אנילייו דיל דיגו דוד אלבעלי י סיינפרי לו לייבאבה איניל דידו‬, Vexén dišo ke los|vestidos ke tenia ensima vestidos, – los konesyó37 munčo byen ke eran de David Albali, vexén el aniyo en el dedo, de pirinče/,i, ke estonses se lo sakaron eyos, – lo konosyó muy byen ke era el aniyo del dičo David Albali, ke syenpre lo yevava en|el dedo., ‘And he (i.e., the witness) also said that the outer garments worn by him (i.e., David Albali), were recognized very well by him (i.e., the witness) as David Albali’s, and the ring on his finger, made of brass, which they took off then, was recognized perfectly well by him as the said David Albali’s, who always had it on his finger.’ (Mahariṭ, Part II, ˀEven Haˁézer, no. 35, 56,61). (3) ‫زבאלי חכ לו טומימוש פור לוש בראשוש‬, Zavalí / Zevalí h̩axam – lo tomimos por los brasos, ‘The poor38 rabbi/scholar – we lifted him up by his arms’ (Darxé Nóˁam, ˀEven Haˁézer, no. 13, 34,35). (4) ‫סי סוב"ייו אינדיריג'ו אה לה תיבה ו איל פיزו אי לה מאנו‬, se suvyó enderečo a la tevá kon el pezo en la mano, ‘he came up directly to the tebah with the scales in his hand’ (Magriso, Meˁam Loˁez, Vayyiqraˀ, folio 82, page 2, lines 37,38; in the scholarly edition – Bunis & Adar,Bunis 2011: 456: §10.2; 472 bottom). (5) .‫ פור לוס ואירנוס לו דישו‬,‫סי ומייו איל בואיי‬, Si komyó el bwey, por los kwernos lo deshó., ‘If he has eaten the bull, he (nevertheless) left (i.e., did not eat) its horns’ (A saying 37 Forms with the vowel ,e, (rather than ,o,) in the base of this verb are documented both in Judezmo and medieval Spanish, see §3.2.1.1.2.1, example (5), fn. 13. 38 Zawalli!, ‘Poor fellow!’, ‘Poor thing’ (Redhouse 1880: 589b); zavalí, ‘poor’, ‘destitute’ (Perez & Pimienta 2007: 470c). Or (less likely): ‘the old rabbi/scholar’ (for the meaning ‘old’, see Ottoman Turkish Dictionary, the entry ‘zevalî’). 208 which means that one did not finish one’s work properly) (Aksyón 11: 2965 (1939); Bunis 1999b: 425 top). (6) Dišo el rey: “Kwando alevanto el dedo, s’emforka la persona, i kwando l’abašo la mano, lo abašan de la forka.”, ‘The king said: “When I raise my finger, the person is hung, and when I let my hand down, he is removed from the gallows.”’ (Constantinople, Wagner 1914: Part I: Text VI: 33: lines 26,29). (7) In the following utterance, pekados, ‘sins’ may also considered to be an inalienable entity39: ‫ פינה י איגימוס לוס פי אדוס אי לימפיי ו לימפיי ו מי ביני אל באפי ו‬,‫ ]ביר אט אליבאנה[ סי דיزי‬... .‫טולייו‬, ... [birkat alevaná] se dize, fina ke ečimos los pekados i limpyiko limpyiko me vine al bafiko tuyo., ‘... [Kiddush levanah was] recited, until we forsook our sins, and nice and clean I have come back to your snug bosom.’ (Mesažero 5: 1596 (1940); Bunis 1999b: 382 bottom). In many languages of the world – including Spanish and Judezmo – the possessive meaning may be expressed by using a dative (or dative,like) object pronoun, denoting the possessor.40 For instance: (8) ‫איגו אי איל סואילו אי לי‬ " ‫ אישוברי פאלאבראש ו שו מאדרי לי דייו או אריפו'שו אילה‬... ‫דישו נאעליט גא חבישינה‬ # ‫איס ופייו אי לה ארה אי לי‬, ... i|sovre palavras kon su madre, le dyo un arrepušón, i|la ečó en el swelo, i le eskupyó en la kara i le dišo: “Naˁlet džan xabisiné!”, ‘... and regarding words exchanged between him and his mother, he gave her a jab, and knocked her down to the floor, and spat in her face and told her: “A curse to your malicious soul!”’41 (Mahariṭ, Part II, ˀEven Haˁézer, no. 43, – folio 59, page 2, column 1 –, 172,175). (9) ‫מי סי יב"ראנטו איל וראסו די אולייר סוס פאלאב"ראס‬, me se kevrantó el korasón de oyir sus palavras, ‘my heart broke to hear her words’ (Magriso, Meˁam Loˁez, Bammidbar, folio 14, page 1, lines 16,17; in the scholarly edition – Bunis & Adar,Bunis 2011: 486 middle). 39 I thought it appropriate to see this example as one demonstrating inalienability, because we should not have a preconceived opinion that only body parts – the inalienable elements par excellence – might be such in Judezmo, but rather other entities as well. 40 For a cross,linguistic study on this subject, see Silke 2010: 9, 16; Ch. 4: 141,196, a summary – 187. For Spanish – GRAE: Vol. I: §14.7f,§14.7r: 1061,1066. 41 For a linguistic analysis and commentary concerning this sentence, see §3.2.1.2.2.2.2.2, example (2), fn. 166. 209 (10) . ‫ בה לאבאטי לה ארה י פאריסיס או מאיימו‬,‫ בה‬,‫ ייו י נו ביביירה‬... , BENUTA: ... Yo ke no bivyera, va, va lávate la kara, ke pareses un maymón., ‘BENUTA: ... I wish I hadn’t been alive, go, go wash your face, because you look like a monkey.’ (Aksyón 11: 2953(?) (1939); Bunis 1999b: 418 top). Another syntactic way of expressing inalienability in Spanish, or at least a state reflecting some degree of inalienability on the inalienability–alienability scale, can be found in Bello’s grammar (1903: 134: §128), who points out a syntagm used in familiar conversation, su NOUN de Usted42, e.g., su casa de Usted, su familia de Usted. In CORDE, one sees, as regards this construction, kinship terms being often employed, – not so in the construction DEFINITE ARTICLE – NOUN – de Usted.43 As for elements other than Usted in the aforesaid construction, as seen in the CORDE corpus, 20th,century Spanish does not tolerate the tautological construction su – NOUN X – de – NOUN Y , with su and NOUN Y both referring to the same signified. However, one finds examples – also, presumably, inalienable – in earlier Spanish. E.g., Y anduvieron tanto fasta que a él llegaron, y fueron muy bien recebidos como en casa de su madre de la donzella que era, y díxole: ...; Agora sabed que este cavallero havía nombre Gasinán, y era tío hermano de su padre de la amiga de Angriote, y era el pariente del mundo que ella más amava. (Both examples from the 14th,century chivalric romance Amadis of Gaul, published in 1482,1492); Otrosi, mando que le lleuen su oblada continua que es medio pan cada dia e vn marauedi de vino e la çera neçessaria sobre su sepultura de la dicha Mari Fernandez a la yglessia de la dicha villa de Çalduendo, e questo se cumpla por diez años primeros siguientes despues de su finamiento. (A will, the year 1512). As for Judezmo, the discussed construction is attested at its various stages (as shown below), and may have partly been influenced by the similar syntagm in Mishnaic Hebrew44, of the type [] ‫' ֶ&ל‬$[]. It should be noted though, that the notion of inalienability might be besides the point, or even absent, in this Mishnaic Hebrew construction, (hence, one should be careful with respect to the inalienability issue in Judezmo too), cf. ‫אמר רבי‬ 42 Only Usted being in this slot in Spanish, no other nouns (and cf. Schilling 1884: Lesson 9: §3: 37, stating that this use disambiguates the vague su). 43 As for the form Usted, it has been searched for this form and its graphic variants: usted, Ud., Vd. 44 Bunis & Adar,Bunis 2011: 468: §13. 210 ."‫ "אוי לה לבריות מעלבונה של תורה‬:‫ בכל יו ויו בת ול יוצאת מהר חורב ואומרת‬:‫יהושע ב לוי‬45, ‫ תורה‬as the object of the action. These following Judezmo examples are probably comparable to the aforesaid inalienable Spanish construction46: los eskožere ... lefí daˁtó del mevarer, ‘(he) shall elect them ... according to the selector’s opinion’47, (ke sea a)|su eskožia48 del mištaddel, ‘(that it be) the mištaddel ’s49 choice’50 (probably, this construction here focalizes el mištaddel, cf. Modern Hebrew examples in the next paragraph, as well as §3.3.2.1.4 below), su bala de Reˀuvén, ‘Reˀuvén’s roll (of carpets)’51, su mano del kantador, ‘the singer’s hand’52. This structure is used in Modern Hebrew as well.53 In being tautological, it may somewhat accentuate a certain unit (see §3.1.3.1.1), viz., one of its elements (the accentuated element differs in each case, see examples), or the whole syntagm. Examples, the accentuated – here, thus, rendered rhematic (for rheme, see §3.1.1) – elements are in bold: besofo šel davar, lit., ‘at its end of the thing’, i.e., ‘eventually’; yomo hašliši šel hamivca, lit., ‘its third day of the (military) operation’; ciyurehem šel talmide gimel axat, lit., ‘their paintings of the 3A+grade pupils’. The whole syntagm being highlighted might be seen, on the Internet, in the cases of sipuro šel PROPER NAME , lit., ‘his story of (both ‘told by’ and ‘about’) PROPER NAME’, as 45 Eichah (Lamentations) Rabbah, Petiḥatá 2. 46 Indeed, note that in all the examples the possessors are human; thanks to Professor David Bunis for this observation. 47 The Regulations of Valladolid (the year 1432) – Minervini 1992: Vol. I: 202; Vol. II: 72: line 241. 48 A non,existent noun in CORDE. We suggest it is a noun having an *ia derivative suffix: eskožer, ‘to choose’ + *ia (i.e., Spanish ,ía, < diachronically, from Latin *īa, GRAE: Vol. I: §6.3: 431,438, and cf. Spanish valer, ‘to be worth’ > valía, ‘value’; beber, ‘to drink’ > (the old word) bebería, ‘excessive drinking’, ibid.: ibid.: §6.3e: 432), cf. afterwords in that text la beḥirá del dičo mištaddel (Arad & Glick 2013: 48: line 8). 49 A business term, see ibid.: 37: fn. 2. 50 A 15th,century pre,expulsion responsum, ibid.: 48: lines 5,6. 51 Torat Ḥayyim, Part I, no. 82, 66. 52 Magriso, Meˁam Loˁez, Bammidbar, folio 33; in the scholarly edition – Bunis & Adar,Bunis 2011: 468: §13; 481 middle. 53 It seems that in Modern Hebrew the relevance of this syntactic construction to inalienability is secondary. However, we included this Modern Hebrew discussion because of the continuous rich coexistence between Judezmo (all the more as far as Ladino is concerned) and Hebrew. 211 part of a title, or at the beginning or end of a text, as opposed to non,tautological hasipur šel PROPER NAME, lit., ‘the story of (both ‘told by’ and ‘about’) PROPER NAME’, elsewhere, e.g. (from an Internet newspaper article, YNET, July 15, 2012): The primary title: ‫ סיפורו של משה סילמן‬.‫הקריסה שנגמרה בהצתה‬. The secondary title: .‫אביב בנה עסק משלוחים עם ארבע משאיות‬-‫משה סילמן שהצית אמש את עצמו בלב המחאה בתל‬ ‫ הבנק‬.‫ "לקחו לו הכול‬:‫ אחיינו‬.‫ מיתון בשנות האינתיפאדה וכשלי ניהול מוטטו את העסק‬,‫ אלף שקל שתפח‬15 ‫חוב קטן של‬ "‫לקח את הבית והוא נזרק לרחוב‬. The opening words of the article: ‫ בריאות קלוקלת וייאוש‬,‫ ניסיון למאבק משפטי‬,‫עסק שהתרסק בעקבות חובות‬ ‫ הוא בראש‬,‫אביב‬-‫ שהצית את עצמו אמש )שבת( במהלך המחאה החברתית בתל‬,57 ‫ בן‬,‫ הסיפור של משה סילמן‬.‫גדול‬ .‫ ניסה לנהל עסק וירד מנכסיו‬,‫ובראשונה סיפור התמוטטותו האישית של אדם שהתקשה להתבסס כלכלית‬ As for artificial Ladino (i.e., calque translation) syntagms of this type, see the following instances from Lazar & Dilligan (1995) (a 16th,century text): Mouiose sueño de su ojo de la señora54; Dixo Rebi Yehosuah, hijo de Leui: en todo dia y dia, hija de boz salién de monte de Horeb, y apregonán y dizién: guay a ellas a las criaturas de su ynjuria de la ley55, = ‫אמר רבי‬ ."‫ "אוי לה לבריות מעלבונה של תורה‬:‫ בכל יו ויו בת ול יוצאת מהר חורב ואומרת‬:‫יהושע ב לוי‬56; Assi ella su vso de la ley: pan con sal comeras, y aguas con medida beueras, y sobre la tierra dormiras, y vidas de trabajo biuiras, y en la ley tu trabaján; si tu fazien assi, bien auenturado tu, y bien a ti; bien auenturado tu enel mundo este, y bien a ti enel mundo el venidero.57, = ,‫'רה‬. ָ ‫ ֶ&ל‬/,ָ ‫ְר‬1ַ ‫* ִהיא‬,ַ ,ֵ ‫ה‬7ֶ ‫ה ֹע‬.ָ ‫ ֵמל ִא ַא‬3ָ ‫ה‬.ָ ‫'רה ַא‬. ָ ‫ב‬4 ַ ‫ ְחיֶ ה‬.ִ ‫ר‬3ַ ‫ֵ י ַצ‬5‫י& ְו ַח‬ ָ .ִ 6‫ל ָה ָא ֶר‬3ַ ‫ה ְו‬.ֶ &ְ .ִ ‫רה‬47 ָ 8ְ 9ַ ‫מי‬4 ִ ַ ‫ֹאכל‬ ֵ . ‫ ַלח‬8ֶ 9ַ ‫ַ;ת‬ :‫א‬9ָ ‫ע'ל ַה‬ ָ ‫ע'ל ַה ֶ<ה ְוט'ב ָל* ָל‬ ָ 9ָ =‫ ַא ְ& ֶרי= ְוט'ב ָל* ַא ְ& ֶרי‬58. It should be noted that we find alienable semantics in medieval Spanish adaptations of Arabic texts, such as Calila y Dimna, and in Morisco Spanish texts written in Arabic characters, in which is attested, to some extent, the use NOUN de PRONOUN (withount su(s) preceding this 54 Lazar & Dilligan 1995: 27 bottom (the original page is folio *28, page 1). I could not find the Hebrew sentence parallel to this one in the sacred Jewish literature. 55 Ibid.: 203 top (the original page is folio 166, page 2). 56 Eichah (Lamentations) Rabbah, Petiḥatá 2. 57 Lazar & Dilligan 1995: 203 middle (the original page is folio 167, page 2). 58 Mishnah, Neziqin, Avot, Ch. VI, §4. 212 construction), in cases where natural Spanish, not under this Arabic influence, would instead use su(s) NOUN, or other ways of formulation (Lapesa 1981: §36.5: 149). In employing this syntagm (NOUN de PRONOUN) with delocutive pronouns, the ambiguity of su(s) – which provides no information about the number and gender of the possessor – is avoided (more on this topic, see §3.3.3.1 and §3.3.3.3 below). Interestingly, both Lapesa’s examples (1981: ibid.: ibid.), and the findings collected by us in Calila y Dimna, are only those of alienable possession.59 It seems that in inalienable cases, the inexact su(s) was nonetheless used. 3.3.2 The two types of possessive pronouns: a morphological, prosodic, and syntactic account In Latin, beside the possessive adjectives mĕus, tŭus, sŭus, there existed in popular (i.e., vernacular) use their shorter, monosyllabic, forms60, probably used originally in the unaccented position.61 There could be continuity of coexistence of these two kinds from Latin to Spanish62, consisting in the latter as well. Thus, generally and prototypically speaking, Spanish and Judezmo mi(s), tu(s), su(s), with a following element denoting the POSSESSED – as opposed to POSSESSED mio(s)/*a(s), tuyo(s)/*a(s), suyo(s)/*a(s) – are proclitic, or at least stressed secondarily 59 Las pisadas dellos, ‘their traces’ (Lapesa 1981: ibid.: ibid.); el cabdiello dellos, ‘their chief’ (Calila y Dimna: Ch. II: 33); discordia dellos, ‘their discord’ (ibid.: Ch. VI: 170); El rey non honrará al atrevido por su atrevencia, mas honra al verdadero e al cercano dél., ‘The king will not honour a bold person because of his boldness, but he honours a sincere person and a close associate of his.’ (ibid.: Ch. III: 51); amor et gracia de ellos, ‘their love and grace (i.e., received from them)’ (ibid.: Ch. II: 29); an instance of de sí: et habían [los gatos] un rey de sí, ‘and [the cats] had their own king’ (ibid.: Ch. XVII: 272). 60 E.g., sus–sa–sum, etc.; some (or all) of them already in archaic Latin (Grandgent 1907: 162: §388). Cf. later in Old Italian fratelmo, ‘my brother’, madrema, ‘my mother’ (ibid.: 163: §388). Many pronouns in Latin developed double forms too, according as they were accented or unaccented (ibid.: 34: §60). 61 Grandgent 1907: 162,163: §388; 34: §60; 68: §158. 62 However, there seems to be no diachronic continuity, but only one of tendency, for two reasons: Firstly, as grammars often set it before the reader (RAE Grammar 1771: Part I: Ch. IV: Article IV: 45; Bello 1903: §125: 131), the shorter forms in Spanish are syncopated from the longer ones, by dropping the second syllable (Saco y Arce 1868: §39 (a): 63). Shorter forms, therefore, appear to be a synchronic development at some stage of Spanish. Secondly, to our knowledge, Ibero,Romance languages other than Spanish do not have the aforesaid two kinds, but only a single one (for Mirandese and literary Portuguese, see Leite de Vasconcellos 1900: Vol. I: §206: 364; for Galician, see Saco y Arce 1868: §39: 63). 213 (the POSSESSED – primarily), whereas the latter kind of possessive pronouns probably constitute a separate unit of stress.63 From a morphological point of view, both types are adjectives64, as demonstrated in the following tables: the less+loaded (short) possessive pronouns65 p o s se sso r th e n uc le u s ( he ad ) 66 the more+loaded (long) possessive pronouns p o s se sso r th e n uc le u s ( he ad ) o f t h e o f t he p o s se s sed p o s se ss ed n u mb e r ge nd er n u mb e r mi* (locutive sg.) *ø (singular) mi* (locutive sg.) *o* (masc.) *ø (singular) tu* (allocutive sg.) *s (plural) tuy* (allocutive sg.) *a* (fem.) *s (plural) su* (delocutive sg. suy* (delocutive sg. and and pl.) pl.) n/mwes(tr)* (locutive pl.) v/gwes(tr)* (allocutive pl.) Tables 4 and 5. The morphological structure of the less,loaded (short) possessive pronouns and the more,loaded (long) possessive pronouns 63 And cf. the occasional name of the former: adjetivos posesivos conjuntivos, while the latter are called absolutos (Schilling 1884: Lesson 9: 36). Cf. the difinition in Leite de Vasconcellos 1900: Vol. I: 364: §206: the former are pronounced proclitically, the latter – “em pausa”, viz., are separated by a pause. An elaborated diachronic and pan, Romance account of possessive pronominal forms may be seen ibid.: Vol. I: §206: 363,365. 64 Cf. RAE Grammar 1771: Part I: Ch. IV: Article IV: 45. For the terminological point of view in Judezmo linguistics regarding the possessive pronominal forms, see Bunis 1999a: Ch. IV: §4.6: 122,123; Ch. XIV: §14.2: 242,244; Bentolila 2005: 295,302. For the nature of adjectives in Semitic and Indo,European languages, see Goldenberg 1995: Ch. III, “Adjectives”: 6,11, – and we are basing our analysis here upon the guidelines having been provided ibid. 65 However, there is no symmetry: The interchanging elements belonging to the less,loaded paradigm, which represent locutive plural and allocutive plural possessor, n/mwes(tr)* and v/gwes(tr)*, are, morphologically speaking, more,loaded ones. 66 The nucleus (head) of the Spanish/Judezmo possessed, like the nucleus of any other element (noun, etc.) modified (complemented) by an adjective, is the grammatical information of the modified element; this nucleus is repeated in both the modified element and its adjective; while the satellite (attribute) of the possessed, is the lexical substance. 214 The second type of possessive pronouns (table 5) is more loaded, because there is more information that they contain: Specification regarding grammatical gender is added. As regards table 4, in which it is stated that su refers to a singular possessed, and sus refers to a plural possessed, we would like to note that this situation is less neat starting from the mid,19th century, when sus begins being attested as also one referring to plural possessor + singular possessed (see §3.3.3.3 below). Also, it is crucial to note that each of the two types of these possessive adjectives behaves sytactically,wise differently, and each has a full inventory of forms of all the persons denoting the possessor.67 Thus, the short pronouns have n/mwes(tr)o(s)/ a(s), v/gwes(tr)o(s)/ a(s), which are, structurally speaking, more+loaded(!): To sum up, all the “short” forms are mi(s), tu(s), su(s), n/mwes(tr)o(s)/ a(s), v/gwes(tr)o(s)/ a(s), su(s), and all the long forms are mio(s)/*a(s), tuyo(s)/*a(s), suyo(s)/*a(s), n/mwes(tr)o(s)/*a(s), v/gwes(tr)o(s)/*a(s), suyo(s)/*a(s). All the facts mentioned above, will explain syntactic phenomena and states to be presented in the next sections. Furthermore, except for the usage oppositions between the two kinds, shown in the paragraphs below, one may occasionally see the use of both of them, – both possibilities existing in certain languages to designate possession –, only in order to rephrase the utterance68, to avoid repetition69, etc. 67 Bunis 1999a: Ch. IV: §4.6: 122,123; Ch. XIV: §14.2: 242,244. 68 Cf. Modern Hebrew, a dialogue between two women: “Ma šmex?” – “Ma?” – “Ma šmex?” – “Ma?” – “Ma hašem šelax?”, “What is your name?” – “What?” – “What is your name?” – “What?” – “(Lit.) What is the name of yours?” (February 2012). 69 In Haggadah, A Combined Version (different regions, the 19th*20th centuries), we are met with (p. 113a – Ladino, 114b – Hebrew): ‫אנא ה' כי אני עבדך אני עבדך בן אמתך‬, Señor, yo soy tu siervo, siervo tuyo, hijo de tu esclava. 215 3.3.2.1 The more,loaded (long) possessive pronouns (adjectives) 3.3.2.1.1 The absolute state: with no accompanying noun or other element70, signifying the possessed Firstly, in Spanish and Judezmo, the more,loaded pronouns are, and were, employed when there is no accompanying noun or other element, signifying the possessed.71 Possible reasons for using the more,loaded type, and not the less,loaded one: A prosodic reason: The clitic nature of the less,loaded possessive pronouns, which makes it impossible to pronounce them as stressed. (In cases when the element expressing the possessed is present, it is it which is stressed). A morphological reason: When the possessed is not indicated, one needs to include as much grammatical information as possible about it in the the possessive pronoun, so as to be more clear, with which possessed in the text (or in the world) the pronoun is associated, hence the more,loaded form is more suitable for this purpose.72 70 Except for the definite, indefinite, or zero article. 71 For Spanish, see RAE Grammar 1771: Part I: Ch. IV: Article IV: 45; Schilling 1884: Lesson 22: §9: 133; Bello 1903: §125: 131; Batchelor 2006: 168, 172. A sporadic Spanish example: Llamábase Aldonza Lorenzo, y á esta le pareció ser bien darle título de señora de sus pensamientos: y buscándole nombre que no desdijese mucho del suyo, y que tirase y se encaminase al de princesa y gran señora, vino á llamarla DULCINEA DEL TOBOSO. (Cervantes 1833: Part I: Vol. I: Ch. I: 21), ‘... and this was the lady whom he chose to nominate mistress of his heart. He then sought a name for her, which, without entirely departing from her own, should incline and approach towards that of a princess or great lady, and determined upon Dulcinea del Toboso ...’ (Cervantes 1885: Vol. I: Ch. I: 42). 72 This explanation is somewhat unsatisfying, as the definite/indefinite article, often accompanying an absolute possessive pronoun, does provide the data about grammatical gender of the possessed. However it should be noted that at newer stages of Spanish and Judezmo, an article is syntactically incompatible with the less,loaded possessive pronouns (as will be discussed later in §3.3.2.2). 216 Judezmo examples73: (1) ‫אי אאו ילה מיאה שיאה מאש‬, i aún|ke|la mia (= meatad?, fazyenda?74) sea mas, ... , ‘and although mine (i.e., my half?, my property?) is more plentiful, ... ’ (ˀAvqat Roxel, no. 80, 24). (2) ‫על כ ראיתי לכתוב אישטא בריבי אי רישפואישטא די לא שוייא‬, ˁal ken raˀiti lixtov esta breve [letra75] en respwesta de la suya., ‘therefore, I saw it necessary to write this brief one (viz., letter) in response to yours.’ (HaMabiṭ, Part III, folio 137, page 2, column II middle, – no. 82, 89,90). (3) ‫[ נו שירה מאש שינו פ'אزיר לי שאביר ומו ריסיבי אונה‬76‫איש ריטורה‬/‫דיאישטה ] ארטה‬ ‫איש ריטורה[ שויאה אי לו ואל מי איש ריבי וואישה מירסיד י בוש איש ריביירה פור איל פיגו די‬/‫] ארטה‬ ... ‫ראוב‬, De|esta [karta/eskritura] no será mas sino fazer le saver komo resiví una [karta/eskritura] suya, en lo kwal me eskrive vwesa mersed ke vos eskrivyera por el fižo de Reˀuvén …, ‘This is nothing else but to let you know that I received yours (i.e., your letter/note), where you write to me asking me to write to you with regard to Reˀuvén’s son …’77 (Maharšax, Part I, no. 49 [2]78, 41,44). (4) ‫ונוסייו לוש וישטידוש י ל יבאב' אינשימה סיר לוש שויוש וכ איל ארבע כנפו' יטיניאה אינשימה‬ ‫ ונוסייו י אירה איל סויו איל י לייבאוה אי בחיי‬, Konosyó los vestidos ke yevav[a] ensima ser los suyos, vexén el ˀarbaˁ kenafo[t]|ke|tenia ensima – konosyó ke era el suyo, – el ke yevava en baḥayyim., ‘He recognized the clothes he (the deceased) was dressed in as his (the deceased’s), 73 We would like to stress that in this (and subsequent) subsections, the possessive forms, both less,loaded and more,loaded, are always adjectival. For the nature of adjectives in Semitic and Indo,European languages, see Goldenberg 1995: Ch. III, “Adjectives”: 6,11, – and we are basing our analysis upon the guidelines having been provided ibid. 74 ‫מיאטאד‬, ‫פ'אزיינדה‬, were words used in lines preceding this utterance. 75 This noun, ‫ליטרא‬, exists in the text, several lines afterwards. 76 Both words are in the text. 77 I took advantage of the translation made by Benaim (2011: 455). 78 There are two nos. 49, and the second one is meant. 217 and also the arba’ kanfot79 he wore was recognized by him as his, – one he was dressed in daily.’ (Mahariṭ, Part II, ˀEven Haˁézer, no. 35, 102,105, – folio 40, page 2, column II middle). (5) ‫י טייני אינפישאדו אה‬ ‫לוס ליברוש י סי אלייארי סיר סולייוש ומו אנשי מישמו דוש ספרי‬ ‫איש ריויר לה מיטאד די דיג'וש ליברוש אי או ספר שי לידי אשו איגו שמעו‬, Los livros ke se ayaren ser suyos, komo ansí mesmo dos sefarim ke tyene enpesado a eskrivir, – la metad de dičos livros i un séfer se le|de a|su ižo Šimˁón, ‘The books that will be found to be his, as well as two Tora books that he has begun writing, – half of the said books and one Tora book (of the two) should be given to his son, Šimˁón.’ (Kérem Šelomó, Ḥošen Mišpaṭ, no. 71, 26,29). (6) ‫ י סי פואי די אאי ו לוס‬,‫ דילה ארה די לימו י סי לי איزו אל נובייו‬,‫ייה בוס אزיש אונה אידיאה‬ .‫סולייוס ו סוס מו וס אינ ולגאנדו‬, Ya vos azeš una idea, de|la kara de limón ke se le izo al novyo, ke se fwe de aí kon los suyos kon sus mokos enkolgando., ‘You can imagine that the groom made a terribly wry face, and left the place with his company, deeply ashamed.’ (El Rizón 13: 4 (1938); Bunis 1999b: 605 middle). (7) .‫בה איגאטי אי דישאמי אמי ו לו מיאו‬, Va éčate i déšame a|mi kon lo mio., ‘Go to bed, and leave me to my own business.’ (Aksyón 11: 2965 (1939); Bunis 1999b: 425 middle). (8) ‫ פור איל טולייו י איסטה אינבואילטו‬,‫ נו פור איל زחות מיאו‬,‫איידי אגורה באטי אלה ברחה דיל דייו‬ .‫אי איל טאבא ו‬, DŽAMILA: Ayde, agora vate a|la beraxá del Dyo – no por el zaxud/,θ mio; por el tuyo ke está enbwelto en el tabako., ‘DŽAMILA: Come on then, now go with God’s blessing – not on account of my merit, but of yours, envelopped by tobacco.’ (Mesažero 2: 578 (1937); Bunis 1999b: 473 bottom). 79 = Tallit katan, a fringed garment traditionally worn either under or over one’s clothing by Jewish males. 218 3.3.2.1.2 Need to express the grammatical category of determination80 Although in older Spanish and Judezmo, this could also be done employing the less, loaded forms (see §3.3.2.2 below)81, there has developed constant usage of more,loaded pronouns in both languages.82 Judezmo instances comprising indefinite article, (see ones having a definite article in §3.3.2.1.3 below83): (1) ‫אגורה אי אישטה אורה רישיבי אונה ארטה וואישה‬, agora, en esta ora, resiví una karta vwesa, ‘now, at this time, I have received a letter of yours’ (Maharšax, Part I, no. 49 [2]84, 19,20). 80 We mean the grammatical category, expressed by means of articles (definite, indefinite, zero articles). 81 Among the older Judezmo usages of less,loaded forms, there have been found two beautiful examples within narratives, in which an indefinite article was used at their beginning, signalling unidentifiability + presentation of the character for the first time – un mi sovrino, un inglés, un su padre –, but afterwards, as the character was already introduced into the narration, and thus known, we have transition to mi sovrino, (el) dito inglés / este inglés, su padre. As written by Epstein (2002: 337, citing Hawkins 1991: 408): “mention of a professor permits subsequent reference to the professor”: (1) . .. ‫ אי ומו ויירו אמי שוברינו‬. . . . .. ‫לוש דיאש פשאדוש פואי יו אל איש וטאר ו או מי שוברינו‬ . . . ‫אישטונשיש לי די מאנדו מי שוברינו‬, Los dias pasados fwe yo al Iskutar kon un mi sovrino .. ., ... ... i komo vyeron a|mi sovrino, ... ... Estonses le demandó mi sovrino ..., ‘[One of these] past days I went to Üsküdar with my nephew .. ., ... ... and when they saw my nephew, ... ... Then my nephew asked him ... ’ (Raˀanaḥ, no. 20, 33,34, 38,39, and 52, I thank Professor David Bunis for this transcription and translation); (2) ‫ או אינגליש י ידו איניל‬.. . .. . ‫אולטימו אינלה נאוי ואנדו שיפואי אה פונדו י יגו אישפיראר דיטו אינגליש פור שאלבאר או שו פאדרי י ויניאה אי דיטו פאשאגי‬ ‫אי איל דיטו אינגליש נו שי יגו מינוש שאלבאר אינלה באר ה פור שאלבאר אשו פאדרי אי אישטי אינגליש שי שאלוו אי אונה טאבלה‬ , ... un inglés ke kedó en|el último en|la nave kwando se|fwe a fondo, ke kižo esperar dito inglés por salvar un su padre ke venia en dito pasaže, ... I el dito inglés non se kižo menos salvar en|la barka por salvar a|su padre, i este inglés se salvó en una tavla, ‘. .. an Englishman who stayed to the last minute on board of the ship when it began to sink, as he, the said Englishman, wished to rescue his father who (also) travelled aboard this aforementioned pasaže (a kind of ship), ... And the previously,mentioned Englishman did not want to save himself by boarding the boat, because he still tried to rescue his father (lit., ‘in order to rescue his father’), thereupon this Englishman saved his soul with the help of a piece of wood’ (Maharḥaš, no. 59, 18,24). 82 For Spanish examples with indefinite article and zero article, see Schilling 1884: Lesson 9: §4b: 38. 83 The cases with a definite article are, at least sometimes, cases of thematization, as will be seen in §3.3.2.2. 84 There are two nos. 49, and the second one is meant. 219 (2) ‫שאביריש שיניוריש יאה טיינפו י אישטאבה יו ו או חבר מיאו אינלה אורילייא דילה מאר איניל‬ ‫איש וטאר לאבנדו אונה איש ובילייא‬, Savereš, senyores, ke|a tyenpo, ke estava yo kon un ḥaver mio en|la oriya de|la mar en|el Iskutar lavando una eskoviya, ..., ‘Know, sirs, that some time ago, when I was with an associate/friend of mine at the seashore in Üsküdar washing a brush, ...’ (Raˀanaḥ, no. 20, 8,1085). (3) ‫איל יש אויאה אינבאר אדו אי زאנטי דישירו י אירה או יצח די איש ופייא איל ואל יצח ליש‬ ‫ אי י שו פאמילייא אישטאבה אי איש ופייא אי י או אירמאנו שולייו אישטאבה אי וינציאה‬... ‫דיزיאה י‬, El ke|s’ avia enbarkado en Zante – dišeron ke era un Yicḥaq de Eskopya86, el kwal Yicḥaq les dezia ke ..., i|ke su famiya estava en Eskopya i|ke un ermano suyo estava en Venécia, ..., ‘That one who had embarked in Zante (Ζάκυνθος, Zakynthos) – they said that it was a man named Yicḥaq, from Skopje, and this Yicḥaq told them that ..., and that his family was living in Skopje, and that a brother of his was dwelling in Venice, ...’ (Maharḥaš, no. 59, 30,36). (4) ... ‫ או אמיגו מיאו גידייו ישי'פונדייו אי דיטה נאוי‬... , ... un amigo mio džidyó ke|se fundyó en dita nave ..., ‘... a Jewish friend of mine, who drowned on board of the said ship ...’ (ibid., ibid., 84,85). (5) .‫ י גואיר ו טי איס ריבייו איסטה ליטרה? –או סובריני ו די או ייולדאש מיאו‬... –, BENUTA: ... Ke gwerko te eskrivyó esta letra? EZRÁ: Un sovriniko de un yoldaš mio., ‘BENUTA: ... What degenerate wrote this letter for you? EZRÁ: A little nephew of a fellow of mine.’ (Aksyón 11: 3067 (1939); Bunis 1999b: 519 bottom – 520 top). 85 I thank Professor David Bunis for this transcription and translation. 86 As for the final *a, – in Ladinokomunita, we find, as to this toponym, both variants: with *a (Skopia) and *e (Skopje [the international spelling = Macedonian Скопје], Skopie, Skopye); in the Satirical Series: ‫איס ופייה‬, Eskopya (El Rizón 12: 33 (1938) – Bunis 1999b: 576 top); cf., with *a, Aromanian Scopia; one of the Italian variants, Scopia, – see the Wikipedia entries in Aromanian and Italian; Greek Σκόπια. Or perhaps, as in Macedonian, a genetive case (to the best of our knowledge, with the ending *a) of this city name; I am deeply indebted to Professor David Bunis for this suggestion, see about the non,nominative case which is usual in Slavic borrowings in Judezmo in Bunis 2001. 220 (6) Introducing somebody to a person (cf. another un afterwards in the sentence): ‫ ייו טי‬... .‫ אי דיספואיס או אמיגו אפריסייאדו דילוס טור וס‬,‫ או אינטימו אמיגו מיאו‬,‫פריزינטארי אי איל‬, ... yo te prezentaré en el, un íntimo amigo mio, i despwes un amigo apresyado delos turkos, ‘... I will present him to you: A close friend of mine, and a friend, highly valued by the Turks.’ (Ester Matalón: Ch. 8: 35). 3.3.2.1.3 Thematization (occasionally at the beginning of a narrational unit): the construction DEFINITE ARTICLE – POSSESSED – MORE,LOADED POSSESSIVE PRONOUN The quality of thematicity87 may be achieved by means of this construction, due to its several features: First, the presence of a definite article makes this nominal phrase, as it were, more pointed at, more prominent; second, the syntagm is pretty much tautological, thereby causing it to be, in a way, salient88, – the repeated elements are those of the nucleus of the POSSESSED – its number and gender, appearing, both of them, in the DEFINITE ARTICLE, the POSSESSED (usually so), and the MORE,LOADED POSSESSIVE PRONOUN, as shows an example in the following diagram, where we can see the feminine and plural substances repeated three times: ‘my houses’ = las kazas mias DEFINITE ARTICLE NOUN (POSSESSED) POSSESSIVE ADJECTIVE (POSSESSOR) Fem. + Pl. Lexical Content + Fem. + Pl. Possessor + Fem. + Pl. Lastly, prosodically, the structure is uttered as two separate accent units, – in contrast with a syntagm having a less,loaded possessive pronoun –, hence two separate semantic units, thus the phase is more weighty.89 Examples: 87 For theme, see §3.1.1. 88 For tautology (pleonasm) and its effects, see §3.1.3.1.1. 89 Same can also be seen in Modern Hebrew: As for beto (lit., ‘his house’) vs. ha*bait šelo (lit., ‘the house of his’), only the latter construction has the definite article, is tautological (še*, ‘that which is’ stands for habait, see Goldenberg 1995: Ch. IV: 13, and cf. ‫ וקודם שמהדק את הקשר‬,‫ מניח תחלה של יד‬.‫ מניחים את התפלין מעומד‬.‫סד ר ה נח ת ת פ יל י ן‬ 221 (1) A testimony from Kastoria, Greece, 1702, here there is a topicalization construction90; las kazas mias is a topic – this is a case of thematization par excellence: ‫ואמר להח' חיי הנز אני‬ ‫מצוה לבני מחמת מיתה ואתה תהיה לעד גמור ואמר דברי הללו בלשו לעز ומו לאש אزאש מיאש י מורה מי‬ ‫היג'ו איל גי ו הגביר אלישע הכה יצו אי טודו לו י איי די דיינטרו די אילייאש ומו מטלטלי די נחושת וברزל בדיל‬ ‫ טודו אישטו שילודי במתנה גמורה כל הנز אמי פיزו אלישע הנز‬... ‫ ומו ארוטאש אי בוטאש‬6‫ועופרת ומטלטלי ע‬, veˀamar leheḥa[xam] Ḥayyim hanniz[kar]: “Aní mecavvé levanay meḥamat mitá, veˀattá tihyé leˁed gamur”, veˀamar devarim hallalu bilšón láˁaz, komo las kazas mias ke mora mi hižo el čiko haggevir ˀElišaˁ Hakkohén, yi[šmerehu] C[uró] v[iḥayyehu], i todo loké ay de dyentro de eyas, komo meṭalṭelí[n] de neḥóšet uvarzel, bedil veˁoféret, umṭalṭelé ˁec, komo karotas i botas, ... – todo esto se|lo|de bemattaná gemurá, – kol hanniz[kar] –, a|mi fižo ˀElišaˁ hanniz[kar]., ‘and he told the aforementioned Rabbi Ḥayyim: “At my death, I bequeath the following to my sons, and you will be a true witness thereof”, and he said these words in Judezmo: “The houses of mine where my younger son, – Sir ˀElišaˁ Hakkohén, may his Rock guard him and give him life –, is living, and everything that is inside them, such as copper, iron, tin, and lead movables, and wooden ones, like buggies91 and barrels, ... – all this should be given as an outright gift, – all of the aforesaid –, to my son, the mentioned ˀElišaˁ.”’ (Kérem Šelomó, Ḥošen Mišpaṭ, no. 72, 11, 24). (2) The following instance and a linguistic discussion thereon, has been introduced by Bunis & Adar,Bunis (2011: §8.2.3.3: 436; 485), (cf. the transition to tu ḥaver in the same ‫ ומברך על מצות תפלין ומהדק‬,‫ ומהדק את הקשר וכורך שבע כריכות על ידו ואחר כך מניח תיכף את של ראש‬.. . ‫[ מברך להניח תפלין‬instructions for putting on tefillin, in Bet Tefillá: 3]), and consists of two units of stress. Instances of cases of thematicity: ... sefer šehu [viz., Primo Levi] katav šana lifne moto. (Then said as a parenthetical remark:) Hamavet šelo – ze gam davar šeanaxnu crixim ledaber alav., ‘... a book he (Primo Levi) wrote one year before his death. His decease is also to be discussed.’ (Radio, Reshet Aleph, October 17, 2011); ... hašerut šeasu yeladay bacava (rising intonation), – (parenthesis) ani (somewhat accentuated) asiti, hayeladim šeli, [here their names were listed] –, ... (a follow,up to the words uttered before the parenthesis), ‘... the army sevice my children have done, – (parenthesis) I did, my children [did], [here their names were listed] –, ...’ (Dr. Reuven Gal, TV, the news show “London et Kirschenbaum”, Channel 10, February 22, 2012). 90 §3.1.2.2; the whole example can be seen in §3.2.1.1.2.1, example (10). 91 Cf. Greek καρότσα, Judezmo karrosa (Perez & Pimienta 2007: 236c), having this signification. 222 locutor’s utterances following the first): ‫סאב"ראס י איל חבר טולייו י דימאנדאס י איס איל י טייני‬ . ‫דישימוש י טאל צב פ""ולאנו טייני די סיר טו חבר‬ B ‫ לייא טי‬... ‫די סיר אי עול הבא איס טאל פ"ולאנו איל צב‬ . ‫דישי י טו חבר טייני די סיר טאל‬ B ‫ אי פור י לו טיניאס די טומאר אה פ"ואירטי פור לו י טי‬... ‫אי עול הבא‬ ‫ צב‬, “Savrás ke el ḥaver tuyo ke demandas ken es el ke tyene de ser en ˁolam habbaˀ, – es tal fulano el qaccav.” ... “Ya te dišimos, ke tal qaccav fulano tyene de ser tu ḥaver en ˁolam habbaˀ.” ... “... i porke lo tenias de tomar a fwerte por lo ke te diši ke tu ḥaver tyene de ser tal qaccav. ...”, ‘“Know, that the mate of yours, that you ask, who that one is, who is destined to be in the afterlife (with you), is Mr. So,and,so, the butcher.” ... “We told you already, that that butcher, So,and,so, is supposed to be your mate in the afterlife.” ... “... and because you had to take it very much to heart, on hearing what I told you, that your mate was going to be that butcher. ...” (Magriso, Meˁam Loˁez, Bammidbar, folio 13, page 2, lines 49,50, 52,53, and 57 through the first line of the next page). (3) “La kuzina tuya, – lo konosko –, kyero gustar.”, “Your cuisine, – I know it92 –, (is one that) I (certainly) want to taste.” (Yitzhak Navon to Matilda Koén,Sarano, February 2010).93 At times, one finds the discussed construction (also thematic) at the beginning of a narration or narrational unit, on account of its thematicity, and because the presentational function is implemented more effectively in presenting two separate semantic units, – as described above in this section. That is to say, the information is thereby more laid out, spread out, apportioned. Later on in the same narrative, one may observe possible transition to less, loaded possessive forms. Here are two instances: (4) ‫ג איל אבאלייו שויו דונדי איוה שיינפרי סוברי איל איל י שאלייו ו איל די באיינדיר ואנדו פואי‬ . ‫ינו טורנו מאש שי פאלייו פור אישוש אנפוש די אישאש אלדיאש סביבו ]ת[ באיאנדור אילו טרושירו אה‬ ‫ פריבו אירה סו אואליו אי איל מיחכימי‬94‫אלייארו פורלוס אמפוש אי שי‬# ‫באיינדור אונוש תוגרמי" דיزיינדו לו פ‬ 92 The non,concrete, general lo, meaning ‘this’; we would translate lo konosko here as (colloquially) ‘I know this stuff (of yours)’. 93 This example also comes under the case of focalization (§3.3.2.1.4 infra). 94 Written, probably mistakenly, ‫בי‬. 223 . ‫אי לו טומו א]'[די שוש יורשי‬, Gam el kavayo suyo, donde iva syenpre sovre el – el ke salyó kon el de Bayandir, kwando fwe ke|no tornó mas, – se fayó por esos kanpos de esas aldeas sevivo[t] Bayandur, i|lo trušeron a Bayandur unos togarmi[m], dizyendo: lo fayaron por|los kampos, i se privó. Era su|kavayo en el mexkemé, i lo tomó ˀe[ḥad] de sus yorešim., ‘Also, the horse of his, that he used to ride, – that one on whom he left Bayındır, when he went having returned no more –, was found somewhere in these fields of these villages surrounding Bayındır, and was brought to Bayındır by several Turks, saying they had found it in the fields, and it had been taken. His horse was at the mexkemé (Islamic) court, and was taken by one of his (the missing person’s) heirs.’ (Mahariṭ, Part II, ˀEven Haˁézer, no. 35, 215,222, – folio 41, page 1, column II bottom). (5) Kwando ya vinyeron, el ombre dišo al rav: “El rav del kal mio izo una drašá i dišo ke ...”, ‘Having arrived, the man told the rabbi: “The rabbi of my synagogue delivered a sermon, saying that ...”’ (A short story told by Malka Levy, 1991, in: Koén,Sarano 1999: Lesson 4: 30). (6) In a somewhat similar way as the preceding example, see “Mira, tu, kwando vas a ir ande la novya tuya, dízile palavras dulses!” in § 3.2.1.2.2.2.2.1, example (1). 3.3.2.1.4 Focalization95 of the possessor The following properties of the more,loaded possessive pronouns are the reasons for using them when focalizing the possessor96: A prosodic property: The more,loaded forms constitute a separate unit of stress, whereas the less,loaded ones do not. A morphological property: As shown in §3.3.2 and §3.3.2.1.3 above, the more,loaded kind is more tautological. This makes the utterance more conspicuous, thereby contributing to the focalizing function. 95 For the definition of focus, and its types – see §3.1.2.2. 96 Another interesting means of focalizing the possessor is su propyo x, ‘his/her/its own x’, e.g., ‫אי לו פירמו די שו‬ ‫פרופייא מאנו דילאנטרי די נוש‬, i lo firmó de su propya mano delantre de nos, ‘and he signed it with his own hand before us’ (Kérem Šelomó, Ḥošen Mišpaṭ, no. 71, 31,32), – contrastive*selective focus [by selective focus, one selects an item from a set of presupposed possibilities, e.g., Did John buy coffee or rice? John bought RICE (Vallejos Yopán 2009: 406)]. 224 We divided the examples into the following categories (1+4): (1) Contrastive97 parallel98 focus: (1a) From a business letter99, relevant exact information is being provided as to what each of the parties possesses: ‫אי יו פור לי שאליר פיאנסה מידייו איל טירסייו דילה מונידה פורמי ואינטו אי ידו‬ ‫אי מאנו שוייא פארה י לה אישמירשא סי טאנטו לוש דוש טירשיוש שויוש ומו מי טירסיו‬, i yo, por le salir fiansa, – me|dyo el tersyo de|la moneda por|mi kwento, i kedó en mano suya – para ke la100 esmersa – si tanto los dos tersyos suyos komo mi tersyo., ‘And as for me, in order that I should insure him the money, he gave me a third thereof on my account, and there remained in his hands – for him to buy it (i.e., perhaps, the merchandise) – both his two,thirds and my third.’ (Divré Rivot, no. 413, 17,20). (1b) ‫ י דיטוש ערלי טאנטו אי פריزינטי מיאה ומו די הגביר כהר' מאיר נאבארו יצו דישירו לו דיטו‬... ‫אשימה‬, ... ke ditos ˁarelim, tanto en prezente mia komo de haggevir ke[vod] ha[rav] ri[bí] Meˀir Navarro, yi[šmerehu] C[uró] v[iḥayyehu], dišeron lo dito asima., ‘[I hereby confirm ...] that the aforementioned Gentiles, both in my presence and the presence of the wealthy Ribí Meˀir Navarro – may his Rock guard him and give him life –, said the previously,mentioned words.’ (Maharḥaš, no. 59, 53,54). (1c) ‫ –ייו‬.‫ –אי טו י באס אה ומיר‬.‫ טומה או גיני אי בה מיר אטי ייאגור אנטיס י נו טופיס‬... – ... ,‫סיחוראס טולייאס אי פישוטאדאס די טו נואירוגה‬, DŽAMILA: ... toma un činí i va mérkate yagur antes ke no topes. BOXOR: I tu ke vas a komer? DŽAMILA: Yo, sexorás tuyas i pišutadas de tu 97 Contrastive focus – as for the utterer’s assumptions and expectations about the receiver’s (i.e., addressee’s) knowledge, there is the latter’s contrary belief, – the receiver holds strong contrary beliefs (Vallejos Yopán 2009: 405). The utterer provides a contrast to those beliefs. We would like to note that in many cases the focus is weak, when the receiver actually assumes or expects nothing, or would not, in fact, have thought otherwise about the thing stated, but nevertheless the focalization signals the corroboration, indubitability of it. 98 Parallel focus – Two pieces of information are contrasted within one linguistic unit, e.g., JOHN bought RICE, but PETER bought COFFEE (Vallejos Yopán 2009: 406). 99 I availed myself of the translations made by Benaim (2011: 348,349). 100 Viz., perhaps, la merkaderia (cf. this lexeme in use in Maharḥaš, no. 59, 36), la ropa, ‘the goods’, cf. earlier in this passage (Divré Rivot, no. 413, 16) there is the (Hebrew) word ‫הסחורות‬, ‘the goods’. 225 nweruča., ‘DŽAMILA: ... take a plate, and go buy yourself some yoghurt, before it is all bought up. BOXOR: And you, what are you going to eat? DŽAMILA: Me, – your gloomy feelings and your daughter,in,law’s slanderous acts.’ (Mesažero 5: 1557 (1940); Bunis 1999b: 572 middle). (1d) See example (3a) below. (2) Contrastive replacing101 focus: (2a) ‫ ארדאשלאר‬,‫ סי סאביאש‬,‫ די בירביר‬...‫ לו ולפה איסטי פיزו די מ‬,‫ נו ולפו ייו סי טאדרי‬... – ‫ איס או מואיבו‬,‫ פור י איס אונה גולייה דיל דייו‬,‫ –נו איל בירביר מיאו‬... ?‫ – יי סימאלייה‬.‫ואנטו מי איניירבו‬ ‫ פור נו‬,‫ טיניאה מוגה גינטי‬, ‫ אי נו יירי סולו י סו חא‬,‫ סי ומו איל בירביר מיאו י איס מויי בואינו‬... ... .‫בירביר‬ .‫ מי פואי אראפארמי אנדי אוטרו‬,‫טאדראר אי ביניר מאס פריסטו א י‬, SEMAYÁ: ... No kulpo yo si tadrí; la kulpa este fižo de m[amzer] de berber102. Si savíaš, kardašlar, kwanto me enyervó. ALGUNOS: Kyen, Semayá? SEMAYÁ: No el berber mio, porke es una džoya del Dyo. Es un mwevo berber. ... ... Si komo el berber mio ke es muy bweno, i no kyere solo ke su xak, tenia muča džente. Por no tadrar i venir mas presto akí, me fwe araparme ande otro., ‘SEMAYÁ: ... I am not to blame, if I am late; this is this nasty barber’s fault. If you could only know, friends, how seriously he pissed me off. OTHERS: Who, Semayá? SEMAYÁ: Not my barber, because he is a Jew,el of God103. It is a new one. ... ... Since my barber is very good, and wants nothing but what he deserves, he received a lot of people at that moment. For the purpose of coming here in time, and as soon as possible, I went to another to have a shave.’ (El Rizón 13: 1 (1938); Bunis 1999b: 596 top). 101 Replacing focus – A specific item in the pragmatic information of the hearer is removed and replaced by another correct item (Vallejos Yopán 2009: 405,406). 102 On such constructions in Judezmo (cf. English a monster of a woman, Modern Hebrew motek šel xatul), see Varol,Bornes 2008: 264 (el bweno del marido, ‘the good husband’, la negra de la zinganá, ‘the bad Gypsy woman’, el bovo del azno, ‘the stupid ass’, el defondo de mi papá, ‘my late father’, la difunda de mi mužer, ‘my late wife’, el bovo del ižo, ‘the stupid son’, el dezmazalado del zabit, ‘the unlucky officer’), at times – as here – being rather complex: Id. quotes ibid. este ižo de un mamzer de kazamentero, ‘this mischievous matchmaker’, la k’esté en ganeden de mi mužer, ‘my wife, may she rest in heaven’. Cf. . . . ,‫אח! סויי די ופירית די מוزיר‬, Ax! Soy de koféreθ de mužer, ..., ‘Ah! A heretic of a woman, ... ’ (El Rizón 12: 27 (1937); Bunis 1999b: 399 middle). 103 As translated by Bunis (1999b: 595 top). 226 (2b) ‫ פור איל טולייו י איסטה אינבואילטו‬,‫ נו פור איל زחות מיאו‬,‫איידי אגורה באטי אלה ברחה דיל דייו‬ .‫אי איל טאבא ו‬, DŽAMILA: Ayde, agora vate a|la beraxá del Dyo – no por el zaxud/+θ mio; por el tuyo ke está enbwelto en el tabako., ‘DŽAMILA: Come on then, now go with God’s blessing – not on account of my merit, but of yours, envelopped by tobacco.’ (Mesažero 2: 578 (1937); Bunis 1999b: 473 bottom). (3) One finds cases of contrastive*replacing/selective104/parallel focus, having the meaning ‘his/their etc. own x’, viz., ‘x being characteristic of / peculiar to the possessor’105: (3a) Cf. mi, mis elsewhere in the sentence: ‫י איליש דייאה די שו פודורה די איל שבת הגדול מייו‬ :‫בארוניש די מי אימונה‬B ‫פואיבלו‬ B ‫אי דימיש אירמאנוש אי מי‬, Ke el|es diya de su podura/pudura106 de el Šabbat Haggadol mio, i de|mis ermanos, i mi pwevlo, varones de mi ˀemuná., ‘Because this is the day of might of the Great Sabbath of mine, of my brethren, and my people, ones of my faith.’ (A manuscript, whose text is Shabbetai Tzvi’s [1626 – 1676] address to people and notifications, in: Ben,Naeh 2011/2012: 98, side I of the manuscript, lines 16,18). Contrastive*parallel focus. 104 By selective focus, one selects an item from a set of presupposed possibilities, e.g., Did John buy coffee or rice? John bought RICE (Vallejos Yopán 2009: 406). 105 Cf. Modern Hebrew: Thus, now and then, šeli, šelxa, and so on (contrary to the suffixal *i, *xa, and so on): Here contrastive*selective focus: Ani koret livne hador šeli (– ‘šeli’ somewhat accentuated) lif’ol lemaan hagbarat mudaut ve yeda al hašoa bekerev hador hacair ..., mišum šebne dori ..., ‘I urge those of my generation to bring greater awareness of the Holocaust to the younger generation ..., because those of my generation ...’ (Dr. Zehavit Gross, radio, December 28, 2010). Furthermore, in such cases in Judezmo – having this shade of meaning, ‘my/your/his etc. own x’ – certain positive emotive / amorous nuances may at times be sensed; I am grateful to Professor David Bunis for this important remark; in this respect, see also Bunis 1999a: Ch. XIV: §14.2.1: 243. 106 Not found by us in Judezmo dictionaries, nor in CORDE. We suggest it is a noun having an *ura derivative suffix from verbs, existing in Spanish, bearing a meaning of action or effect (GRAE: Vol. I: §6.2ñ: 427; §5.5j: 368), e.g. (Spanish), sepultar, ‘to bury’ > sepultura, ‘burial’, ‘grave’; pintar, ‘to paint’ > pintura, ‘painting’; frito, an irregular participle of freír, ‘to fry’ > fritura, ‘fried food’; roto, an irregular participle of romper, ‘to break’ > rotura, ‘break’, ‘breakage’. Thus here, from poder, or its preterite stem – and possible participle stem – pud*, we get podura/pudura, ‘potency’, ‘strength’, ‘powerfulness’. 227 (3b) ‫לי פאריסי י איס ומו אל טיימפו סולייוס י סי ביניא ו איל גואיزמו די לישיאה אי די ני ורוס‬ ... ,‫אנדי חואיסי‬, Le parese ke es komo al tyempo suyos107 ke se venian kon el gwezmo de lešia i de nikuros ande xwese., ‘It seems to her that this is like in their time, when they would come, smelling of soap water and of filth, to any place.’ (El Rizón 4: 41 (1929); Bunis 1999b: 370 top). Contrastive*replacing focus. (3c) ?‫ י א ונטיסייו? י נו בוס איסטה אגראדאנדו איל אבי מיאו די איסטה נוגי‬,‫ ארדאשלאר‬,‫מה‬ .‫טודוס ייה מו לו ביבימוס אסטה איל טילבי אי בוزוטרוס נו אביש דאדו דאאינדה ני או סורבו‬, Ma kardašlar, ke akontesyó? Ke, no vos está agradando el kavé mio108 de esta noče? Todos ya mo lo bevimos asta el telvé i vozotros no aveš dado dainda ni un sorvo., ‘But guys, what happened? What, you don’t like the coffee I have made tonight? All of us drank it unto the last drop, and you haven’t yet taken a sip.’ (El Rizón 13: 9 (1938); Bunis 1999b: 616 middle). Contrastive*selective focus. (3d) .‫איל דייו י טי אפאריزי בוחור מי אלמה איל زחות מיאו‬, DŽAMILA: El Dyo ke te apareže, Boxor mi alma, el zaxud/+θ mio., ‘DŽAMILA: May you receive reward from God for the beneficial qualities I possess.’ (Mesažero 2: 578 (1937); Bunis 1999b: 472 middle). Contrastive* selective focus. (3e) Despues ke dishimos ‘Al niseha ve al yeshuoteha ve al nifleoteha’ ampesaron a kantar ‘Maoz Tsur.’ Yo me aviya enkantado... Kuando eskapo la kantika, les demandi la razon i me disheron ke esto es el uzo suyos109. I eyos, no saviyan ke mozotros kantavamos ‘Mizmor shir hanukat abayit leDavid’, ‘After we had sung Al niseha ve al yeshuoteha ve al nifleoteha, they began singing Maoz Tsur. I was surprised to hear that. When the song was finished, I asked them to explain this, and they told me that such was their custom. And they did not know that we used 107 On suyos denoting plural possessor, singular possessed – see below, §3.3.3.3. 108 Cf. earlier in this text: ‫ אלוס ארדאשיס ליס פלאزיאה‬.‫ איל אבי אה לה טור ה י פאגו ייו‬,‫ וزו סונחולה‬,‫ייה טיניש גוסטאדו‬ .‫מוגו איל אבי פיגו מיאו‬, Ya teneš gostado, kuzum Sunxula, el kavé a la turka ke fago yo. A|los kardašes les plazia mučo el kavé fečo mio., ‘You’ve already tried, Sunxula sweetheart, the Turkish coffee that I prepare. The friends liked a lot this coffee of my own making.’ (El Rizón 13: 9 (1938); Bunis 1999b: 616 top). 109 On suyos denoting plural possessor, singular possessed – see below, §3.3.3.3. 228 to sing (instead) Mizmor shir hanukat abayit leDavid.’ (Ladinokumunita, January 13, 2012). Contrastive*replacing focus.110 (3f) “La kuzina tuya, – lo konosko –, kyero gustar.”, “Your cuisine, – I know it111 –, (is one that) I (certainly) want to taste.” (Yitzhak Navon to Matilda Koén,Sarano, February 2010). Contrastive*selective focus.112 (4) Below, there are cases of contrastive*selective focus, – these are contemptuous utterances in which the addressee is scorned for specifically his/her/their possession of / relation to x113: (4a) ‫ נו ומו לה פאריאה טולייה י מיר א לאס מיزבות דיל אל‬.‫איסטו איס לה בואינדאד מונטיפוס ו‬ ... , ‫אי נו לאס פאגא‬, DŽAMILA: Esto es la bwendad, montefusko. No komo la parea tuya ke merkan las mizvod/,θ del kal i no las pagan, ..., ‘DŽAMILA: This is called kindness, you grievous person. Not like that gang of yours, who sell some religious duties required by the synagogue (?), but do not pay for them, ...’ (Mesažero 2: 578 (1937); Bunis 1999b: 473 top). (4b) ?‫ לאס יינאס ו אטאגואדראס נו טי מילדו איל רובי פיספוראדו טולייו די לה גאزיטה‬... , EZRÁ: ... Las kyinas kon atagwadras no te meldó el rubí pisporado tuyo de la gazeta?, ‘EZRÁ: ... Didn’t that warty rubí (= teacher of little children in a religious school) of yours read to you a piece of news about a disaster?’ (Aksyón 10: 2548 (1938); Bunis 1999b: 453 bottom – 454 top). 3.3.2.1.5 Address or call114 In this case, the articles are not in use, viz., there exists no slot for article. In Spanish of the Americas though, one may encounter use of mi(s) x for x mio(s)/* a(s).115 In like manner, Judezmo too does not show loyalty to the more,loaded forms: At least 110 Thanks to Professor David Bunis for informing me of this example. 111 The non,concrete, general lo, meaning ‘this’; we would translate lo konosko here as (colloquially) ‘I know this stuff (of yours)’. 112 This example also falls under the case of thematization (§3.3.2.1.3 supra). 113 This nuiance is also seen in Bunis 1999a: Ch. XIV: §14.2.1: 243. 114 For this case in Spanish, see Schilling 1884: Lesson 9: §4c: 38; Batchelor 2006: 172. 115 Lapesa 1981: §133.2: 589. For the Spanish uses mi(s) x, and x mio(s)/*a(s), see also the discussion in GRAE: Vol. I: §18.3o,§18.3t: 1353,1354. 229 from the 18th century onwards, we can meet both more,loaded and less,loaded ones (see examples (3),(4) below). Perhaps on account of the shade of meaning ‘my/your/etc. own x’ expressed by the more, loaded forms (see above, §3.3.2.1.4, paragraph (3)), the more,loaded forms used as address, mio(s)/*a(s), may bear some degree of emotive/amorous/intimate connotations.116 Judezmo instances: (1) ... ‫ אי דישו אירמאנו מיאו‬. .. ‫לייאמו אה שו אירמאנו‬, yamó a su ermano ... i dišo: “Ermano mio, ...”, ‘(he) called his brother ... and said: “My brother, ...”’ (Maharašdam, ˀEven Haˁézer, no. 166, 64,65). (2) ‫אמיגו מייו‬, ‫ אמיגו‬amigo mio, ‘my friend’ (address) (La Gwerta de Oro, folio 2, page 1 top). (3) In Magriso, Meˁam Loˁez, Bammidbar (the 18th century), we are met with both kinds of forms, when one addresses a person: ‫איג'ו מיאו‬, ižo mio, ‘my son’ (folio 14, page 1, lines 38, 39, 45, 47, 48, 54; in the scholarly edition – Bunis & Adar,Bunis 2011: 487 middle and bottom); ‫מי איג'ה‬, ‫ מי‬mi iža, ‘my daughter’ (folio 14, page 1; in Bunis & Adar,Bunis 2011: 486 top). (4) Similarly, the two kinds of possessive pronouns are found also in the Satirical Series corpus: .‫ איסטי אראל די ניגרו סו ייו‬,‫די י ברי גוליי ה מיאה‬, BOXOR: Deké, bre džoyika mia, este karal de negro so yo?, ‘BOXOR: Why, my dear? Am I this awful?’ (Mesažero 5: 1596 (1940); Bunis 1999b: 382 bottom); ‫בואינו מי אלמה‬, EZRÁ: Bweno mi alma, ‘EZRÁ: Good, my darling’ (Aksyón 11: 3106 (1939); Bunis 1999b: 392 top). 3.3.2.2 The less,loaded (short) possessive pronouns (adjectives) At older stages of Spanish, and as it is still seen in the Early Middle Period of Judezmo (1493 – c. 1728), less,loaded forms were syntactically compatible with articles. For Spanish, see RAE Grammar 1894: Part I: Ch. I: 10: fn. 1 (Cantaréis la mi muerte cada día, – Garcilaso de la Vega [born c. 1501, died 1536]; Madre, la mi madre, – Miguel de Cervantes [born 1547, died 1616]); Santificado sea el tu nombre, venga á nos el tu reino. (from a prayer, RAE Grammar 116 I thank Professor David Bunis for this observation. 230 1894: Part II: Ch. VI: “Del pleonasmo”: 240). Judezmo instances (here with indefinite articles, but see examples that include definite articles immediately afterwards): (1) In the following two examples, the indefinite article was used at the beginning of a narrative, signalling unidentifiability + presentation of the characters for the first time (un mi sovrino, un inglés, un su padre): (1a) ... ‫לוש דיאש פשאדוש פואי יו אל איש וטאר ו או מי שוברינו‬, Los dias pasados fwe yo al Iskutar kon un mi sovrino ..., ‘[One of these] past days I went to Üsküdar with my nephew ...’ (Raˀanaḥ, no. 20, 33,34117), but here, possibly, as in (1b) below, un was uttered for another (or additional) reason, to designate ‘one member of a category’, i.e., ‘a nephew of mine’. (1b) ‫ או אינגליש י ידו איניל אולטימו אינלה נאוי ואנדו שיפואי אה פונדו י יגו אישפיראר דיטו‬... ‫אינגליש פור שאלבאר או שו פאדרי י ויניאה אי דיטו פאשאגי‬, ... un inglés ke kedó en|el último en|la nave kwando se|fwe a fondo, ke kižo esperar dito inglés por salvar un su padre ke venia en dito pasaže, ‘... an Englishman who stayed to the last minute on board of the ship when it began to sink, as he, the said Englishman, wished to rescue a man who was his father118 who (also) travelled aboard this aforementioned pasaže (a kind of ship)’ (Maharḥaš, no. 59, 18,20), (cf. un Yicḥaq further in the text (30,32): ‫איל יש אויאה אינבאר אדו אי زאנטי דישירו י אירה או יצח די‬ ... ‫איש ופייא איל ואל יצח ליש דיزיאה י‬, El ke|s’ avia enbarkado en Zante – dišeron ke era un Yicḥaq de Eskopya119, el kwal Yicḥaq les dezia ke ..., ‘That one who had embarked in Zante (Ζάκυνθος, Zakynthos) – they said that it was a man named Yicḥaq, from Skopje, and this Yicḥaq told them that ...’). (2) Denoting ‘a member of a category’, ‘a x of mine/yours/etc.’: ‫לו מאטארו אה איל אי אה‬ ‫או מי פרימו אי אה או מי מוסו‬, lo mataron a el, i a un mi primo, i a un mi moso., ‘they killed him and a cousin of mine and a servant of mine.’ (Raˀanaḥ, no. 20, 42,43120); ‫אאו שו פיגו‬, a|un su fižo, ‘(object) a son of his’ (Mahariṭac, no. 144, 15). 117 I thank Professor David Bunis for this transcription and translation. 118 I thank Professor David Bunis for consulting me on the topic of translation of this phrase. 119 See a discussion in fn. 86 above about the variants of this city name, – with the endings *a and *e. 120 I thank Professor David Bunis for this transcription and translation. 231 In later periods, this feature of compatibility of less,loaded forms with articles became archaic in Spanish and Judezmo121. In Spanish, this use was already rare at the end of the 15th century, and seldom found in the 16th122; and in Judezmo, from the 19th century123, it is only seen in traditional or archaizing genres, such as poems and liturgy. It should be noted from a cross, linguistic point of view, that though several well,known modern European languages refrain from employing possessive pronouns together with articles, most languages of the world with articles do allow articles to co,occur with possessors124. Sporadic poetic examples in Judezmo use (still met in the Modern Judezmo period) are (here, presumably archaic features being preserved): al mi ižo; al su ižo (a romance “Deké yoraš, blanka ninya”, Turkey125); Irme kero, la mi madre (Constantinople126). It should be noted though, that in regions where languages systematically use possessive pronouns accompanying articles, there might be exerted influence on the Judezmo of that region, which thereby borrowed that usage from them, hence employing the syntagm ARTICLE – LESS, LOADED,POSSESSIVE,PRONOUN. Thus, e.g., in Italy in the past, and in contemporary Bulgaria127. The following examples are from the Italian region: the book La Gwerta de Oro (published in Livorno in the 18th century), written by David b. Moses ˁAṭias, born in Sarajevo, who grew up, was educated, and spent most of his life in the Tuscan port of Livorno128: ‫אאו סו אמיגו‬, a|un su amigo (folio ii, page 1, the beginning of the advertisement (‘avizo’)), ‫ איל‬... ‫אל סו אמיגו מילדאדור‬ ‫מי ריאמיינטו‬, al su amigo meldador ... el mi kreamyento (folio 2, page 1 top), cf. Italian un suo amico, al suo amico, il mio NOUN. So also in a will of a doctor (the year 1599) in Torat ˀEmet, 121 RAE Grammar 1894: Part I: Ch. I: 10: fn. 1; Wagner 1914: Part II: §94: 132. 122 Ibid. 123 I thank Professor David Bunis for this information. 124 Koptjevskaja,Tamm 2001: 965a. 125 In: Koén,Sarano 1999: Lesson 5: 38. 126 Wagner 1914: Part II: §94: 132. 127 As may be regularly heard from speakers in Sofia (I am indebted to Professor David Bunis for this information). In Bulgarian, Romanian, and possibly some other Balkan Sprachbund languages, there is co,occurence of possessive pronouns with articles (For Bulgarian – Weigand 1917: 47,48: §36; for Romanian – Weigand 1903: 25: §38). 128 La Gwerta de Oro, folio 2, page 1 top; Trivellato 2009: 99. 232 no. 165; this text reflects influence of Italian: ‫ﭏה נואישה שינאגוגה‬, a|la nwesa sinagoga, ‘for our synagogue’ (14). For further information about the use or disuse of less,loaded forms, see sections §3.3.2 and §3.3.2.1.1,§3.3.2.1.5 above. 3.3.3 Additional topics 3.3.3.1 The competition with the structure ‘de–PRONOMINAL COMPLEMENT’ The structure de–PRONOMINAL COMPLEMENT is not foreign to the nature of Spanish, and may be met with, both as part of the syntagm su(s)i–POSSESSED–de–PRONOMINAL COMPLEMENTi, (i = POSSESSOR, viz., su(s) and the PRONOMINAL COMPLEMENT refer to the POSSESSOR)129, and independently: de–PRONOMINAL COMPLEMENT (only delocutive)130. These constructions, at least sometimes, aim to specify the number and gender of the POSSESSOR, which su(s) fails to express.131 Same aforementioned syntagms – only delocutive, as in Spanish – may be 129 Schilling 1884: Lesson 9: §3: 37. 130 Schilling 1884: Lesson 9: §3: 37; cf. §4b: 38. 131 I thank Dr. Jonathan Stavsky, who provided me with this idea in the first place. See table 4 in §3.3.2 above, and cf. a reservation about Modern Judezmo in §3.3.3 below. For Spanish, Schilling 1884: Lesson 9: §3: 37; and cf. ibid. Lesson 22: §10: 134, and Batchelor 2006: 168. For Judezmo, cf. Varol,Bornes 2008: 266. We may encounter extreme cases, where one must indicate the number and/or gender of the possessor, in order to be properly understood. Cf. (Spanish) in CORDE, e.g., a poem appearing in Francisco de Aldana’s works, – another version of this poem was written by Bartolomé Leonardo de Argensola –, both lived in the 16th,17th centuries, followed here by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s English translation: La i m ág e n d e Dio s. ¡Señor! que allá de la estrellada cumbre/ Todo lo ves en un presente eterno,/ Mira tu hechura en mí, que al ciego infierno/ La lleva su terrena pesadumbre./ ¡Eterno Sol! ya la encendida lumbre/ De este mi alegre Abril florido y tierno/ Muera, mas siento en el nevado invierno/ Tan verde la raiz de su costumbre./ En mí tu imágen mira, ¡O Rey divino!/ Con ojos de piedad, que al dulce encuentro/ Del rayo celestial verás volvella:/ Que á verse como en vidrio cristalino/ La imágen mira el que se espeja dentro/ Y está en su vista de él, su mirar de ella., (lit., ‘And upon looking at it, i.e., the glass, there is its, i.e., the image’s, gaze’), ‘T h e i ma ge o f t h e d e it y. O Lord! that seest from yon starry height/ Centred in one the future and the past/ Fashioned in thine own image, see how fast/ The world obscures in me what once was bright! Eternal sun! – the warmth which thou hast given/ To cheer life’s flowery April, fast decays,/ Yet in the hoary winter of my days,/ Forever green shall be my trust in Heaven./ Celestial King! O let thy presence pass/ Before my spirit, and an image fair/ Shall meet that look of mercy from on high,/ As the reflected image in a glass/ Doth meet the 233 encountered in Judezmo; some examples will be presented below. Another possible usage of de– PRONOMINAL COMPLEMENT is intended to express the object of the action, – see the example that follows example (7) below. As for Judezmo specifically, Mishnaic Hebrew, having parallel constructions (cf. also Biblical Hebrew ‫כּ ְַר ִמ֥י שׁ ִֶלּ֖י‬, lit., ‘my vineyard of mine’132, Song of Songs i 6), might have wielded some influence as well on the productivity of this structure, – see §3.3.1.2 above. In instances (1),(4) infra, the constructions aim to specify the number and gender of the POSSESSOR – which su(s) fails to express – in order to avoid ambiguity and misunderstanding: (1) In the Regulations of Valladolid (from 1432): ‫שיא מחוייבי די שא אר אינטרי שי או גزבר‬ ‫אה וייה מאנו בינגה איל תלמוד תורה דילייוש‬, sean meḥuyyavim de sakar entre si un gizbar, a kuya mano venga el talmud torá deyos, ‘they shall be obliged to nominate one of their number to be a treasurer, who shall be responsible for the assets of their talmud torá’ (Minervini 1992: Vol. II: 62: lines 107,108), whereas su talmud torá might have been mistakenly interpreted as ‘his (a treasurer’s) talmud torá’. (2) Here deya, ‘of hers’, is attached, in order to avoid the misunderstanding that might arise; otherwise, one might think, theoretically, that his son*in*law is implied: ‫טנביי מיפוزו אה‬ ‫בואילטש די שוש אישפארزידוראש דיל דינירו י אביאה אי פירישטאדו אה שו יירנו דילייא ואנדו אישטובו א י‬, Tanbyén me|puzo a bweltas de sus esparziduras del dinero ke avia enperestado a su yerno deya, kwando estuvo akí, ..., ‘Also, he drove me crazy133 with his squandering of money, which he had lent to her son,in,law, when he (i.e., the son,in,law) had been here, ...’ (HaMabiṭ, Part III, folio 138, page 1, column I, – no. 82, 136,138). look of him, who seeks it there,/ And owes its being to the gazer’s eye.’ (Both the Spanish and English texts may be seen in: Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, (ed.), Coplas de Don Jorge Manrique, translated from the Spanish, with an introductory essay on the moral and devotional poetry of Spain, by Henry W. Longfellow, Boston: Allen and Ticknor, 1833, pp. 82,83). 132 Which itself – by the way –, in one of the Ladino translations, was translated as mi vinya ke era mia (as seen at http://www.aki,yerushalayim.co.il/ay/095/095_11_el_kantar.htm). 133 Cf. RAE Dictionary: the entry ‘vuelta’: darle vueltas – la cabeza – a alguien, (colloquial) ‘one’s head is swimming’. 234 (3) Like above, with no de eyos added, it could look as though he had spent time in his village134: ‫פואי אשו אزאל די אילייוש אי אליי דורמייו‬ # ‫דימירגי והי לי דישירו י יו שני‬ " ‫וכ לוש די‬, Vexén, los de Demirdží köyǘ le dišeron, ke yom šení fwe a|su kazal de eyos, i ayí durmyó, ..., ‘Further, those living in the village of Demirci told him, that on Monday, he (the missing man) had spent time in their village, and had slept there, ...’ (Mahariṭ, Part II, ˀEven Haˁézer, no. 35, 159,161, – folio 41, page 1, column I middle). (4) A Ladino 19th,century example: We would like to cite a curious case in Ladino (viz., the Bible and sacred texts translations): First of all, it is necessary to mention that in the Ladino Bible 1540*1572, 1 Samuel x 12 reads: (a reconstructed verse) ‫דישו אי‬ ֿ ‫אי רישפונדייו וארו די אאי אי‬ ‫יטאש‬H‫אינשימפלו שי טאמביי שאול אינלאש פרו‬ ֿ ‫ואי פור‬H ‫ יי שו פאדרי פור טאנטו‬, I respondyó varón de aí i dišo: “I kyen su padre?” Por tanto fwe por enšemplo, Si tambyén Šaˀul en|las profetas?; verses 11,12 in Hebrew and English: ‫שׁל ְ֔שׁוֹם ַויּ ְִר ֕אוּ ְוהִנֵּ ֥ה עִם־נְב ִ ִ֖אים נ ָ ִ֑בּא ו ַ֨יּ ֹא ֶמר ָה ָ֜עם‬ ִ ‫ַוי ְ ִ֗הי כָּל־י ֽוֹדְ ע ֙וֹ ֵמ ִאתְּ ֣מוֹל‬ ‫שׁל הֲגַ ֥ם‬ ָ ֔ ‫ִיהם עַל־ ֵכּ ֙ן ָהי ָ ְ֣תה ְל ָמ‬ ִ ‫ֶל־ר ֵ֗עהוּ מַה־זֶּה֙ ָה ָי֣ה ְלבֶן־ ִ֔קישׁ הֲגַ ֥ם שׁ ָ֖אוּל ַבּנְּבִיאִ ֽים׃ ַו ַ֨יּעַן ִא֥ישׁ ִמ ָ ֛שּׁם וַיֹּ֖א ֶמר‬ ֵ ‫ִ ֣אישׁ א‬ ֑ ֶ ‫וּמ֣י אֲ ב‬ ‫שׁ ָ֖אוּל ַבּנְּבִאִ ֽים׃‬, ‘When all those who had formerly known him saw him prophesying with the prophets, they asked each other, “What is this that has happened to the son of Kish? Is Saul also among the prophets?” A man who lived there answered, “And who is their father?” So it became a saying: “Is Saul also among the prophets?”’135. (Cf. the Ferrara Bible 1553: Y reſpondio varon de alli y dixo y quien ſu padre :ʹ poƨ tanto fue poƨ pƨouerbio ſi ta͂ bie͂ Saul en pƨophetas:ʹ). However, in the Ladino Constantinople Bible 1873 we have the more distinct de eyos, in place of su, perhaps because this passage is somewhat challenging and difficult to understand, so the signification ‘their’ is better expressed in order not to mislead the reader, and cause even more confusion: ?‫ אי יי איס איל פאדרי די אילייוס‬, I kyen es el padre de eyos? (But ibid., in many other places, su x (sg.) for ‘their x’: E.g., ‫סו פאדרי‬, su padre, ‫ ֲאבִיהֶם‬, ‘their father’, in Gen. ix 23, xxxi 53, xxxvii 32, Exodus xl 15, Num. xxvii 7, 1 Samuel ii 25; ‫סו ומידה‬, su komida, ‫אָ ְכלָם‬, ‘their food’, Psalms civ 21, 27, cxlv 15, lxxviii 30; ‫סו מאנטינימיינטו‬, su mantenimyento, 134 On the other hand, Modern Judezmo would not take pains adding de eyos, since, in this case, it would be sus kazal (see §3.3.3.3 below). 135 The English translation was drawn from the New International Version at: biblehub.com. 235 ‫אָ ְכלָם‬, ‘their food’, Gen. xiv 11; ‫סו איספיריטו‬, su espírito, ‫רוּחָם‬, ‘their breath/spirit’, Psalms civ 29; ‫סו פולבו‬, su polvo, ‫ ֲעפ ָָרם‬, ‘their dust’, ibid.; ‫סו אמור‬, su amor, ‫אַ ֲהבָתָ ם‬, ‘their love’, Eccl. ix 6). The following instances (5),(6) appear in the Me’am Lo’ez 18th,century editions, which are not – or, at least, not completely – oriented to disambiguating (as opposed to the examples seen above): (5) In his article, García Moreno (2003) presents the following syntagms as cases of delocutive address (see Chapter §3.5).136 We suggest that de el / de eya were added in these cases in order to make this address more addressee,oriented (su(s) alone, which does not denote the number and gender of the POSSESSOR, would have been too general): sus hižos de eya, ‘your (f.) sons’, in Jacob Xulí’s Me’am Lo’ez on Exodus, the year 1733137; su džuzgo de el, ‘your (m.) judgment’, su pena de el, ‘your (m.) punishment’, in Isaac Magriso’s Me’am Lo’ez on Exodus, the year 1746138. (6) In the following instance, as seen from the clauses surrounding it in the original text, there was lack of necessity to add de eyos. However, it was most likely added because a calque translation from Hebrew is expressed here139; further possible motivations could be also thematization (the way we saw it in §3.3.2.1.3 supra), or, by means of this tautological syntagm, su dyo de eyos, the information could be more laid out, spread out, apportioned: ‫ סאב'ריש' י שו‬... ... ‫דייו די אילייוס איס אינימיגו די איל زנות‬, ... savreš ke su dyo de eyos es enemigo de el zenuθ ..., ‘... know that their god is an enemy of prostitution ...’ (Magriso, Meˁam Loˁez, Bammidbar, folio 120; in the scholarly edition – Bunis & Adar,Bunis 2011: 468: §13; 494 top). (7) Spoken Judezmo, the modern Constantinople dialect: In the following instances, we did not have enough information to determine the causes of these structures; the author of the 136 Specifically speaking, they were so uttered in these examples for euphemistic purposes (García Moreno 2003: 131: §3). 137 In: García Moreno 2003: 132: §3.2. 138 Ibid.: 131: §3.1. 139 I am deeply grateful to Professor David Bunis for this information; in the Hebrew basis for this Judezmo text, we find ‫אלהיה של אלו שונא ִزמה‬, ˀElohehem šel ˀellu soneˀ zimmá, literally ‘Their god of those hates lust’ (Bunis & Adar,Bunis 2011: 493 bottom: fn. 132). 236 cited work suggests, at least regarding part of the following instances, that the structures serve a disambiguating purpose: la famiya d’el, ‘his family’; Bivyó en Balat la nona, la madre de eya, ‘There lived in Balat the grandmother – the mother of hers’140; Mi mamá i siguro el padre i la madre de eya, eran nasidos ayá., ‘My mother, and surely her father and mother, were born there.’141 In the following instance, there is de–PRONOMINAL COMPLEMENT as the object of the action: ‫פור אמור די אילייוש‬, por amor de eyos142, ‘for the love of them’ (Máyim ˁAmuqqim, no. 96, folio 152143, page 2, column II, second line from the end). Moreover, the above example (6), and perhaps also (7), might be states of the possessive su(s) and de–PRONOMINAL DELOCUTIVE COMPLEMENT as free variants, rather than uses conditioned by syntactic environment, seen in examples (1),(4). This means that the competition between the two is even tougher. Moreover, from a cross,linguistic standpoint, this competition might potentially produce some instability in the choice between these two constructions (not seen in Judezmo though), as will be briefly shown here in certain languages other than Judezmo. Spanish (below, only Spanish instances will be provided) has even more types of competition of this sort144: Scholars note situations of competition between certain possessive pronouns (sometimes not only delocutive su(s)) and de–PRONOMINAL COMPLEMENT. Lapesa (1981: §133.5: 583) describes the state of Spanish in the Americas, where the system of possessive pronouns underwent readjustment: The possessive word vuestro is avoided in cases of voseo145 being employed there, hence one can employ instead either tu, tuyo, or su, suyo. Therefore, su, suyo is overloaded with information, it is too vague: It may denote the meanings 140 Varol,Bornes 2008: 266. 141 Ibid.: 489. 142 Possibly a fixed expression, which later yielded para/por amodre + PRONOUN (> also por modre / pormodre / paramodre + PRONOUN, see Perez & Pimienta 2007: 335c, 358b, 358c); I thank Professor David Bunis for this piece of information. 143 Mistakenly written ‘151’, the folio numbering is corrupted. 144 In all our analyses shown throughout this thesis, when Spanish examples are provided, it should be remembered that the Judezmo and the Spanish language systems are totally disparate systems. 145 See §3.5.1. 237 ‘your (sg.)’ (= *vuestro as well as de Usted146), ‘your (pl.)’ (= *vuestro as well as de Ustedes), ‘his’, ‘her’, and ‘their’. As a result, the speakers tend to employ su, suyo in order to signify ‘your (sg.)’, while the other senses are prone to be constructed by means of de: de Ustedes, de él, de ella, de ellos, de ellas. E.g., Estuvo ayer en la casa de ustedes.; ¿No ve, patrón, que les gusta dar qué hacer a las mujeres de ellos?; Le mataron en la propia casa de él. As for the case of the possessive lexeme nuestro in the American continents, – Lapesa continues –, one can attest some decline in the use of this pronoun (nuestro) as well, being often replaced by de nosotros, for example: Las penas y las vaquitas/, Siguen una misma senda:/ Las penas son de nosotros,/ Las vaquitas son ajenas.147 Lapesa comments upon the state of affairs in the Canary Islands148, where there was generated the system of possessive pronouns, in which su, suyo bear the sense of ‘de Usted’, vuestro – of ‘de Ustedes’, but when expressing delocutive possessors, they resort to the constructions de él, de ella, de ellos, de ellas. If in the aforesaid cases de–PRONOMINAL COMPLEMENT supplanted the traditional possessive pronouns in Spanish, the following cases are contrary: We can find delantre tuyo, ‘in front of you’ in colloquial Spanish, being non,standard, instead of delantre de ti; thus also enfrente mío, ‘in front of me’ (= literary enfrente de mí), a través mío, ‘through me’ (= literary a través de mí).149 In the same manner, in the Americas, it is very common to utter delante suyo; “no debo decir nada de él en su delante”; encima nuestro, ‘above us’, ‘encima de nosotros’; en su detrás, ‘behind him’, ‘por detrás de él’.150 146 Note that Usted(es) is also in use (as certain kinds of address) in these areas; for a brief discussion of the forms of address on the Spanish,speaking world, see Chapter §3.5. 147 Lapesa talks here about nuestro specifically, and not about other pronouns (mi, tu, etc.). 148 Lapesa 1981: §124.2: 521. 149 Batchelor 2006: 172. Nevertheless, the irony of it is that, as id. writes (ibid.), en favor nuestro, ‘in our favor’, ‘supporting, backing us’; Miré en torno mío, ‘I looked around me’ are held as absolutely standard. 150 Lapesa 1981: §133.2: 589. Furthermore, it is interesting to compare, in respect of the above,mentioned affairs, the competition, – with reference to attributive relation between two nouns –, of the English genitive (,’s) (NOUN1’s NOUN2) with the preposition of (NOUN2 of NOUN1) during the history of English (I thank Professor Ariel Shisha, Halevy, who initially brought this issue to my consciousness). Here is a citation from Kreyer 2003: 169,170: “The genitive case and of,construction have coexisted in the English language since the ninth century. Back then, the genitive was the usual construction, and, with English still being a synthetic language, it appeared in almost equal 238 3.3.3.2 Phonetic changes This subsection will focus on the phonetic developments of the possessive pronouns. 3.3.3.2.1 The forms nwestro and mwestro See §3.1.4.1 and §3.1.4.1.1. 3.3.3.2.2 Cases of avoidance of the consonant clusters [str] and [tr] In Spanish and Judezmo phonology we encounter cases of refraining from consonant clusters comprised of two or three consonants, which contain a plosive (in most of the cases), and [r] or [l] – in the second/third (or, at times, first position). Avoidance of the following clusters in Spanish and/or Judezmo has been seen by us in texts or the linguistic literature: [pr], [br]/[βr], [vr], [tr], [dr]/[ðr], [kr]; [npr], [mbr], [ntr]; [spr], [str] (also [stj]), [skr] (also [skj]); [rd]/[rð], [rg]/[rγ]; [pl]. The outcome of this avoidance takes (at least) two forms: As syncope or numbers either in front of or after the modified noun. The of,construction was a marginal variant, which, according to Fries ... occurred in less than 1% of all cases. In the four hundred years to follow, the situation changed drastically. The gradual reduction of the inflexional system and the development of a fixed word order led to the extinction of the post,posed genitive by 1300. Whereas up to 1200 the post,posed genitive was substituted by its pre,posed variant in the majority of all cases, the of,construction increasingly gained ground from 1200 onwards and began to replace post,posed as well as pre,posed genitives. Around 1300, the of,construction was the most frequent variant (84.5%) .... In Late Middle English and Early Modern English the extensive use of s,less forms in certain dialects further weakened the position of the genitive .... However, in Modern English, the genitive has regained ground, especially in certain varieties of English, such as journalistic writing ... or American English ....”. Also, as regards the pronominal oppositions my–of me, your–of you, and so on, cf. some examples: an English translation of Epicurus’s quote: More than the help of friends we need the certainty of it.; I want to taste a speck of it (here, perhaps, partitive semantics); She added a photo of you (= ‘a photo in which you appear’, probably, as opposed to ‘your photo’ = the photo you created / you possess). Another curious comparison is that of Sardinian: This language is comprised of several dialects. Most of them use the form insoro (or issoro) – the Logudorese dialect, see Rubattu 2006: Vol. I: the entry ‘loro (2)’, or the like (isciore, iscioro, or issoro in the Nuorese dialect; insoru, intzoru in the Campidanese one – see ibid.), to signify ‘their’, originating from the Latin genitive plural form ipsorum (ibid.), ‘of themselves’. However, the Sassarese and Gallurese dialects employ the analytic construction having the preposition de, d’eddi (Sassarese) and d’iddi (Gallurese), lit., ‘of them’, in order to say ‘their’ (ibid.: ibid.: the entries ‘loro (1)’ and ‘loro (2)’). 239 as epenthesis (svarabhakti).151 These tendencies have relevance for the Judezmo and Spanish pronominal systems, as will be shown in the following subsections; in the case of nwestro and vwestro, the cluster in question is [,str,]; in the following subsections, we shall see the phonetic changes of nwestro and vwestro, as syncope or epenthesis processes. Furthermore, as for the locutive plural subject pronouns mozós/mozás, ‘we’, these developed from mozotros/mozotras (similarly, the allocutive vozós/vozás, ‘you (pl.)’ < vozotros/vozotras): Supposedly, there was some motivation to avoid the consonant cluster [tr]152. 3.3.3.2.2.1 Syncope and epenthesis: various consonant clusters Below these two processes will be presented as to various consonant clusters. 3.3.3.2.2.1.1 Cases of syncope Avoidance of the following clusters in Judezmo has been seen by us in texts or the linguistic literature153: (1) C1C2r > C2r; C2 is plosive: [npr] > [pr]: ‫סייפרי‬, syepre (from Segullot lišˁat nesiˁá; the full form, attested in this text, is syenpre). (2) C1C2r > C1r; C2 is plosive: [mbr] > [mr]: ‫נובימרו‬, novemro, ‘November’ (Torat ˀEmet, no. 165, 4); ‫סולמרה‬, sol[o]mra/sol[a]mra, ‘shade’ (cf. 5 lines further: ‫סולומברה‬, solombra) (from Segullot lišˁat nesiˁá) (as for possible *a* in *lam*, cf. Perez & Pimienta 2007: 41b: the variants asolambrado and asolombrado, ‘shaded’). [skr] > [sr]: So, perhaps, the spelling we found ‫אישריבי‬, esriven, ‘(they) write’ (< eskriven) (Maharašdam, Ḥošen Mišpaṭ, no. 52, 49). 151 I acknowledge Professor David Bunis’s inputs (personal communication) on this matter and its characterization. 152 See §3.1.4.1.1, with a more detailed exlanation. 153 All the following examples were taken either from Judezmo texts, or from Feldman 2007:17 (Judezmo) (I am indebted to Professor David Bunis for directing me to this source), Quilis 1970 (Spanish), and Shafran 2014: 242, 243: fn. 16 (Judezmo and Spanish). 240 (3) C1C2r > C1C2; C2 is plosive: [str] > [st]: The last name Estreleča in Maharašdam (ˀEven Haˁézer, no. 54, 20, ‫אשטריליגה‬, 26, ‫אישטריליגה‬, and 41, ‫)אשטריליגה‬, might be written Esetreleča (epenthesis) (Ḥošen Mišpaṭ, no. 5, 52, '‫)אישיטריליגה‬, as well as Esteleča (syncope, [r] was dropped) (Ḥošen Mišpaṭ, no. 5, 103, ‫)אישטיליגה‬.154 (4) C1C2r > C1; C2 is plosive: [str] > [s]: See about nweso and vweso in §3.3.3.2.2.2.1 below. (5) C1r > no sounds; C1 is plosive: [tr] > no sounds: (Compare avoiding [tr] by means of epenthesis in §3.3.3.2.2.1.2 below). See on mozós/mozás, ‘we’, as developed from mozotros/mozotras, and similarly, vozós/vozás, ‘you (pl.)’ < vozotros/vozotras in §3.1.4.1.1, with a more detailed exlanation. (6) C1C2j > C1j; C2 is plosive: [stj] > [sj]: ‫אנגוסייאדוריס‬, angusyadores, ‘foes’ (< angustyadores, spelled so two lines earlier: ‫( )אנגוסטייאדוריס‬from Segullot lišˁat nesiˁá).155 [skj] > [sj]: ‫איל פיי איסיידרו‬, el pye esyedro (or: isyedro), ‘the left leg’ (from Segullot lišˁat nesiˁá). The etymon of this word is Basque ezkerra156. Also in Perez & Pimienta’s (2007) dictionary: isiedro, siedro, siedrero, asiedrear. (7) rC > C: [rd]/[rð] > [ð]: Thus, maybe, the spelling we saw ‫וידאד‬, vedad, ‘truth’ (< verdad) (Maharašdam, Yoré Deˁá, no. 155, 10). And compare the tendency [rd]/[rð] > [ðr] in later Judezmo, thereby avoiding this cluster ([rd]/[rð]). 154 Shafran 2014: ibid. 155 I thank Professor David Bunis for bringing to light the phonetic process respecting this word. 156 RAE Dictionary: the entry ‘izquierdo’. As seen in Perez & Pimienta 2007, Judezmo has many phonetic variants of this adjective and its related forms; there are the following entries there: [zkj]: izkierdo; [skj]: eskierda, aeskierdar; metathesis [skj] > [ksj]: eksiedro; [skj] > [stj]: estiedra, estiedro, istiedro, estiedrear, estiedreo, estiedrero; (in Bosnia also documented [skj] > [sč] isčedra, isčerda – I thank Professor David Bunis for this fact); [skj] > [sj]: isiedro, siedro, siedrero, asiedrear. 241 [rg]/[rγ] > [γ]: So, perhaps, the attested spelling ‫אוטוגאדה‬, otogada, ‘bestowed’ (< otorgada) (Maharašdam, Ḥošen Mišpaṭ, no. 262, 18). 3.3.3.2.2.1.2 Cases of epenthesis Avoidance of the following clusters in Spanish and/or Judezmo has been seen by us in texts or the linguistic literature157: (1) Cr > CVr, or Cl > CVl; the consonant is mostly plosive: [pr]: Spanish: We find the variant parado, for prado, ‘a meadow’, ‘a green grassy area’, etc.158. Judezmo: ‫אפורוביגא‬, aporoveča, ‘it is useful’ (HaMabiṭ, Part III, folio 138, page 1, column I, – no. 82, 144); ‫פירימוש‬, perimos, ‘cousins’ (in indices at the head of Torat Ḥayyim, Part II, the paragraph relating to no. 17, folio [iii], page 1, column II. On the other hand, in no. 17 itself (lines 14 and 29) it is written ‫פרימוש‬, primos); ‫פירינדידה‬, perendida, ‘held (?)’, ‫פירובי‬, B perove, ‘poor’ (in documents of the Dönme group159); ‫פירופייו‬, peropyo, ‘own’ (ˀAdmat Qódeš, Part I, Ḥošen Mišpaṭ, no. 61, 36). [br]/[βr]: Spanish160. [vr]: Judezmo: ‫פובירי‬, póvere, ‘poor’ (a 20th,century text from Jerusalem161). [tr]: Spanish162; Judezmo: ‫מאנדי י לה טורושירא אאי‬, Mandí ke la turušeran aí, ‘I requested that it be brought there’; ‫טורושו‬, turušo, ‘he brought’ (Torat Ḥayyim, Part I, no. 82, 12 and 52 157 All the following examples were taken either from Judezmo texts, or from Feldman 2007:17 (Judezmo) (I am indebted to Professor David Bunis for directing me to this source), Quilis 1970 (Spanish), and Shafran 2014: 242, 243: fn. 16 (Judezmo and Spanish). 158 Shafran 2014: ibid.; more on Spanish in Quilis 1970. 159 Feldman 2007: 17. 160 See Quilis 1970. 161 I owe thanks to Matan Stein for this example. Also, perhaps influenced by póvero – an Italianism in Judezmo (Professor David Bunis, personal correspondence). 162 See Quilis 1970. 242 respectively); ‫טיריש‬, terés, ‘three’ (Torat Mošé – Modern Edition, Ḥošen Mišpaṭ, no. 28, 17); ‫טירו ה‬, teroka, ‘(he) changes’ (in documents of the Dönme group163). [dr]/[ðr]: Judezmo: ‫ ואידירה‬, kwédera, ‘rope’ (< kwedra [< kwerda]) (a 18th,century Judezmo text164). [kr]: Spanish: We may hear the variant corónica for crónica, ‘a chronicle’, ‘an article’, etc.165. Judezmo: ‫ ירייאדור‬, keriyador/kereyador/keryador, ‘the Creator’ (in documents of the Dönme group166). [pl]: Judezmo: ‫פילאטה‬, pelata, ‘silver’; ‫פילאزו‬, pelazo, ‘holiday’ (in documents of the Dönme group167). (2) C1C2r > C1C2Vr; C2 is plosive; Judezmo examples: [npr]: ‫פירישטאדו‬$ ‫אי‬, enperestado, ‘lent’ (HaMabiṭ, Part III, folio 138, page 1, column I, – no. 82, 137,138); ‫סיינפירי‬, syénpere, ‘always’ (but syncope [npr] > [pr]: ‫סייפרי‬, syepre, 6 lines before) (from Segullot lišˁat nesiˁá); ‫סינפירי‬, sénpere, ‘always’ (a 20th,century text from Jerusalem168). [ntr]: ‫אינטאראריש‬, ɺ entarareš, ‘you will enter’, ‫אינטאראדה‬, entarada, ‘entering’ (beside ‫אינטראדה‬, entrada, 7 lines earlier), ‫דילאנטירי דיטי‬, delántere de|ti, ‘in front of you’ (but 10 lines later ‫דילאנטרי‬, delantre)169 (from Segullot lišˁat nesiˁá). [spr]: ‫אשפירוש‬, ásperos, ‘aspers’ (Maharašdam, Ḥošen Mišpaṭ, no. 52, 96; no. 65, 6; no. 393, 33 and 60), but ‫אשפרוש‬, aspros, in Maharašdam, Ḥošen Mišpaṭ, no. 148, 45. [str]: See about nwéstoros, vwéstara, etc. in §3.3.3.2.2.2.2 below. 163 Feldman 2007: ibid. 164 Shafran 2014: ibid. 165 Shafran 2014: ibid. 166 Feldman 2007: ibid. 167 Feldman 2007: ibid. 168 I owe thanks to Matan Stein for this example. 169 I thank Professor David Bunis and Ilil Baum for bringing to light the phenomenon as regards this word. 243 (3) C1C2r > C1VC2r; C2 is plosive; Judezmo examples: [str]: The last name Estreleča in Maharašdam (ˀEven Haˁézer, no. 54, 20, ‫אשטריליגה‬, 26, ‫אישטריליגה‬, and 41, ‫)אשטריליגה‬, might be written Esetreleča (epenthesis) (Ḥošen Mišpaṭ, no. 5, 52, '‫)אישיטריליגה‬, as well as Esteleča (syncope, [r] was dropped) (Ḥošen Mišpaṭ, no. 5, 103, ‫)אישטיליגה‬.170 Interestingly, there exists another tendency in Spanish and Judezmo to create, rather than avoid, the clusters [str] and [sðr] from the discouraged cluster [sr], – a bridging consonant [t] or [ð] is inserted171 –, cf. Spanish Esdras, ‘(The Book of) Ezra’; Judezmo Istrael, ‘Israel’172; cf. the spelling of a person’s name ‫סינייור יעשוע יסטראיל כה‬, in El Rayo de Fwego 1, ser. 2, no. 90 (1936): 3: the left column; note also the alteration [ʃr] > [ʃtr] in ‫השראת שכינה‬, aštraaθ Šexiná, ‘the resting of the Divine spirit upon someone’173. (4) rC > rVC; a Judezmo example: [rg]/[rγ]: ‫ אילה מיר אדיריאה י טיניאה דיטו יצח לה אויאה אראגאדו אי אוטרו פאשאגי פארה‬... ‫ויניציאה‬, ... i|la merkaderia ke tenia dito Yicḥaq – la avia karagado en otro pasaže para Venécia., ‘... and the merchandise, which the said Yicḥaq had, had been laden by him on another pasaže (a kind of ship), travelling to Venice.’ (Maharḥaš, no. 59, 36,37). 170 Shafran 2014: ibid. 171 I thank Professor David Bunis for this information. 172 Bunis 1999a: 493b: the entry ‘‫ראל‬7‫’י‬. ִ 173 Bunis 1999a: Ch. XXI: 345,346. 244 3.3.3.2.2.2.1Syncopated nweso and vweso, and other variants, for nwestro and vwestro174 Below are examples of the syncopated nweso and vweso; we could find such forms in the pre,Modern periods – in the 16th,17th,18th,century texts. However, these forms were also still attested at the turn of the 20th century in representations of popular speech, see example (9) infra; furthermore, we have not retrieved any of these forms in the recent Judezmo database of Ladinokomunita. (1) ‫בואישה פיגה‬, vwesa fiža, ‘your daughter’ (Maharašdam, ˀEven Haˁézer, no. 166, 73). (2) ‫וואישה‬, vwesa (Leḥem Rav, no. 203, 8, – folio 112, page 1, column I). (3) ‫אגורה אי אישטה אורה רישיבי אונה ארטה וואישה‬, agora, en esta ora, resiví una karta vwesa, ‘now, at this time, I have received a letter of yours’ (Maharšax, Part I, no. 49 [2]175, 19,20). (4) ‫ﭏה נואישה שינאגוגה‬, a|la nwesa176 sinagoga, ‘for our synagogue’ (the year 1599, Torat ˀEmet, no. 165, 14). (5) ‫וואישה אزה‬, vwesa kaza, ‘your (sg.) house’ (Torat Ḥayyim, Part I, no. 82 , 9); ‫וואישו‬ ‫מנהג‬, vweso minhag, ‘your (pl.) custom’ (ibid., Part III, no. 56, 16). (6) ‫נואישה אלמה‬, nwesa alma, ‘our soul’ (Maharḥaš, no. 31, folio 152, page 2, column I, eleventh line from the end); ‫איש ריטו די נואישה מאנו‬, eskrito de nwesa mano, ‘written by ourselves’, ‫נואישה ליי‬, nwesa ley, ‘our Torah’ (ibid., no. 59, 50 and 55 respectively). 174 Also found in Old and popular Spanish, and Central and Western Asturian (Luria 1930: §76: 142). Cf. probably dialectal – Northern Castilian of Aragon – nweso appearing most of the times and not nwestro in a 16th,century prayer book Séder Našim (the critical edition is Schwarzwald 2012): In this text, Quintana (2012) argues, we have dialectal forms representing Northern Castilian influenced by Aragonese (ibid: 34). In Mirandese and Galician, we also find syncope as regards the discussed pronouns: [,os,] instead of [,ost,] (Leite de Vasconcellos 1900: Vol. I: §206: 363, Saco y Arce 1868: §39: 63 , respectively). Cf., as to Spanish, also in the present work §3.1.4.1: fn. 151 for locutive plural, and Lapesa §95.4: 392,393 for allocutive plural. 175 176 There are two nos. 49, and the second one is meant. For la nwesa (with a definite article la, because this text reflects influence of Italian), see §3.3.2.2 above. 245 (7) ‫וואישו פיגו‬, vweso fižo, ‘your (sg.) son’, ‫דוואישוש פיג'וש‬, de|vwesos fižos, ‘from your (sg.) sons’, ‫וואישו פאדרי‬, vweso padre, ‘your (pl.) father’, ‫נואישו פאדרי‬, nweso padre, ‘our father’ (Kérem Šelomó, Ḥošen Mišpaṭ, no. 72, 29, 35, 38 and 39 respectively). (8) In La Gwerta de Oro: ‫נואישה‬, nwesa (folio [ii], page 1 middle, the advertisement (‘avizo’); ‫ב'ואישו‬, vweso (folio 3, page 1 bottom). (9) I thank Professor David Bunis for providing me the following instance: In a Salonika newspaper from the beginning of the 20th century, a Jew from Edirne talked about the spoken use of the forms mwešo and vwešo (please note: the locutive beginning with m*; both pronouns with * š*, not *s*). 177 3.3.3.2.2.2.2 Epenthesized n*/mwéstero (or n*/mwéstoro, etc.) and vwéstero (or vwéstoro, etc.), for nwestro and vwestro As part of this epenthesis process, the added vowel may be similar to one of the vowels close to it, i.e., as a result of assimilation178. In light of the following examples collected from different, distant points in time, reflections of these kinds of phonetic alteration are discernible in all stages of Judezmo. Examples from Middle Judezmo: ‫נואישטורו‬, nwéstoro, ‫נואישטורוש‬, nwéstoros (HaMabiṭ, Part I, no. 292, 19 and 15 respectively, but 23 – ‫נואישטרוש‬, nwestros); ‫וואישטירה‬, vwéstera (Maharašdam, Ḥošen Mišpaṭ, no. 52, 101); ‫סיאש‬ B ‫ י‬... ‫בוס דו איסטה תחינה‬B ‫ייו‬ . ‫בילונטאד‬B ‫בואיסטארה‬B ‫אינטאראריש לשלו אי לוגאר י איס‬ B ‫בוס מי שליח ואנדו‬,B Yo vos do esta teḥinná ... ke seaš vos mi šalíaḥ kwando entarareš lešalom en lugar ke es vwéstara veluntad., ‘I ask you this plea ..., for you to be my emissary, when you reach your destination in peace.’ (from Segullot lišˁat nesiˁá). Modern Judezmo: findings in Ladinokomunita: muestoros arvoles, ‘our trees’ (August 25, 2010), muestaras raises, ‘our roots’ (October 28, 2004), muestara ija, ‘our daughter’ (November 17, 2015). 177 178 See more examples (of other words) in footnotes of section §3.3.3.2.2.1.2 above. 246 3.3.3.2.3 The form gwestro for vwestro For the phonetic shift [w] > [gw]/[γw] in initial and medial position, which took place in certain diverse dialects of Judezmo, see Quintana Rodríguez 2006: 112, 363 (map 7), 386 (map 30), 435 (map 78). For a comprehensive enlightening discussion about this phonetic shift in Judezmo (with brief references to Spanish as well), see ibid.: §2.1.2.2: 33,40. Diachronically, wise, Quintana Rodríguez did not indicate documentation of this phonetic alteration in Judezmo during the first centuries after the expulsion from Spain. The examples found by us are also only relatively late examples, starting from the 18th century onwards179: ‫גואיסטראש‬, gwestras (Xulí, Meˁam Loˁez, Berešit, Parashah Vayyéšev, Ch. I, folio 182, page 2, line 38); ‫גואישטרה איג"ה‬, gwestra iža, ‘your daughter’ (ˀAdmat Qódeš, Part I, ˀEven Haˁézer, no. 39, folio 95, page 1, column I, line 14 from the end); ‫גואיסטרה אלייודה‬, gwestra ayuda, ‘your help’ (in a commentary given on Ruth ii 4, in Rut (Ladino and a commentary), Salonika 1924). 3.3.3.3 Modern Judezmo sus (delocutive plural possessor, singular possessed), instead of su While many Romance languages have disparate forms for singular and plural possessor (the latter having been created from Latin genitive plural forms illōrum, lit., ‘of those ones’, ipsōrum, lit., ‘of themselves’180, – see below), some Ibero,Romance languages, including Spanish and Judezmo, were destined to be limited by the adjectival pronoun of the type su* (e.g, Judezmo su(s), suyo(s)/*a(s)), lit., ‘of self’, which is used with reference to both singular and plural possessor. 179 I also deeply thank Professor Ora Schwarzwald – personal correspondence – for informing me that she personally saw gwestro in sources from the 19th century onwards. 180 Cf. an imprecise remark (it is imprecise because in some Romance languages – at least in Sardinian – the form in use goes back to ipsōrum, and not illōrum, and because additional Ibero,Romance languages apart from Spanish use the su* forms), though, generally speaking, a true one, in Grandgent (1907: §387: 162) in his book about Vulgar Latin: “For the plural of the third person, illōru came, in the Romance languages except Spanish, to replace sŭus, etc.”. Furthermore, in Vulgar Latin, “the demonstratives, especially ille, were employed as personal pronouns of the third person.” (ibid.: §60: 34). It should be noted, however, that in the Aragon and Rioja regions, in pre,expulsion Jewish Ibero,Romance texts until the 14th century (hence also in other texts therefrom), the form lur/lures (< illōrum) is still attested (Minervini 1992: Vol. I: §3.2.2: 77). 247 Indeed, French ‘their’ (delocutive plural possessor) is represented by leur(s), Italian – loro (both < Latin illōrum), while singular,possessor pronouns are traced back to Latin su*. The same is true of Romanian – lor, ‘their’ (both with sg. and pl. possessed), while ‘his’/’her’ are denoted by the adjective său, or by the pronominal forms luĭ, ĭeĭ (ones going back to Latin pronouns)181. In Sardinian, ‘their’, accompanying any number of possessed, is insoro/issoro182, originating from the Latin genitive plural form ipsōrum183, ‘of themselves’, whereas ‘his’/’her’ = the adjective suu. On the other hand, Spanish and Judezmo have su(*) for both singular and plural possessor. In certain other Ibero,Romance languages, such as Mirandese184 and Galician185, there are systems of possessive pronouns analogous to that of Spanish. Therefore, to solve the problem of the multiple meanings covered by su*, Spanish and Judezmo make use of semantically more specific solutions: One of them is presented above in §3.3.3.1. Another, partial, solution for this problem adopted in Modern Judezmo186, is the use of the pronoun sus to signify plural possessor, accompanying both a singular and a plural possessed.187 This interesting usage, exclusive to Judezmo, – not existing in Spanish in its historical or regional varieties188 –, began to be amply attested in Judezmo from around the middle of the 19th century189, and has completely restructured the system of delocutive possessive less,loaded pronouns. As a result, we have the following state in Modern Judezmo: 181 Weigand 1903: 25: §38. 182 Rossi 1864: Article III: §91: 29,30; Rubattu 2006: Vol. I: the entry ‘loro (2)’. 183 Rubattu 2006: ibid.: ibid. 184 Leite de Vasconcellos 1900: Vol. I: §206: 363. 185 Saco y Arce 1868: §39: 63. 186 That is to say, the Modern Period of Judezmo: c. 1811 to the present (Bunis 1992: 409,412). 187 This is a partial solution, because the number of the possessor still cannot be known in combination with plural possessed, as shown in table 6 below. 188 Lamouche 1907: 984; Wagner 1914: Part II: §93: 132. Note, however, a curious form (although, again, not among a purely Spanish,speaking population) denoting a delocutive plural possessor in some Latin texts from Islamic Spain, as pointed out by Harvey (1992: 83,84): He claims that there was invented a form sussus (instead of su*) signifying a plural possessor in texts translated into Latin from Arabic. 189 Bunis & Adar,Bunis 2011: §11: 464. 248 singular plural possessor possessor singular su kaza sus kaza sus kazas sus kazas possessed plural possessed Table 6. The system of Modern Judezmo delocutive less,loaded possessive pronouns At the beginning of the 20th century, as researchers describe it, this state of affairs was already highly stable.190 And indeed, in the Satirical Series corpus, we see constant use of sus x (sg.) for ‘their x (sg.)’. However, we encountered one instance of su, appearing in a religious poem – which is not surprising, given that this is a traditional channel, i.e., is likely to preserve older features –: su manera, meaning therein, probably, ‘their manner’ (in Mesažero 5: 1344 (1940) – Bunis 1999b: 410 top). In the 20th century, one may find uses of the sus, explored here, also in Ladino (viz., the Bible and sacred texts translations), although that variety tends to be characterized by its archaism.191 In those modern calque,translation texts, the use of sus actually provides a more literal translation of the Hebrew structures192 than the pre,modern varieties: e.g, sus komíđa, ‘their food’, suz viénto, ‘their breath/spirit’, sus pólvo, ‘their dust’ (Psalms civ 21, 27 – ‫אָ ְכלָם‬, and 29 – ‫רוּחָם‬, ‫ ) ֲעפ ָָרם‬as quoted by Subak (1906: 180); same verses in Psalms, Salonika 1930 (Reprint of 1898): ‫סוס ומידה‬, sus komida, ‫סוס אלמה‬, sus alma, ‫סוס פולבו‬, sus polvo; Rut (Ladino and a commentary), Salonika 1924: ‫סוס בוز‬, sus boz, ‘their voice’ (Ruth i 14, ‫ ;)קוֹלָן‬Haggadah, Salonika 1970: 63 and 100 respectively: '‫אסיי‬ ְ ‫אמ‬ ָ ‫ס ְ ָל‬5ְ ‫ס ֶא‬4‫ס‬, sus esclamaciôn ( ‫שועת‬, ‘their complaint’); ‫ס ַסאנְ ְג ֵרי‬4‫ס‬, sus sangre ( ‫דמ‬, ‘their blood’). 190 See Subak 1906: 130; Lamouche 1907: 984; Wagner 1914: Part II: §93: 132; Bunis 1999a: 122,123: §4.6. 191 On Ladino, see Sephiha 1982; Díaz,Mas 1986: 101; Alvar 1986: Ch. VI: 43,46; Bunis 1996. 192 I thank Professor David Bunis for this observation. 249 Apart from the above,mentioned motivation for this change in Judezmo, which lies in finding a solution that can avoid the problem of the multiple meanings covered by su(s), scholars offer two additional possible stimuli: This process might partly have been caused by French and Italian, which were exerting high influence on Judezmo in the Modern Period of the language (see §2.2.2.2), both having the aforesaid separate forms (leur(s), loro) for plural possessor.193 Further, Judezmo could, in this case, experience interference from the language in contact, Turkish194, – the primary language of the Ottoman Empire, in which we find a similar situation, as demonstrated in table 7 infra: singular plural possessor possessor singular su kaza sus kaza possessed singular plural possessor possessor evi evleri (= ev*leri) possessed sus kazas plural = singular sus kazas possessed plural evleri evleri possessed (= evler*i) (= *evler*leri) Table 7. Analogy between Modern Judezmo and Turkish delocutive possessive pronouns In Turkish, in order to be more distinct, one may add onun, ‘of his, of hers, its’, before evleri in the case of a singular possessor, or onların, ‘of theirs’, when the possessor is plural.195 We would add one more potential general factor that might have caused the discussed shift, taken from the field of historical linguistics: the tendency of language towards symmetry and homogeneity. The case of Judezmo will be shown in the next table: 193 Lamouche 1907: 984. I also thank Professor David Bunis (personal communication). 194 As suggested by Lamouche (1907: 984). I thank Ya’alah Cohen too, for this idea. Thanks to Felix Konovich – personal communication – for providing detailed information about Turkish. 195 Felix Konovich (personal communication). 250 singular plural singular possessor possessor locutive mi possessor allocutive tu plural possessor possessor nwes(tr)o, *a/ locutive mwes(tr)o,*a possessor vwes(tr)o, *a allocutive possessor possessor delocutive su (no opposition) delocutive possessor possessor mi nwestro, *a/ mwestro,*a tu vwestro, *a su sus Table 8. Towards symmetry and homogeneity: change in the use of possessive pronouns in Judezmo: singular possessed Thus we also find in Modern Judezmo, in the case of the enclitic *sen (§3.2.2.5)196: delocutive delocutive delocutive delocutive singular plural singular plural enclitic enclitic enclitic enclitic *lo *los *la *las dative *le *les reflexive *se *sen accusative *lo *los *la *las dative *le *les reflexive *se (no opposition) 196 accusative I thank Professor David Bunis for providing me this Judezmo example of tendency towards symmetry and homogeneity. 251 Here are several examples, in the field of historical phonology, of the tendency of language towards symmetry and homogeneity197: (a) In Proto,Indo,European, velar, labial, and dental consonants had voiced,voiceless pairs, but aspirated ones did not have them (Meier,Brügger & Mayrhofer & Fritz 2010: §L 100: 202; §L 335.2: 256). However, later on in Sanskrit, due to loan words and assimilations, also the aspirated consonants began to possess the voiced,,voiceless distinction (Macdonell 1959: Ch. I: §6: 4). This change is represented by the following tables: Proto+Indo+European voiced voiceless velar ✔ ✔ labial ✔ dental ✔ aspirated ✔ (no opposition) Sanskrit voiced voiceless velar ✔ ✔ ✔ labial ✔ ✔ ✔ dental ✔ ✔ aspirated ✔ ✔ (b) Hock (1991: 153) discusses Celtic developments of Proto,Indo,European [*p] in this context, as presented and reviewed by Blevins 2004: §10.3.1: 281,282: There had been the following situation in dialectal Proto,Indo,European: [*p] [*t] [*k] [*kw] [*b] [*d] [*g] [*gw] Afterwards, [p] was rejected from the system, so that in Proto,Celtic we find: , [*t] [*k] [*kw] [*b] [*d] [*g] [*gw] 197 I am indebted to Dr. Lea Sawicki – personal communication – for initial main information. 252 And as a result of this, [kw], having a labial [w], transformed itself to [p], perhaps in order to fill up the empty slot. In consequence, this was the state in British Celtic: [p] [t] [k] [b], also from former [d] [g] [*gw] which passed out of use (c) An individual case of the general one in (b), regarding Old Irish (ibid.: ibid. ibid. [after Hock 1991: ibid.]): Early Old Irish Later Old Irish , [t] [k] [kw] [p] [t] [k] [b] [d] [g] , [b] [d] [g] In the Satirical Series, we have witnessed an interesting instance in which the new sus created an analogous more,loaded form suyos, also signifying plural possessor, accompanying singular possessed: komo al tyempo suyos, ‘like in their time’ (El Rizón 4: 41 (1929); Bunis 1999b: 370 top). This is not a unique example in Modern Judezmo, – more instances may be observed, such as this one198: Despues ke dishimos ‘Al niseha ve al yeshuoteha ve al nifleoteha’ ampesaron a kantar ‘Maoz Tsur.’ Yo me aviya enkantado... Kuando eskapo la kantika, les demandi la razon i me disheron ke esto es el uzo suyos. I eyos, no saviyan ke mozotros kantavamos ‘Mizmor shir hanukat abayit leDavid’, ‘After we had sung Al niseha ve al yeshuoteha ve al nifleoteha, they began singing Maoz Tsur. I was surprised to hear that. When the song was finished, I asked them to explain this, and they told me that such was their custom. And they did not know that we used to sing (instead) Mizmor shir hanukat abayit leDavid.’ (Ladinokumunita, January 13, 2012). 198 I am indebted to Professor David Bunis for this information and the example. 253 3.3.4 Conclusion This chapter about possessive pronominal constructions began with the various shades of meaning one may ascribe to them. Thereupon we dealt with (in)alienable syntactic structures. In §3.3.2 we described the two types of the Judezmo possessive pronouns and their use. §3.3.3 referred to various other topics: the possessive constructions which include the preposition de, some phonetic alterations, and the Modern Judezmo case of sus. 254 Chapter 3.4 Demonstrative pronouns 3.4.1 Observations Both before the expulsion and thereafter, at least in the Early Middle Period of Judezmo (1493 – c. 17281), we witness a triple opposition of adjectival demonstrative pronouns, este ese akel.2 Afterwards, in Judezmo, ese fell out of use.3 It does exist, however, in Spanish until our days.4 The primary objective of this chapter is to shed light on the differences between the first (este) and second (ese) types in pre3modern Judezmo texts.5 For this purpose, data from 1 Bunis 1992: 405. 2 Which mean, vaguely speaking, ‘this (close to the speaker)’–‘this (close to the addressee)’–‘that (distant from both of them)’. The semantic aspects of the first two pronouns will be focussed on below. 3 However, ese (and its inflection) appears in some periodicals from Vienna in the late 19th and 20th centuries, probably under modern Spanish influence; I owe thanks to Professor David Bunis for this information. 4 Detailed information about Spanish demonstrative pronouns can be found in: Lamiquiz 1967; Iso Echegoyen 1974; Hottenroth 1982; Eguren Gutiérrez 1999; Alexander 2007: 5323; Zulaika Hernández 2007: 1823214; GRAE: Vol. I: 1269 ff. 5 As for the neutral demonstratives, pointing to something general – esto, eso, and we may add also eyo to these – we can remark that, considering the data assembled in Maharašdam, eso and eyo have been found only in prepositional compounds, whereas esto sometimes stands alone, with no preposition. (A somewhat similar conclusion regarding eyo was drawn by Minervini (1992: Vol. I: §3.2.1: 76, and see there a bibliographical reference with respect to the history of eyo) concerning the pre3expulsion Jewish Ibero3Romance texts from Castile and Aragon). Ḥošen Mišpaṭ, no. 5, 53; ibid., no. 313, 14; ˀEven Haˁézer, no. 36, the second page of the text, in the middle of the first column; ibid., no. 8, 11; ibid., no. 30, 16. Ḥošen Mišpaṭ, no. 5, 27, ‫פארה אשטו‬, para esto, ‘for this purpose’; Yoré Deˁá, no. 68, 21, ‫אינישטו‬, en|esto, ‘thereon’; Ḥošen Mišpaṭ, no. 148, 16, ‫אינישטו‬, en|esto, ‘thereon’; ˀEven Haˁézer, no. 166, 69, ‫אי אישטו‬, en esto, ‘thereon’; Ḥošen Mišpaṭ, no. 313, 839, ‫עד אישטו‬, ˁad esto, ‘thus far (were so3and3so’s words)’; ibid., no. 52, 92, ‫פארה אישטו‬, para esto, ‘for this purpose’. Ḥošen Mišpaṭ, no. 15, 42, ‫פור אישו‬, por eso, ‘because of this’; ibid., no. 52, 11, ‫פורישו‬, por|eso, ‘because of this’; ibid., no. 52, 35, ‫שי אישו‬, sin eso, ‘without this’ (in this specific sentence: ‘even without the above3mentioned argument’); ibid., no. 393, 27, ‫שוברי אישו‬, sovre eso, ‘besides this’. However, we have witnessed an instance of independent eso in Maharḥaš, no. 31, folio 152c: ‫יא טומימוש אישו שוברי‬ . . . ‫נוزוטרוש אוימוש די שאליר ו אילייו‬, Ya tomimos sovre nozotros – avemos de salir kon eyo . .., ‘We have taken upon ourselves, – we have to go out (of this place) taking this (i.e., wine) with us ... ’. 255 rabbinical responsa have been collected. We also examined the distribution of este and ese in a Modern Spanish text – the Spanish translation of Weinrich’s Tempus (1968), the first chapter6 – in order to try to better identify the contrast between the two. In conclusion, we have found that este / ese may involve one or more of the following characteristics: indicates the proximity of the referent to indicates the proximity of the referent to the the speaker addressee using it, the speaker refers to what he using it, the speaker refers to what the himself has mentioned beforehand addressee(s) has / have mentioned beforehand unmarked in terms of communication sort marked as a discourse element specific reference10 general, unspecified, loose reference concrete / countable referent abstract / uncountable referent Table 9. Este / ese: shades of meaning Ḥošen Mišpaṭ, no. 148, 68, ‫די איליו‬, de eyo, ‘thereon’; ibid., no. 5, 18, ‫דילייו‬, d|eyo, ‘as a result of this’; ibid., no. 227, 18, ‫אינילייו‬, en|eyo, ‘therein’. 6 Here are the occurrences of the adjectival este and ese, and their other inflectional endings. Illustrative cases will be presented in §3.4.2 below. Este, on pp. 9316: pp. 9 (2 times), 10 (3 times), 11 (7 times), 12 (1 time), 13 (1 time), 14 (3 times), 16 (1 time). Ese: pp. 9 (1 time), 10 (1 time), 11 (1 time), 18 (2 times), 22 (1 time), 31 (1 time), 32 (1 time), 33 (1 time), 35 (1 time). 7 For this opposition, see Bello 1903: §129: 135; GRAE: Vol. I: §17.1a: 1269. Among the examples in §3.4.2: (1)3(8) further down, some may express this meaning. 8 For this contrast, see Bello 1903: §130d: 137. So can be explained several examples in (1), (2), (6), (7) in §3.4.2 below. 9 Consider especially the examples ibid.: (1), (7). 10 Cf., similarly, the French demonstrative ceci (CNRTL, the entry ‘ceci’, B. 132). 11 See (5), (6), (7), (8), (9) in §3.4.2 below. 12 See ibid.: (5) and (9). 256 3.4.2 Selected examples Examples of este were numerous, and we see no need to elaborate on its use in the texts. On the other hand, we shall offer examples of the use of ese, which have been rather rarely encountered in rabbinical responsa, but often clarify the issue of the present chapter. Moreover, in section (9) infra, Modern Spanish examples of este and ese will be presented, which will, in a way, complete the picture as regards the possible meanings of these two types of pronouns. (1) Maharašdam, Ḥošen Mišpaṭ, no. 5: In the following three instances, it seems that ese/esos is marked as a discourse element: ‫ואמוש אאישוש מוסוש‬, Vamos a|esos mosos, ‘Let’s go to those fellows’ (16317); also, in the next two sentences, the speaker refers to the servant whom the addressees have mentioned beforehand; in the following utterance only, there is also proximity (or, more precisely, access) of the referent to the addressees: ‫מיראד די שא אר אאישי מוגאגו‬, Mirad de sakar a|ese mučačo, ‘Mind getting that servant (or: lad) out’ (21322); ‫אי איריש אאישוש מאנסיבוש‬ ‫אי ליש דיריש‬, i ireš a|esos mansevos i les direš, ‘and go to those fellows, and say to them’ (34335). (2) Ibid., ibid., no. 148: The speaker refers to whom the addressees have mentioned beforehand; plus the proximity of the referent, ‘those honourable men’, to the addressees: ‫נו‬ ‫פינשאשיש לו י אישוש נכבדי ווש דיزי‬, No pensáseš lo ke esos nixbadim vos dizen, ‘You (pl.) shouldn’t have thought the way that those honourable men say it to you (pl.)13’ (74375). (3) Ibid., ibid., no. 393: (We could offer no illustrative comments concerning this instance), ‫אי נוש אינטריגו איל ואדירנו י טיניא']ה[ שוברי אישי עני אי לי דימאנדימוש שי טיניאה אוטרו‬ ‫איש ריטו שוברי אישי עני‬, I nos entregó el kwaderno ke tenia sovre ese ˁinyán, i le demandimos si tenia otro eskrito sovre ese ˁinyán, ‘And he handed over to us the notebook which he had on this subject, and we asked whether he had other writings on this subject’ (40342). (4) Ibid., ˀEven Haˁézer, no. 166: The referent – a piece of fabric – is close (or: as if close, i.e., figuratively) to the addressee: ‫ אישטאנדו אלייא‬... ‫אי פארישיינדולי י אישטאבה או דונלו די פאנייו‬ ‫שו היגו דישו דילאנטי מי אישי דונלו די פאניו י לו טומאשי שו היגו‬, I paresyéndole ke estava un donluk 13 Or perhaps: ‘You shouldn’t have been considerate of, and taken into account, what those honourable men say to you’. 257 de panyo ..., estando ayá su ižo, dišo delante mi: Ese donluk de panyo ke lo tomase su ižo, ‘And when a piece of wool soldierly fabric came into his view ..., in the presence of his son, he asked, in front of me, that his son take that wool fabric.’ (47352). (5) Maharšax, Part I, no. 49 [2]14: The contrast between ese and este may be that of general, unspecified, loose, plus abstract reference, vs. specific, plus concrete reference, respectively: : ‫טודו דאנייו אי אינטיריש ימי ויניירי די אישי פלייטו‬, todo danyo i interés ke|me venyere de ese pleyto, ‘any damage or interest that I would incur as a result of this confrontation’ (49350). : ‫אגורה אי אישטה אורה רישיבי אונה ארטה וואישה‬, agora, en esta ora, resiví una karta vwesa, ‘now, at this time, I have received a letter of yours’ (19320); ‫אישטי וריאו אישטה די פרישה‬, este korreo está de prisa, ‘this post is being written in a rush’ (30); ‫אינישטי פיגו‬, en|este fečo, ‘on this matter’ (53354). (6) Maharšax, Part II, no. 134: The contrast between ese and este may be that of general, unspecified, loose reference, vs. specific reference, respectively (see in the case of ese the unindentifiability of the people): : Additionally, it should be noted that the speaker refers to whom the addressee has mentioned beforehand; the referents – the witnesses – are close (or: as if close, figuratively) to the addressee: ‫י טיניש יי שו‬ ‫אישוש דוש או טריש עדי‬, Esos dos o tres ˁedim ke teneš – kyen son?, ‘Who are these (or perhaps: those) two or three witnesses whom you have?’ (28). . : ‫ אزאר אישטה מוסה‬, kazar esta mosa, ‘to give this girl in marriage’ (13); ‫ מראוב‬15‫אישטאש שו פאלאב'בראש‬, Estas son palavras meReˀuvén., ‘These have been Reuben’s words.’ (27); ‫נו שי נאדה שוברי אישטי אבزו‬, no se nada sovre este kavzo, ‘I know nothing about this matter’ (38339); ‫מוש לייאמו אישטי ראוב הנ'ל‬, mos yamó este Reˀuvén hann[izkar] l[eˁel], ‘this aforementioned Reuben called us’ (43344); ‫אי שוב'ייו אישטי מאנשיוו‬, i suvyó este mansevo, ‘and this fellow went up’ (47); ... ‫אישטאנדו אי אישטה ח ירה ודרישה אה אישטי עדות די אישטי עד‬, Estando 14 15 There are two nos. 49, and the second one is meant. Sic. 258 en ḥaqirá uderišá a ˁedut de ˁed, ..., ‘At this inquiry into this testimony given by this witness, ...’ (52353). (7) Raˀanaḥ, no. 20: In the following opposition of ese and este, it seems that ese may be somewhat less specific, and is marked as a discourse element, whereas este is specific, and unmarked in terms of communication sort: A woman testifies, reporting on the conversation she had with a muleteer, using ese during it; below are sentences uttered by her in this dialogue; the referent – the killed – is metaphorically close to the addressee, because it is the addressee who was the eyewitness of the murder: ‫ יי איש אישי ג'ודיו י מאטארו‬, Kyen es ese džudyó ke mataron?, ‘Who is that Jew they killed?’ (45); ‫ יי איש אישי ג'ודיו‬, Kyen es ese džudyó?, ‘Who is that Jew?’ (48). Muleteer’s words in the course of this talk: He refers to the killed person, whom the woman has mentioned beforehand (having asked the muleteer as to who was that killed person): ‫אישי פירו‬, ese perro, ‘that dog (as a term of abuse)’ (46); ‫אישי איש איל י מאטארו‬, Ese es el ke mataron., ‘That is the one they killed.’ (51). However, having given an account of this conversation, this woman addresses the evidence gatherers employing este in a more formal context: ɺ‫ וניל מישמו אישטי אטריגי‬, kon|el mismo este katridží, ‘with this same muleteer’ (59). Hence we suppose that este, in contrast with ese, has a specificity feature (cf. here the use of mismo: el mismo este, ‘this same’), and ese is marked as a discourse element. (8) Mahariṭ, Part II, ˀEven Haˁézer, no. 35: : General, unspecified, loose reference: ‫ג‬ . ‫ שי פאלייו פור אישוש אנפוש די אישאש אלדיאש סביבו ]ת[ באיאנדור‬... ‫איל אבאלייו שויו‬, Gam el kavayo suyo ... se fayó por kanpos de aldeas sevivo[t] Bayandur, ‘Also, the horse of his ... was found somewhere in these (or: those) fields of these (or: those) villages surrounding Bayındır’ (2153219 – at the end of the interpellation). (9) Spanish examples from Weinrich 1968: Ch. I: The contrast between ese and este in of the following instances is that of abstract/loose reference (ese), vs. concrete/specific reference (este). Furthermore, see our 259 additional semantic observations attached to the examples. We demonstrated here only illustrative instances: : Concrete, specific reference: éste es el tipo de carta, ‘this is the kind of letter’ (p. 9); este esquema, ‘this indicatory model’ (p. 10); en este período, ‘in this sentence’ (p.11).16 Ibid.: Ch. I: : Metaphoric proximity to the reader: The referent – ‘this sign’ (in the example below) – may be metaphorically close to the addressee, the reader of these words; that is to say, the matter discussed is, as it were, presented to the reader: y desde allí tiene validez hasta que esa señal queda anulada por la que marca un nuevo tiempo, ‘and, beginning at that point, it is of equal validity, until this sign has been annulled by another one, which represents a new time’ (p. 10); thus also in the following examples: proceden ... según ese esquema, ‘behave according to this model’ (p. 11); Todo esto ya lo he mencionado brevemente en este libro y ahora vuelvo a limitarme a escueta indicación., ‘I have mentioned all this briefly in this book, and now I limit myself again to this short indication.’ (Ch. VII: p. 198). Abstract reference: esas premisas, ‘these premises’ (Ch. I: p. 18); en esas ciencias, ‘in these sciences’ (p. 22); Esa es también la razón que ..., ‘That is also the reason why ...’ (p. 31); below, este bears a concrete/specific shade of meaning, as opposed to the abstract reference signalled by ese: En posibilidad de caso debería esperarse, pues, que ambos grupos ofreciesen la conocimiento., ‘In this case one should expect, then, both groups to provide for the possibility of this knowledge.’ (Ch. VII: p. 203). General, loose, and abstract reference: esa selección “apriórica”, ‘this a priori selection’ (Ch. I: p. 35336). 16 Additional examples: de este período, ‘of this sentence’ (p. 11); toda esta oración, ‘this whole sentence’ (p. 11); estas repeticiones, ‘these repetitions’ (p. 11); La fecha de una carta designa el Tiempo en que ésta empieza a escribirse., ‘The date of a letter denotes the time when it starts to be written.’ (p. 11); Este es un dato bastante exacto, ‘This is a rather exact piece of information’ (p. 11); de este libro, ‘of this book’ (p. 11: fn. 3); este paralelismo, ‘this parallelism’ (p. 14); ¿Pero es que los tiempos no son de esta especie?, ‘But is it that tenses are not of this kind?’ (p. 14); en esta versión, ‘in this (book) version’ (p. 14: fn. *); estos dos testimonios, ‘these two pieces of evidence’ (p. 16). A few more attestations from another chapter: Los ejemplos son poco más o menos como este: ..., ‘The examples are essentially like this one: . ..’ (Ch. VI: 175); en esta oración, ‘in this sentence’ (ibid.); en esta forma, ‘in this manner’ (ibid.). 260 Abstract reference, and also the aforesaid metaphorical proximity to the reader: Esas desviaciones las hemos calificado provisionalmente de excepciones, ‘We have provisionally treated these deviations as exceptions’ (Ch. V: p. 137). Loose reference, and also the aforesaid metaphorical proximity to the reader: Si se obstina en que se repitan los tiempos es porque deben de ser algo muy importante, algo que debe estar presente en cada momento de la comunicación, si es que cada una de partes ha de contener información esencial., ‘If it (i.e., the language) stubbornly persists in repeating the tenses, it is because they have to be something very important, something that has to be present at any moment of the communication, if each of these parts (i.e., of a sentence, of an utterance) is supposed to contain essential information.’ (Ch. I: p. 33). 3.4.3 Conclusion The semantics of the pronoun type ese, the pronoun which, generally speaking, passed out of existence at some point after the Early Middle Period of Judezmo, is a complex topic that we attempted to deal with in this chapter. The case of ese warrants further study. 261 Chapter 3.5 Levels of address 3.5.1 Preliminaries This chapter does not aspire to encompass the richness and breadth of ways of address in modern and earlier Judezmo, nor to treat this vast topic comprehensively. Rather, our goal here is to raise some issues concerning the three contrasting ways of address in Judezmo: allocutive (i.e., 2nd person) singular – allocutive plural – delocutive (i.e., 3rd person), and to discuss these three ways of allocution, which sometimes co)exist in a given stage or variety of Judezmo, – all of these three “layers” in a single language system –, and also in certain varieties of Spanish1. In Spanish linguistics, the first form of address is often termed tuteo2, (the term is derived from ‘tú’), viz. use of the allocutive singular forms, and the second, voseo3 (from ‘vos’) – the allocutive plural forms. These two forms, together with the third, delocutive form, offer a linguistic tool for splitting social relationships or dynamics, into three spheres.4 For additional details on these manners of address in Modern Judezmo, see Bunis 1999a: 106: §3.1; 180)182: §9.2.1. Threefold systems may also be observed, for example, in Czarist Russia, archaic or dialectal Slovene5, and Marathi (India)6; however, in the above)listed Czarist 1 Lapesa 1981: §132.1: 579)580. 2 See GRAE: Vol. I: §16.17a: 1261. 3 See ibid.: ibid.: §4.7a: 205. 4 We are talking about the state when all of the three ways existed contemporaneously in a single system. But possibly, in some chrono)regional systems of Judezmo, there are less than three. 5 Cf. the language situation of Russian as seen in A. Chekhov’s The Cherry Orchard (Chekhov 1963): The division is roughly as follows: Intimate friends and relatives used allocutive sg. forms; the politer way was allocutive pl.; servants, when speaking of their masters, in indirect reference, employed delocutive pl. (see Magnus 1916: §83: 218). Curiously, a somewhat similar state is found in archaic or dialectal Slovenian, see Wikipedia: the entry ‘T)V distinction’: Cf. a tombstone of Jožef Nahtigal in Dobrova, archaic Slovenian, from the year 1860, in which the delocutive plural forms are used for a singular referent: Tukai počivajo Častiu Gospod Jožef Nahtigal ... Rojeni v Ljubljani ... umerli ... Bog jim daj večni mir inpokoj, literal translation: ‘Here (they) lie [počivajo] the honorable Jožef Nahtigal ... they were born [rojeni] in Ljubljana ... they died [umerli] ... God grant them [jim] eternal peace and rest.’) 262 Russian, and archaic or dialectal Slovene, the third layer, delocutive plural, is/was not, perhaps, employed as address but rather solely in indirect reference (e.g., speaking about someone). Diverse languages, as well as varieties of Spanish, possessing such threefold systems, have different kinds of semantic splits. We shall elaborate upon this in §3.5.2 below. In variations of Spanish, voseo is not always perfectly separated morphologically, – some elements may be allocutive singular: The latter may be expressed in verbal forms7, and sometimes these are subject pronouns – tú in place of vos, but in this case there is a distinction in the verb.8 However, one may, at any rate, define such states as voseo, since there is some certain allocutive plural differentiation, be it the subject pronoun or the verbal ending. 3.5.2 Diversified semantic splits of threefold systems: Judezmo as compared to certain variations of Spanish The triple system of Judezmo (where it is/was in use) can be very approximately equated with that of medieval Spanish9, or that of major part of modern Uruguay10. On the other hand, in certain Spanish threefold)system regions of the Americas, the splits are completely different: Voseo is employed in cases of familiarity, tuteo – when conversing with strangers, to whom the relations are close enough, and Usted – honorifically. That is, as GRAE puts it, tuteo is a “grado intermedio”, an intermediate rank, between voseo and Usted in those places.11 We encounter 6 Helmbrecht (at WALS) writes: “... in Marathi (Indo)Aryan; India)[, t]here is a form tū used for family members and intimate persons, two forms with the same degree of respect te and he ... for people with higher social status, and an extra polite form āpaṇ ... for priests and teachers and in very formal contexts (cf. Pandharipande 1997: 375) 394).” 7 For instance, vos is used, but the verb is conjugated as tú, as in vos tienes. 8 For instance, tú is used, but the verb is conjugated as vos, as in tú tenés. Discussions of these mentioned two types of hybrid can be seen in GRAE: Vol I: §16.17b: 1261)1262; Lapesa 1981: §96.2: 394; §132.2)132.3: 581)582; cf. Bello 1903: §113: 126)127: fn. 2. 9 GRAE: Vol. I: §16.15o: 1254: [As distinguished from vos] “Seguía manteniéndose el uso de tú ... para dirigirse a los niños, a veces a los sirvientes, y a otros adultos en situaciones de intimidad o de gran familiaridad.”, ‘Tú continued to be used ... to address children, sometimes servants, and other adults in situations of intimacy or great familiarity.’ And see Lapesa’s quotations in §3.5.5.1 infra. 10 GRAE: Vol. I: §16.15n: 1253)1254. 11 GRAE: Vol. I: §16.15m: 1253; §16.17ñ: 1265)1266. 263 other curious splits12: In Guatemala, tuteo in male conversations, may signal homosexuality. In the same country, the use of voseo might be replaced by tuteo on solemn occasions, or to add a sarcastic or pejorative connotation. In Argentina and Uruguay, until the mid 20th century, tuteo was used in letters, whereas voseo was used when addressing the same person face to face. 3.5.3 The allocutive plural forms: Vos, vozotros/3as, and vozós/3ás For the allocutive plural forms, – see §3.1.4.2.1. 3.5.4 Kinds of delocutive address in Judezmo Whereas one frequently encounters solely grammatical delocutive elements (verbal endings, the pronouns el, eya, etc.) to indicate delocutive address – which is a completely natural state in Judezmo13 –, there are also instances of a title accompanying those elements.14 Just as there are, or were, variegated formal or honorific appellations attached to delocutive in Spanish15, we find the same situation in Judezmo. Some examples found in our corpus are (we have highlighted in bold the delocutive units): (I) To a single addressee: (a) Su mersé(d) is used in Maharašdam, ˀEven Haˁézer, no. 166, 67 (su mersé el kwal su edad ...) and 71; in Jacob Xulí’s Me’am Lo’ez on Exodus, from 1733: Nozotros no savíyamos ke venia ø su mersed ... 16; this form was also documented in the Monastir dialect17. 12 As presented in GRAE: Vol. I: §16.17ñ: 1265)1266. 13 Lapesa 1981: §125.5: 529; Bunis 2016: 334. 14 As for Spanish, – as a rule, the title (Usted, or certain others) goes with the delocutive (GRAE: Vol I.: §16.1b: 1162). However, in certain systems of Spanish (and possibly Judezmo as well), there are instances in which the title is used with the allocutive plural: Thus, cf. in Andalusia: ustedes hacéis, ustedes vais, ustedes os sentáis (Lapesa 1981: §132.4: 582; §122.5: 512). In addition, it is important to note, that in this study, we do not talk about vocatives, used parenthetically, e.g. : ‫שיניור דוטור פור ינו ווש אزאש‬, Senyor dotor, porké|no vos kazaš?, ‘Doctor, why don’t you get married?’ (Maharašdam, ˀEven Haˁézer, no. 166, 10); . . . ‫שאביריש שיניוריש י‬, Savereš, senyores, ke ..., ‘Know, sirs, that ... ’ (Raˀanaḥ, no. 20, 8). 15 See RAE Grammar 1771: Part II: Ch. III: Article IV: 345)346; Hanssen 1910: 150)151: §47.3; GRAE: Vol. I: §16.1b: 1162. 16 García Moreno 2004: §III.3.2.1.1: 223. 264 (b) Vwesa senyoria: Maharašdam, ˀEven Haˁézer, no. 166, 12 (pensa ø vwesa senyoria ...) and 13)14 (Sepa ø vwesa senyoria ...). (II) To a plural addressee: Sus mersedes: in Torat Ḥayyim, Part II, no. 17, 26)27 (Savrán sus mersedes ...); in Jacob Xulí’s Me’am Lo’ez on Exodus, from 1733: Para ke tomaron sus mersedes tanto travažo de kaminar todo este kamino?18; this form was also documented in the Monastir dialect19. In our opinion, delocutive address, as opposed to allocutive, may be compared to the social behaviour practised by many cultures, in which one does not look in the eyes of those who have a higher status. Thus, in avoiding eye contact, you is, as it were, transformed into he; so, Judezmo su(s) mersed(es), el, eya, etc. instead of vos/vozotros(3as)/vozós(3ás) and tu. We would like to provide several such examples: In Vietnam, “Some Vietnamese students may not look in the eyes of the teacher; this is not because of disrespect, but out of fear or reverence, so to speak.”20; in Korea, a King’s servants could not cast a look at his face; further, below are some quotations referring to different cultures, taken from the Internet: (1) He cites the example of various cultures in which children do not look in the eyes of their parents as a sign of respect when parents speak to them. “But in Canada, looking into a parent’s eyes signifies that you are paying attention,” ...; (2) a Zulu maid would require permission to attend the funeral of her “father” — which was ANY elder male in her community .... To NOT look in the eyes was a sign of respect and not (for the Zulu woman) as sign of untrustworthiness – as interpreted by the white woman in this vignette.; (3) Handshake in the U[nited] A[rab] E[mirates] is a special ritual, manifestation of sincere warmth and friendliness in relation to the interlocutor, so it takes a little longer than we are accustomed to. Saying goodbye, shake the hand, more appreciated person for you – with two hands. At this moment, do not look in the eyes, as well as you shouldn’t be swinging the other hand or hold it in your pocket.; (4) Then comes along a Republican white woman, who had the blatant nerve to revisit past segregation habits when 17 Luria 1930: §82: 146. 18 García Moreno 2004: §III.3.2.1.1: 223. 19 Luria 1930: §82: 146. 20 Nguyen 2002: 4. 265 “Colored persons” could not look in the eyes of a white woman and had to step off the pavement and into the streets to allow her to pas[s]. 3.5.5 Matters on the paradigmatic and the syntagmatic levels (axes) 3.5.5.1 The paradigmatic level (axis): some aspects of the contrast allocutive singular address– allocutive plural address in the 16th)17th)century rabbinical responsa In 16th)17th)century rabbinical responsa, in betrothal ceremonies (kiddushin), the woman is at times addressed by means of allocutive singular forms, but sometimes allocutive plural forms have been encountered – seemingly, the latter being used not necessarily when the lady is highly esteemed: (1) Allocutive singular: '‫אישטו טי דו פור ידושי‬, Esto te do por qidduši[m]., ‘This I give to you as kiddushin.’; ‫אישטוש טי דו פור דושי‬, Estos te do por qiddušim., ‘These I give to you as kiddushin.’ (Maharí ben Leb, Part II, no.7, 15 and 38, respectively); ‫ייש אישטוש דו אדוש פור‬ ‫ דושי פארה אונה אדינה‬, Kyes estos dukados por qiddušín para una kadena?, ‘Do you want these ducats as kiddushin, for a necklace?’ (Divré Rivot, no. 3, 12)13 (also in Maharašdam, ˀEven Haˁézer, no. 8)21). (2) Allocutive plural: ‫שינייורה אישטו ווש דו פור דושי‬, Senyora, esto vos do por qiddušín., ‘My lady, this I give to you as kiddushin.’ (Divré Rivot, no. 290, 28)29); ‫פלומה טומה אישטה‬ ‫מאנשאנה י ווש דו פור דושי‬, Paloma, tomá esta mansana ke vos do por qiddušín., ‘Paloma, take this apple which I hereby give you as kiddushin.’ (Maharašdam, ˀEven Haˁézer, no. 12, 12)13); ‫בונא דונא טומה אישטי אניליו אי מירה י ווש לו דו פור דושי‬, Bona dona, tomá este aniyo i mirá ke vos lo do por qiddušín., ‘My good lady (or: Bona Dona as her name), take this ring, and take notice that I hereby give it to you as kiddushin.’ (Maharašdam, ˀEven Haˁézer, no. 76, 5)6). 21 The whole passage can be seen in §3.2.1.2.2.2.1. 266 Additionally, in two passages from the 17th)18th centuries, we find dialogues of married couples, in one of which the wife speaks to her husband in the following manner22: ‫יו נו יאירו י‬ ‫וואישה אزיינדה‬ ‫גאשטי"ש נאדה די וואיש‬, Yo no kyero ke gasteš nada de vwesa azyenda., ‘I do not want you ‫"ש‬ to use anything from your property.’ (Paraḥ Maṭṭé Aharón, Part I, no. 121, 14)15); in the second, the husband, before death, addresses his wife, also in the form of allocutive plural (Mixtam LeDavid, Yoré Deˁá, no. 30, 15, and 24)26). In order to explain the above examples more satisfactorily, it is worthwhile to present two following aspects: (a) We would like to demonstrate Lapesa’s (1981) description about address in Spanish in the Middle Ages: “In Spain of the early 16th century, tú was being employed when conversing with someone inferior23, or in case of a close personal relationship; in other cases, even ones of greatest familiarity, vos was in use.24 As the generalization of vuestra merced > usted as honorary treatment had occurred, tú regained its position at the expense of vos in colloquial speech, and supplanted it during the 17th, and perhaps part of the 18th, centuries.”25 “The sensitivity of our ancestors set tú aside for intimate relations, or when treating persons in a lower position, and thus vos lost its exclusively plural value, (and became in use also for addressing a single individual), because except for cases of great familiarity, it would have been impolite to use tú addressing somebody who was not inferior. Alternatively, one had to utilize vuestra merced or vuestra señoría; frequent repetition resulted in 22 The complete text may be read in the preface of this dissertation. 23 And thus, indeed, in Maharḥaš, no. 35, folio 162, page 2, column II bottom, a female orphan – a servant, addressed by her master by means of allocutive singular elements: ‫פור י טי פ'ויישטי‬, Porké te fuyiste?, ‘Why have you run away?’. 24 And see, in this respect, the statements written by a Ladinokomunita user below in this subsection, about these same features in pre)modern Judezmo. 25 Translation of: ... en la España del 1500 tú era el tratamiento que se daba a los inferiores, o entre iguales cuando había máxima intimidad; en otros casos, aun dentro de la mayor confianza, se hacía uso de vos. Al generalizarse vuestra merced > usted como tratamiento de respeto, tú recobró terreno a costa de vos en el coloquio familiar, hasta eliminarlo durante el siglo XVII y quizá parte del XVIII. (Lapesa 1981: §132.1: 579)580). 267 a move from vuestra merced to vuesa merced, vuesarced, vuesançed, etc., and finally to vuacé, vucé, vuced, vusted, usted; in the 17th century, these latter forms had been a feature of servants’ speech, or cocky attitude26; only afterwards usted was brought into general use. Similarly, usía and vuecencia originated from vuestra señoría, vuestra excelencia, with intermediate forms such as vuecelencia, vusiría; and señor, placed as a title before a name or an adjective, turned into seor, seó, and so (so gandul, ‘Mr. Lazy’, so pícaro, ‘Mr. Sly’ in everyday language nowadays).”27 We realize that the categories denoted by allocutive singular, allocutive plural, and delocutive address – like anything else in language – were undergoing constant change. Hence, it is difficult for us – speaking our modern languages having their own peculiar splits in ways of address – to determine exactly which categories were signified by allocutive singular, allocutive plural, and delocutive address at various points in those times. Moreover, one should not forget the cultural factor: The way one treated one’s friend, spouse, wife, parents etc. could be significantly different from how this is accepted nowadays. In this regard, it is important to cite a Ladinokumunita member from Turkey, who wrote (see the whole post in Appendix 2, section (2)): Komo vos es respektivo, por kavza de respekto personas serkanas tambien uzavan el vos. Esto, lo meldi en unos dokumentos. Ma una otra prueva (?proof, kanýt) ke savemos es ke, en la kantiga “Avridme Galanika”, los enamorados se yaman vos..., ‘Since vos is used when speaking respectfully, on account of respect people in a close relationship also used to employ vos. I observed this in certain (old) documents. Another proof 26 As for this latter, the so)called descortesía (Blas Arroyo 2005: 21) case (such as seen in an English sentence, said cynically, I didn’t mean to actually hurt you, Your Highness), cf. an analogous case in Haketia (Moroccan Judeo) Spanish) – Wagner 1931: 230. Similarly, in modern peninsular Spanish (Blas Arroyo 2005: 21, I am indebted to Dr. Aitor García Moreno for this periodical). 27 Translation of: La puntillosidad de nuestros antepasados relegó el tú a la intimidad familiar o al trato con inferiores y desvalorizó tanto el vos que, de no haber gran confianza, era descortés emplearlo [= tú] con quien no fuese inferior. En otro caso, había que tratar de vuestra merced o vuestra señoría; la repetición originó el paso de vuestra merced a vuesa merced, vuesarced, vuesançed, etc., y finalmente a vuacé, vucé, vuced, vusted, usted; en el siglo XVII estas últimas formas eran propias de criados y bravucones; sólo después hubo de generalizarse usted. De igual manera usía y vuecencia nacieron de vuestra señoría, vuestra excelencia, con formas intermedias como vuecelencia, vusiría; y señor, colocado como título delante de un nombre o adjetivo, degeneró en seor, seó y so (so gandul, so pícaro del actual lenguaje vulgar). (Lapesa 1981: §95.4: 392)393). 268 that we find is the song Open the Door to Me, Thou Graceful Maiden, in which the beloved addressed each other using vos in it.28’ (b) In Judezmo, and all languages overall, there may be some sort of instability and flexibility of how one addresses the other. Thus, for example, in Divré Rivot, no. 3 (also in the parallel text in Maharašdam, ˀEven Haˁézer, no. 8)29: In one of the testimonies, it is reported that the woman said to the man: (allocutive pl.) ... ‫פונילדוש אי שואילו‬, Poneldos en swelo ..., ‘Put them on the floor ...’ (6), but in the other (reported by another witness), he was addressed by her – as the witness formulated it – by way of an allocutive sg. morpheme: ‫פו אונו איניל שואילו‬, Pon(ø uno en|el swelo., ‘Put one on the floor.’ (13). See an illuminating discussion of this subject, concerning the language of Jacob Xulí’s Me’am Lo’ez on Exodus, the year 1733, in García Moreno (2004: §III.3.2.1.1: 222)226, especially §III.3.2.1.1 (3): 225)226). 3.5.5.2 The syntagmatic level (axis) 3.5.5.2.1 Combining of the spheres While not forgetting the linguistically crucial importance of the said opposition, we should note, however, that occasionally, there is no absolute separation between these spheres of address, viz., they might be combined30. Firstly, we find in both Spanish and Judezmo appellations such as vuestra merced/vwestra mersed31, in which, on the one hand, there is the allocutive plural possessive pronoun (i.e., ‘vwestr)’), but the syntactical agreement, on the other, is delocutive, correlating with mersed. Secondly, this collocability might be present at the sentence level as well32, as seen in the following Judezmo instances (direct address in all instances): 28 Indeed, see some words of this song in §3.1.4.2.1. 29 The whole passage can be seen in §3.2.1.2.2.2.1. 30 This combination too, is, of course, supposed to signal certain connotations, and this topic requires further investigation. García Moreno (2004) touched upon some aspects of this issue (see there §III.3.2.1.1 (2): 224)225). 31 E.g., in §3.5.5.2.2 infra, the first example (a letter) (there we find a syncopated form, vwesa mersed). 32 Cf. the same in Polish: Wyobraź sobie sytuację kiedy siedzisz sam/a w domu, na dworze Pana deszcz a Ty nie masz co ze sobą zrobić. W telewizji lecą te same powtórki seriali i filmów .. ., ‘Imagine (allocutive sg.) a situation in 269 (1) Allocutive plural + delocutive: ‫ על‬... ‫ מי איש ריביש י אוש איש ריבא‬... ... ‫ שו וילונטאד‬... ... ‫ שאבריש שיניור י‬... ‫כ ראיתי לכתוב אישטא בריבי אי רישפואישטא די לא שוייא‬, ... sudeloc. veluntad ... ... me eskrivišalloc. pl. ke osalloc. pl. eskriva ... ˁal ken raˀiti lixtov esta breve [letra33] en respwesta de la suyadeloc.. ... Savrešalloc. pl., senyor, ke ..., ‘... your good will ... ... you write to me that I am to write to you ... therefore, I saw it necessary to write this brief one (viz., letter) in response to yours. ... Know, sir, that ...’ (HaMabiṭ, Part III, folio 137, page 2, column II middle, – no. 82, 87)92). (2) Allocutive singular + allocutive plural: In Jacob Xulí’s Me’am Lo’ez on Exodus (from Constantinople, 1733): Between two acquaintances – Reˀuvén to Šimˁón: Yo vosalloc. pl. mando tal merkansia; toparé grasya en tusalloc. sg. ožos si pwedrásalloc. sg. venderla toda o partida de eya tanto ke no verásalloc. sg. de ponerlo todo en panyo enserrado ..., ‘I am sending you these goods; it would be greatly appreciated if you could sell them, or part of them, so that you should not have to wrap it all in a piece of cloth ...’ (García Moreno 2004: §III.3.2.1.1: 225). (3) Allocutive plural + delocutive: A daughter converses with her father: ‫ מי‬,‫סינייור פאדרי‬ ‫ מה סי מי ייריש‬.‫ נו לו בו אה טומאר‬,‫ אה איסטי סינייור פאדרי‬... ... ! ‫ נו‬... ‫איסטה סינטיינדו? ייו נו לו יירו‬ ‫ מי פור מארידו אל י בינו ו‬0 ‫ די‬.‫ מילוס ו אוטרו‬0 ‫ די‬, ‫ אי דארמי ידושי‬,‫אزאר איסטה טאדרי מיزמו‬ .‫בוחור‬, Sinyor padre, me está(ødeloc. sintyendo? Yo no lo kyero. ... Non! ... ... A este, sinyor padre, no lo vo a tomar. Ma si me kyerešalloc. pl.34 kazar esta tadre mezmo, i darme kidušim, dé( ødeloc.(melos kon otro. De(ødeloc.(me por marido al ke vino kon Boxor., ‘Honoured father, do you hear what I am saying? I do not want him. ... No! ... ... Father, I am not going to marry this man. But if you wish to marry me off this very afternoon, and bestow kiddushin on me, do that which you are sitting (allocutive sg.) alone at home, rain is falling on your (delocutive sg.) window, and you (allocutive sg.) have got (allocutive sg.) nothing to do with yourself. The TV is broadcasting the same repetitions of serials and movies ... ’ (Internet). 33 This noun, ‫ליטרא‬, exists in the text, several lines afterwards. 34 There is some chance, however, that, theoretically, the daughter could have referred to father and mother here, (her mother is mentioned within the non)immediate environment). If so, then this example is irrelevant. I thank Professor David Bunis for this remark. 270 with another: Make me take for a husband that one who came with Boxor.’ (El Rizón 13: 4 (1938); Bunis 1999b: 605 top)middle). 3.5.5.2.2 Transition or a switch to a more informal way of address As for transition or a switch to a more informal way of address, there are examples of the following two types, in Judezmo and other languages: TYPE (1): Relations becoming smoother, more cordial, throughout the interaction episode, as indicated by transition to (a) more informal form(s) of address: For a modern Iberian) Spanish example of a conversation between a seller and a costumer, see Blas Arroyo 2005: 1735. As for Judezmo, see instances (allocutive pl. > allocutive sg.; delocutive sg. > allocutive sg.) from Isaac Magriso’s Me’am Lo’ez (the 18th century) in Bunis & Adar)Bunis 2011: §8.2.2.1: 434.36 The same may be seen in personal letters; below are two instances (delocutive sg. > allocutive pl.): Maharšax, Part I, no. 49 [2]37, 41)44: ‫איש ריטורה[ נו שירה מאש שינו פ'אزיר‬/‫דיאישטה ] ארטה‬ ‫איש ריטורה[ שויאה אי לו ואל מי איש ריבי וואישה מירסיד י בוש‬/‫לי שאביר ומו ריסיבי אונה ] ארטה‬ ... ‫ גו די ראוב‬%‫איש ריביירה פור איל פי‬, De|esta [karta/eskritura] no será mas sino fazer ledeloc. saver komo resiví una [karta/eskritura] suyadeloc., en lo kwal me eskrivedeloc. vwesa mersed ke vosalloc. pl. eskrivyera por el fižo de Reˀuvén …, ‘This is nothing else but to let you know that I received yours (i.e., your letter/note), where you write to me asking me to write to you with regard to Reˀuvén’s son …’38. Palestine, the 20th century39: ‫ אי ו‬... ... ‫לכבוד ריבי יוצפ אלישר – לי ארוגו ס']ינייור[ יוצפ י‬ ... ‫איסטו בוס ארוגו י מי דיש‬, Lixvod ribí Yusef40 ˁElyašar – Ledeloc. arogo, s[enyor] Yusef, ke ... ... 35 I am indebted to Dr. Aitor García Moreno for this periodical. 36 Cf. also example (2) in §3.5.5.2.1 above. 37 There are two nos. 49, and the second one is meant. 38 Note that here appears also the honorific phrase vwesa mersed; as mentioned in §3.5.4 above, the correlative morphemes of such phrases are delocutive, as indeed we see here. I took advantage of the translation made by Benaim (2011: 455). 39 I thank Matan Stein for this text. 271 I kon esto vosalloc. pl. arogo ke me dešalloc. pl. ..., ‘To Ribí Yusef ˁElyašar – I am humbly asking you, Sir Yusef, to ... ... Therefore, I ask you to give me ...’. TYPE (2): An ad hoc switch to a more informal way of address in cases of temporary overbearingness or familiarity towards the allocutor (e.g., anger, criticism, contempt; also generosity). Examples: (a) Criticism (Judezmo): See the full text of the responsum in Torat Ḥayyim, Part I, no. 82 in §3.1.3.2, example (1): Allocutive plural forms were employed by Reˀuvén talking to Šimˁón in line 7 onwards, but then we find allocutive singular elements – Reˀuvén being in an agitated state – in lines 22)23: ‫מי באלה פור י נו מי לה יטאשטי ו טו רופה‬, Mi bala – por ke no me la kitaste kon tu ropa?, ‘Why haven’t you taken out my roll together with your clothes?’; then we see clear allocutive plural forms again in lines 28 and 36. (b) Contempt (Russian): A blonde joke in Russian (Internet): Заходит блондинка в самолёт и садится у окна. К ней подходит мужчина и говорит: ) Девушка пройдитеalloc. pl. на своё место. ) Мне и тут хорошо. ) Ну тогда бери)øalloc. sg. штурвал и взлетай)øalloc. sg.!, ‘This blonde enters the airplane and sits near a window. A man approached her and said: ) Madam, proceedalloc. pl. to your seat, please. ) I'm comfortable enough here too. ) Then holdalloc. sg. the steering wheel and take offalloc. sg.!’. (c) Generosity (Spanish): A Spanish version of Shakespeare’s Merchant of Venice, at the end of Scene I in Act I, Antonio’s words directed to Bassanio. Earlier in the text, Antonio, addressing him, uses voseo (allocutive plural), but here, tuteo (allocutive singular) is used: Sabes que toda mi fortuna está en el mar y que no tengo ni dinero ni proporciones de levantar por el momento la suma que te sería necesaria. En consecuencia, inquiere)ø; averigua)ø el alcance de 40 As far as we could see in some texts in Hebrew or Arabic script, at times the spelling of a Jewish name is deliberately altered (e.g., as here, the letter Sadhe (‫ )צ‬was used instead of Samekh (‫ )ס‬so as to signal that it is not a Muslim person Yūsuf (this one would have had a Hebrew Samekh or Arabic Sīn in it) but a Jewish one who is meant, and I deeply thank Gürzat Kami and Ahmed Tahir Nur, the participants of the workshop Arabic in the Ottoman Empire (University of Cambridge, April 21)22, 2016) for sharing this fact with me. 272 mi crédito en Venecia; estoy dispuesto a agotar hasta la última moneda para proveerte de los recursos que te permitan ir a Belmont, morada de la bella Porcia. Ve)ø sin tardanza a enterarte dónde se puede encontrar dinero; haré lo mismo por mi lado, y no dudo que lo encuentre, sea por mi crédito, sea en consideración a mi persona. (Shakespeare 2012: 27), ‘Thou know’st that all my fortunes are at sea;/ Neither have I money nor commodity/ To raise a present sum; therefore go forth,/ Try what my credit can in Venice do;/ That shall be rack’d, even to the uttermost,/ To furnish thee to Belmont to fair Portia./ Go presently inquire, and so will I,/ Where money is; and I no question make/ To have it of my trust or for my sake.’ 273 ! # ! $ " ! " % & ' " ( & )* + # ! " ( , . , ! " ! " Bibliography Primary Sources Aksyón = Yosef Ándžel et al., (eds.) 1929 1940. Aksyón: Džornal kotidyano. Salonika. ˀAdmat Qódeš = Nissim Haim Moses b. Joseph Mizraḥí [died 1749] 1742 1756. ˀAdmat Qódeš. Responsa. 2 parts. Constantinople & Salonika. ˀAvné Haˀefod = David b. Abraham Pipano [1851 – 1925] 1912 1927. ˀAvné Haˀefod. Responsa. 2 parts. Sofia. ˀAvqat Roxel = Joseph b. Ephraim Caro [1488 – 1575] 1791. ˀAvqat Roxel. Responsa. Salonika. Calila y Dimna = Antonio García Solalinde, (ed.) 1917. Calila y Dimna: Fábulas: Antigua version castellana. Madrid: Calleja. Cel Hakkésef = Abraham Ben Benveniste Gatigno [1799 – 1879] 1872 1881. Cel Hakkésef. Responsa. 2 parts. Salonika. Constantinople Pentateuch, 1547 = 1547. Ḥamiššá ḥummešé Torá. Constantinople. Darxé Nóˁam = Mordecai b. Judah Halleví [died 1684] 1697. Darxé Nóˁam. Responsa. Venice. Dibber Mošé = Haim Moses b. Solomon Amarillo [c. 1698 – 1748] 1742 1750. Dibber Mošé. Responsa. 3 parts. Salonika. Divré Rivot = Isaac b. Samuel Adarbi [c. 1515 – 1577(?)] 1582. Divré Rivot. Responsa. Salonika. El Bezerro = Solomon Israel b. Raphael Šerizlí [1878 – 1938], (ed.) 1905. El bezerro: Leenda žudia: Revista i korrižada por Šelomó Yisraˀel Šerizlí. Jerusalem. El Džugetón = ˀEliyyá R. Karmona, (ed.) 1908 1931. El džugetón: Džornal umorístiko. Constantinople. El Rayo = Yehudá Mordox, (ed.) 1932 1941. El rayo: Órgano de los ke kyeren ver syempre la luz. A newspaper. Salonika. El Rayo de Fwego = Yehudá Mordox et al., (eds.) 1934 1936. El rayo de fwego: Órgano delos ke kyeren ver sayrán. A newspaper. Salonika. El Rizón = Moiz M. ˁAsaˀel et al., (eds.) 1926 1939. El rizón: Džornal de burla, šaká, i ironia. Salonika. 275 Ester Matalón = Albert Barzillay 1935. Ester Matalón: Romanso inédito sovre la vida a Saloniko en los anyos de la gerra mundyala. Printed as a serial in Aksyón. Salonika. Ferrara Bible 1553 = Abraham Usque, (ed.) 1553. Biblia: En lengua Española traduzida palabra por palabra dela verdad Hebrayca por muy excelentes letrados: Vista y examinada por el officio dela Inquisicion. Ferrara. Haggadah, A Combined Version (different regions, the 19thE20th centuries) = Alvar 1986 in the secondary sources. Haggadah, Salonika 1970 = Šibi 1970 in the secondary sources. HaMabiṭ = Moses b. Joseph (di) Trani [1500 – 1580] 1629 1630. Šeˀelot utešuvot HaMabiṭ. 2 parts. Part II has two cycles of numeration of the sections. Venice. Harav Mošé Alšex = Moses b. Haim Alšex [1520 – 1593] 1605. Šeˀelot utešuvot harav Mošé Alšex. Venice. Jevrejski Glas = Braco Poljokan, (ed.) 1928 1941. Jevrejski Glas. A newspaper. Sarajevo. Kalilah and Dimnah = Ion Grant Neville Keith Falconer, (tr. and ed.) 1885. Kalīlah and Dimnah: Or, The Fables of Bidpai. Cambridge: University Press. Kérem Šelomó = Solomon b. Joseph Amarillo [c. 1645 – 1720] 1719. Kérem Šelomó. Responsa. Salonika. Ladino Bible 1540E1572 = See Lazar & Pueyo Mena 2000 in the secondary sources. Ladino Bible 1739E1745 = Abraham b. Isaac ˀAsaˀ, (ed.) 1739 1745. ˀArbaˁá veˁesrim. 5 parts. Constantinople. Ladino Bible 1813E1816 = Israel Ben Haim (of Belgrade), (ed.) 1813 1816. Séfer ˀarbaˁá veˁesrim. 4 parts. Vienna. Ladino Constantinople Bible 1873 = (Editor not indicated) 1873. El livro de La Ley, Los Profetas, i Las Eskrituras. Constantinople. La Gwerta de Oro = David b. Moses ˁAṭias 1778. La gwerta de oro: O sea tratenimyento gustozo, savyozo i provečozo ... para ... su amigo de mizraḥ. Livorno. La megila de Saray = Eliezer Papo 1999. La megila de Saray. A novel. Jerusalem. Leḥem Rav1 = Abraham b. Moses di Boton [c. 1545 – 1588] 1660. Leḥem Rav. Responsa. Izmir. Libro de Oracyones = See Lazar & Dilligan 1995 in the secondary sources. 1 < ‫( ל ֶ ְ֣חם ַ֔רב‬Daniel v 1). 276 Magriso, Meˁam Loˁez, Bammidbar = Isaac b. Moses Magriso 1764. Meˁam Loˁez, Ḥéleq dálet: Bammidbar. Constantinople. Magriso, Meˁam Loˁez, Vayyiqraˀ = Isaac b. Moses Magriso 1753. Meˁam Loˁez, Ḥéleq gímel: Vayyiqraˀ. Constantinople. Maharam Galante = Moses b. Mordecai Galante from Safed [c. 1540 – c. 1614] 1608. Šeˀelot utešuvot Maharam Galante. Venice. Maharašdam = Samuel b. Moses de Medina [1506 – 1589] 1594 1597. Šeˀelot utešuvot Maharašdam. Salonika. Maharḥaš = Haim b. Šabbetay (or: b. Šabbattí) Šabbetay (Šabbattí) [c. 1555 – 1647] 1651. Šeˀelot utešuvot Maharḥaš: ˀEven Haˁézer. Salonika. Maharí ben Leb = Joseph b. David ˀibn Leb [c. 1500 – c. 1580] 1557(?) 1598(?). Šeˀelot utešuvot Maharí ben Leb. 4 parts. Salonika & Constantinople & Kurucesme. Mahariṭ = Joseph b. Moses Trani [1568 – 1639] 1641 1645. Šeˀelot utešuvot Mahariṭ. 3 parts. Constantinople & Venice. Mahariṭac = Yom Ṭov b. Moses Cahalón [1559 – c. 1619] 1694. Šeˀelot utešuvot Mahariṭac. Venice. Mahariṭac Haḥadašot = Yom Ṭov b. Moses Cahalón [1559 – c. 1619] 1981. Šeˀelot utešuvot Mahariṭ Cahalón Haḥadašot: Appears for the First Time, Copied from Manuscript. 2 parts. Jerusalem. Maharšax = Solomon b. Abraham Hacohen [c. 1520 – 1601(?)] 1586 1730. Šeˀelot utešuvot Maharšax. 4 parts. Salonika & Venice. Máyim ˁAmuqqim = Elijah b. Abraham Mizraḥí [1452 or 1454 – c. 1525] and Elijah b. Baruch Ben Haim [c. 1530 – c. 1610] 1647. Máyim ˁAmuqqim. Responsa. Venice. Mesažero = ˀEliyyá Veesí(d), (ed.) 1935 1941. Mesažero: Kotidyano de la manyana. Salonika. Meza de el Alma = Meˀir b. Šemuˀel Benveniste, (tr.) 1602. Séfer Šulḥán happanim: Livro yamado en ladino Meza de el alma. Venice. Mixtam LeDavid = David b. Jacob Pardo [1718 – 1790] 1772. Mixtam LeDavid. Responsa. Salonika. Noseˀ ˀEfod = David b. Abraham Pipano [1851 – 1925] 1927. Noseˀ ˀEfod. Included in Part II of ˀAvné Haˀefod. Sofia. 277 Paraḥ Maṭṭé ˀAharón = Aaron b. Haim Abraham Hacohen Perahia [c. 1627 – 1697] 1703. Paraḥ Maṭé Aharón. Responsa. 2 parts. Amsterdam. Psalms, Salonika 1930 (Reprint of 1898) = (Editor not indicated) 1930. Tehillim: Ne”r leDavid: Lašón i ladino. Mostly reprint of the 1898 edition. Salonika. Raˀanaḥ = Elijah b. Baruch Ben Haim [c. 1530 – c. 1610] 1610. Šeˀelot utešuvot Raˀanaḥ. Constantinople. Rut (Ladino and a commentary), Salonika 1924 = Leví Yeudá Masarano and ˀAšer Mordexay Brudo, (eds.) 1924. Rut, i šivḥé hattannaˀim. Salonika. Šaˁaré Mizraḥ = Refaˀel ˁUzziˀel, (ed.) 1845 1846. Šaˁaré Mizraḥ. A newspaper. Izmir. Satirical Series = Mošé Cazés 1929 1940. Tio Ezrá i su mužer Benuta; Tio Boxor i su mužer Džamila. Published in the newspapers Aksyón, El Rayo, El Rayo de Fwego, El Rizón, and Mesažero, and republished in the scholarly edition – Bunis 1999b. Séder Našim = Schwarzwald 2012 in the secondary sources. Séfer Damméseq ˀEliˁézer = Eliezer b. Šem Ṭov Papo [died 1898] 1862. Séfer Damméseq ˀEliˁézer: Ḥéleq ˀálef – ˀOraḥ ḥayyim. Belgrade. Séfer Ḥovat Hallevavot = Baḥye b. Joseph Ibn Paquda [the second half of the 11th century] 1569. Séfer Ḥovat Hallevavot. Constantinople. Séfer Renanot = Benjamin Raphael b. Joseph 1908. Séfer renanot: Širim liqquṭim meˀezé sefarim leŠabbat ulemoˁadim uleḥaggim šonim. Jerusalem. Segullot lišˁat nesiˁá = The late 18th or the early 19th century. Religious instructions for a safe journey. A manuscript. Izmir. Torat ˀEmet = Aaron b. Joseph Sasón [c. 1550 – 1626] 1626. Torat ˀEmet. Responsa. Venice. Torat Ḥayyim = Haim b. Šabbetay (or: b. Šabbattí) Šabbetay (Šabbattí) [c. 1555 – 1647] 1713 1722. Torat Ḥayyim. Responsa. 3 parts. Salonika. Torat Ḥayyim & Maharḥaš’s Responsa – Modern Edition = Haim b. Šabbetay (or: b. Šabbattí) Šabbetay (Šabbattí) [c. 1555 – 1647] 2003. Torat Ḥayyim & Šeˀelot utešuvot Maharḥaš: ˀEven Haˁézer. Responsa. 4 vols., the first three include Torat Ḥayyim, and the fourth – Šeˀelot utešuvot Maharḥaš: ˀEven Haˁézer. Jerusalem. Torat Mošé = Moses (b.) Haim Šabbetay (Šabbattí) [1615 – 1685] 1797. Torat Mošé. Responsa. Salonika. 278 Torat Mošé – Modern Edition = Moses (b.) Haim Šabbetay (Šabbattí) [1615 – 1685] 2003. Torat Mošé. Included in Vol. I of Torat Ḥayyim & Maharḥaš’s Responsa – Modern Edition. Jerusalem. Xulí, Meˁam Loˁez, Berešit = Jacob b. Makkir Xulí 1730. Meˁam Loˁez, Ḥéleq ˀálef: Berešit. Constantinople. Secondary Sources Adams, Marianne 1987. From Old French to the theory of pro drop. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 5/1: 1 32. Aitchison, Jean 1994. “Say, say it again Sam”: The treatment of repetition in linguistics. In Repetition, edited by Andreas Fischer, 15 34. Tübingen: Gunter Narr. Alexander, David B. 2007. The Spanish Postnominal Demonstrative in Synchrony and Diachrony. Ph.D. Dissertation. The Ohio State University. Alexander, Tamar 2011. “En kada palavra metes un rifrán”: The functions of the proverbs in satirical sketches from Salonikan newspapers. In JudeoEEspaniol: Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on the JudeoESpanish Language: Satirical Texts in JudeoE Spanish by and about the Jews of Thessaloniki, edited by Rena Molho, Hilary Pomeroy, and Elena Romero, 120 143. Thessaloniki: Ets Ahaim Foundation. Alkalay, Arye 1984. ‫אמרות ופתגמים של יהודי ספרד‬. Edited by David Benveniste. Jerusalem: Váˁad ˁAdat Hassefaraddim BIrušalayim & Hammerkaz Lešilluv Hammoréšet šel Yahadut Sefarad Vehammizraḥ. Alonso, Amado and Henríquez Ureña, Pedro 1939 (1967). Gramática castellana: Segundo curso. 22nd edition. Buenos Aires: Losada. Alvar, Manuel 1986. La leyenda de Pascua: Tradición cultural y arcaísmo léxico en una Hagadá de Pesaḥ en judeoEespañol. Sabadell (Barcelona): Ausa. Álvarez Martínez, María Ángeles and Martínez, José Antonio 1989. El pronombre. 2 vols. Madrid: Arco Libros. Andersen, Hans Christian 1913. Eventyr og historier (= Fairy Tales and Stories). Vol. I. Illustrated by Vilh Pedersen. Ninth edition. Kjøbenhavn: Gyldendal. 279 —— 1945. Andersen’s Fairy Tales. Translated by Mrs. E.V. Lucas and Mrs. H.B. Paull. Illustrated by Arthur Szyk. New York: Grosset & Dunlap. Anderson, Stephen R. and Keenan, Edward L. 1985. Deixis. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, edited by Timothy Shopen, vol. 3, Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon, 259 308. Cambridge & New York & Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. Arad, Dotan and Glick, Shmuel 2013. ‫יהודית מן‬-‫ תשובה יחידאית בספרדית‬:‫חלוקת רווחים ללא חשש ריבית‬ ‫הגניזה הקהירית‬. Quntres: An Online Journal for the History, Culture, and Art of the Jewish Book 4/1: 37 49. Armistead, Samuel Gordon; Silverman, Joseph H.; Šljivić Šimšić, Biljana 1971. JudeoESpanish Ballads from Bosnia. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Arnauld, Antoine and Lancelot, Claude 1803. Grammaire générale et raisonnée de PortERoyal. First published in 1660. Paris: Munier. Arnold, Matthew 1862. On Translating Homer: Last Words: A Lecture Given at Oxford. London: Longman, Green, Longman, and Roberts. Ashton, Ethel O. 1963. Swahili Grammar: Including Intonation. 2nd edition, 10th impression. London: Longmans. Atajan, Eduard Rafaelovich 1968. Предмет и основные понятия структурального синтаксиса. (Translation: The Object of Study and Main Concepts of the Structural Syntax). Yerevan: Mitk. Austin, John Langshaw 1962. How to Do Things with Words: The William James Lectures Delivered at Harvard Univesity in 1955. Edited by James O. Urmson. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Avioz, Chagit 2004. Modern Hebrew Number and Possessive Inflection in Nouns. Ph.D. Dissertation. Bar Ilan University. (In Hebrew) Bally, Charles 1996. The expression of concepts of the personal domain and indivisibility in Indo European languages. In The Grammar of Inalienability: A Typological Perspective on Body Part Terms and the PartEWhole Relation, edited by Hilary Chappell and William McGregor, 31 61. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. (A translation, by Christine Béal and Hilary Chappell, of “L’expression des idées de sphère personnelle et de solidarité dans les langues indo européennes”, published in 1926 in Festschrift Louis 280 Gauchat, edited by Franz Fankhauser and Jakob Jud, 68 78, Aarau, Switzerland: H.R. Sauerländer.) Bardzell, Jeffrey 2009. Speculative Grammar and Stoic Language Theory in Medieval Allegorical Narrative: From Prudentius to Alan of Lille. New York & London: Routledge. Barkhin, Konstantin Borisovich 1936. Язык и построение «Песни о купце Калашникове» Лермонтова (Комментарии). (Language and structure of “The song about the merchant Kalashnikov” by Lermontov (a commentary).) Russkij Jazyk v Shkole 5: 91 99. Barux, Yicḥaq Lev and Levinski, Yom Tov, (eds.) 1948. Séfer hammoˁadim: Kérex Bet: Šaloš regalim, Pésaḥ. Tel Aviv: Devir & ˁÓneg Šabbat (ˀÓhel Šem). Batchelor, Ronald Ernest 2006. A Student Grammar of Spanish. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. Bello, Andrés 1903. Gramática de la lengua castellana. Tomo 1. Madrid: Sucesores de Rivadeneyra. Benaim, Annette 2011. SixteenthECentury JudeoESpanish Testimonies: An Edition of EightyEfour Testimonies from the Sephardic Responsa in the Ottoman Empire. Leiden & Boston: Brill. Bentolila, Yaakov 2005. ‫היהודית‬-‫ספר לימוד חדש לספרדית‬. Pe’amim 101 102: 295 302. (A review of Bunis 1999a) Benveniste, Émile 1968. Mutations of linguistic categories. Translated by Yakov Malkiel and Marilyn Vihman. In: Lehmann, W. and Malkiel, Y., Directions for Historical Linguistics: A Symposium, edited by Winfred Philipp Lehmann and Yakov Malkiel, 83 94. Austin & London: University of Texas Press. —— 1971. Relationships of person in the verb. In Problems in General Linguistics, by idem, 195 204. Coral Gables, Florida: University of Miami Press. Ben Naeh, Yaron 2011/2012. '‫איגרת בלתי ידועה של שבתי צבי על 'שבת הגדול – חג המאורות‬. Tarbiz LXXX/1: 89 103. —— 2013. Dangerous liaisons in Castoria. El Prezente 7: 27 41. Berman, Ruth Aronson 1978. Modern Hebrew Structure. Tel Aviv: University Publishing Projects. 281 Bet Tefillá = (Editor not indicated) 1990. ,‫ כולל כל התפילות לימות החול‬:‫סידור החדש בית תפלה‬ ‫ סודר מחדש מהחל ועד‬:‫ וכן כל היוצרות והסליחות והקריאות כסדרן‬,‫לשבתות וימים טובים‬ ‫ נוסח אשכנז‬:‫ מאירות עיניים‬,‫כלה באותיות חדשות‬. Jerusalem: Miller. Blas Arroyo, José Luis 2005. Los grados de la cortesía verbal: Reflexiones en torno a algunas estrategias y recursos lingüísticos en el español peninsular contemporáneo. Revista Internacional de Lingüística Iberoamericana (RILI) III/1 (5) (Cortesía en el mundo hispánico): 9 29. Blau, Joshua 1958. ‫ כיוונים ותהליכים‬:‫יהודיים מימי הביניים‬-‫על היסודות העבריים בטקסטים ערביים‬. Lešonenu 22: 183 196. Blevins, Juliette 2004. Evolutionary Phonology: The Emergence of Sound Patterns. Cambridge etc.: Cambridge University Press. Borisova, Anna Borisovna 2005. Местоименный повтор дополнения: Синтаксический и прагматический аспекты (на материале новогреческого языка). (Translation: Complement Pronominal Doubling: Syntactic and Pragmatic Aspects (Based on Material from Modern Greek). Ph.D. Dissertation. Saint Petersburg State University. Bossong, Georg 2008. El judeo español de Salónica: Un crisol lingüístico. In Judeo espagnol: Social and Cultural Life in Salonika through JudeoESpanish Texts: Proceedings of the 3d International Conference on the JudeoESpanish Language, edited by Rena Molho, 31 49. Thessaloniki: Ets Ahaim Foundation. Brandenburg, Philipp 2005. Apollonios Dyskolos: Über das Pronomen; Einführung, Text, Übersetzung und Erläuterungen. Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 222. München & Leipzig: Saur. Brinker, Klaus 1988. Linguistische Textanalyse: Eine Einführung in Grundbegriffe und Methoden. 2., durchgesehene und ergänzte Auflage. Berlin: Erich Schmidt. Bunis, David M. 1988. The dialect of the old yišuv Sephardic community in Jerusalem: A preliminary linguistic analysis. In Studies in Jewish Languages, edited by Moshe Bar Asher, *1 *40. Jerusalem: Misgav Yerushalayim. —— 1992. The language of the Sephardic Jews: A historical sketch. In Moreshet Sefarad, edited by Haim Beinart, vol. 2, 399 422. Jerusalem: Magnes Press. —— 1993a. The earliest Judezmo newspapers: Sociolinguistic reflections. Mediterranean Language Review 6 7: 5 66. 282 —— 1993b. A Lexicon of the Hebrew and Aramaic Elements in Modern Judezmo. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press & Misgav Yerushalayim & Institute for Research on the Sephardi and Oriental Jewish Heritage. —— 1996. Translating from the head and from the heart: The essentially oral nature of the Ladino Bible translation tradition. In Hommage à Haïm Vidal Sephiha, edited by Winfried Busse, Heinrich Kohring and Moshe Shaul, 337 357. Berne: Peter Lang. —— 1999a. Judezmo: An Introduction to the Language of the Sephardic Jews of the Ottoman Empire. Jerusalem: Magnes Press. (In Hebrew) —— 1999b. Voices from Jewish Salonika: Selections from the Judezmo Satirical Series ‘Tio Ezrá I Su Mujer Benuta’ and ‘Tio Bohor I Su Mujer Djamila’ by Moshé Cazés. Jerusalem: Misgav Yerushalayim. (In Hebrew and English) —— 2001. On the incorporation of Slavisms in the grammatical system of Yugoslavian Judezmo. In Jews and Slavs, vol. 9, edited by Wolf Moskovich, 325 337. Jerusalem & Vienna: Hebrew University of Jerusalem. —— 2004. Distinctive characteristics of Jewish Ibero Romance, circa 1492. Hispania Judaica Bulletin 4: 105 137. —— 2005. Writing as a symbol of religio national identity: On the historical development of Judezmo spelling. Pe’amim 101 102: 111 171. (In Hebrew) —— 2011. The changing faces of Sephardic identity as reflected in Judezmo sources. Neue Romania 40: 45 75. —— 2013. “Whole Hebrew”: A revised definition. In A Touch of Grace: Presented to Chava Turniansky, edited by Yisrael Bartal, Galit Hasan Rokem, Ada Rapaport Albert, Claudia Rosenzweig, Vicki Schifriss, and Erika Timm, vol. 2, 37 68. Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center and Center for Research on Polish Jewry. —— 2016. Twenty first century talk about Judezmo on the Ladinokomunita Website. In Languages of Modern Jewish Cultures: Comparative Perspectives, edited by Joshua Miller and Anita Norich, 321 360. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Bunis, David M. and Adar Bunis, Mattat 2011. Spoken Judezmo in written Judezmo: Me ‘am Lo‘ez by Rabbi Isaac Magriso. Pe’amim 125 127: 409 502. (In Hebrew) Bünting, Karl Dieter 1984. Einführung in die Linguistik. 11. Auflage. Königstein/Ts.: Athenäum. 283 Bürki, Yvette 2005. Representaciones estéticas de la oralidad en La Mara de Rafael Sánchez Heredia. Lexis XXIX/2: 219 246. Céline, Louis Ferdinand 1935. Voyage au bout de la nuit: Roman. Paris: J. Ferenczi. —— 2006. Journey to the End of the Night. Translated by Ralph Manheim. New York: New Directions Book. Cervantes, Miguel Saavedra de 1833 1839. El ingenioso hidalgo Don Quijote de la Mancha. 6 vols. Part I was composed in 1605, part II – 1615. Commented by Diego Clemencín. Madrid: E. Aguado. —— 1885. El ingenioso hidalgo Don Quijote de la Mancha. 2 vols. Translated into English by Charles Jarvis, with an introduction by Henry Morley. London & Glasgow & New York: G. Routledge. Chappell, Hilary and McGregor, William, (eds.) 1996. The Grammar of Inalienability: A Typological Perspective on Body Part Terms and the PartEWhole Relation. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Chekhov, Anton Pavlovich 1963. Вишневый сад: Комедия в четырех действиях. Художник А.Д. Гончаров. (The Cherry Orchard: A Comedy in Four Acts. Illustrated by A.D. Goncharov). Moscow: Gosudarstvennoje Izdatel’stvo Khudozhestvennoj Literatury. Cohen, Eran 2009. Nexus and nexus focusing. In Egyptian, Semitic and General Grammar: Studies in Memory of H.J. Polotsky, edited by Gideon Goldenberg and Ariel Shisha Halevy, 131 148. Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Company Company, Concepción and Medina Urrea, Alfonso 1999. Sintaxis motivada pragmáticamente: Futuros analíticos y futuros sintéticos en el español medieval. Revista de Filología Española 79: 65 100. Creissels, Denis 1995. Éléments de syntaxe générale. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Cromwell, Jennifer and Grossman, Eitan 2010. Condition(al)s of repayment: P. CLT 10 reconsidered. The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 96: 149 160. Crum, Walter Ewing 1939. A Coptic Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Damourette, Jacques and Pichon, Edouard 1932 1951. Des mots à la pensée: Essai de grammaire de la langue française, 1911E(1940). 7 vols. Paris: D’Artrey. Díaz Mas, Paloma 1986. Los sefaradíes: Historia, lengua y cultura. Barcelona: Riopiedras Ediciones. 284 Dik, Simon Cornelis et al. 1980. On the typology of focus phenomena. GLOT, Leids Taalkundig Bulletin 3: 41 74. —— 1981. On the typology of focus phenomena. In Perspectives on Functional Grammar, edited by Teun Hoekstra, Harry van der Hulst, and Michael Moortgat, 41 74. Dordrecht: Foris. Dik, Simon Cornelis 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar. 2 vols. 2nd revised edition. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. Doroszewski Witold et al., (eds.) and Polska Akademia Nauk 1958 1968. Słownik języka polskiego. 10 vols. Warszawa: Wiedza Powszechna. Downing, Pamela 1977. On the creation and use of English compound nouns. Language 53/4: 810 842. Driver, Samuel Rolles 1892. A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew and Some Other Syntactical Questions. 3rd ed., revised and improved. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Eggar, William Douglas 1905. Mechanics: A School Course. London: Edward Arnold. Eguren Gutiérrez, Luis Javier 1999. Pronombres y adverbios demonstrativos: Las relaciones deícticas. In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, edited by Ignacio Bosque and Violeta Demonte Barreto, vol. 1: Sintaxis básica de las clases de palabras, 931 972. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Elkoshi, Gedaliah 1981. Thesaurus proverbiorum et idiomatum latinorum. 2nd amended edition. Jerusalem: Magnes Press. (In Hebrew) Emmanuel, Isaac Samuel 1963 1968. Precious Stones of the Jews of Salonica. 2 vols. Jerusalem: The Ben Zvi Institute. (In Hebrew) Epstein, Richard 2002. The definite article, accessibility, and the construction of discourse referents. Cognitive Linguistics 12/4: 333 378. Eshel, Orit (forthcoming). Narrative Grammar and Narrative Modes in Literary Modern Irish. Ph.D. Dissertation. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. Etin, Shaula 2010. Conversation about conversation. In Pi Ha’aton (The Hebrew University Students’ Weekly Newspaper), edited by Noga Goldfinger, dated 07.12.2010, 22 23. Jerusalem. (In Hebrew) Even Shoshan, Avraham 2003. ‫ מְ ֻח דָּ ש וּמְ עֻ דְ כָּ ן ִל שְׁ נ וֹ ת ָה אַ ְל ַפּ יִ ם‬:‫שׁ ן‬ ָ ֹ‫ שׁ ו‬-‫ מִ לּ וֹ ן ֶא ֶב ן‬. 6 vols. [Jerusalem]: Hammillón Heḥadaš. 285 Fanselow, Gisbert 1981. Zur Syntax und Semantik der Nominalkomposition: Ein Versuch praktischer Anwendung der MontagueEGrammatik auf die Wortbildung im Deutschen. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Feldman, Hadar 2007. Documents of the Dönme Group: Their Author’s Identity and His Theological Doctrine. M.A. Thesis. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. (In Hebrew) Fleischman, Suzanne 1990. Tense and Narrativity: From Medieval Performance to Modern Fiction. Austin: University of Texas Press. Fuss, Eric 2005. The Rise of Agreement: A Formal Approach to the Syntax and Grammaticalization of Verbal Inflection. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: John Benjamins Publishing Company. García, Erica C. 1975. The Role of Theory in Linguistic Analysis: The Spanish Pronoun System. Amsterdam & Oxford: North Holland Pub. Co.; New York: American Elsevier Pub. Co. García Moreno, Aitor 2003. La deixis personal en el Me’am Lo’ez de Éxodo: Configuración y usos especiales del sistema pronominal judeoespañol. Res Diachronicae: Anuario de la Asociación de Jóvenes Investigadores de Historiografía e Historia de la Lengua Española 2: 127 134. —— 2004. Relatos del Pueblo Ladinán: Meˁam Loˁeź de Éxodo. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. —— 2015. Historia de la lengua sefardí: El caso de las oraciones de relativo (ss. XVI XX). In In the Iberian Peninsula and Beyond: A History of Jews and Muslims (15thE17th Centuries), 2 vols., edited by José Alberto R. Silva Tavim, Maria Filomena Lopes de Barros, and Lúcia Liba Mucznik, vol. 2, 149 164. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Garde, Murray 2013. Culture, Interaction and Person Reference in an Australian Language: An Ethnography of Bininj Gunwok Communication. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Gardiner, Alan Henderson, Sir 1957. Egyptian Grammar: Being an Introduction to the Study of Hieroglyphs. 3rd edition, revised. London: Published on behalf of the Griffith Institute, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, by Oxford University Press. 286 Gelderen, Elly van 2000. A History of English Reflexive Pronouns: Person, ‘Self’, and Interpretability. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: John Benjamins Publishing Company. —— 2006. A History of the English Language. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Georgíeva Níkleva, Dimitrinka 2008. La oposición oral/escrito: Consideraciones terminológicas, históricas y pedagógicas. Didáctica. Lengua y Literatura 20: 211 227. Gesenius, Wilhelm 1909 (1956). Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. Edited and enlarged by Emil Kautzsch, revised in accordance with the twenty eighth German edition by Arthur Ernest Cowley. Second English edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Ginio, Eyal 2002. “Learning the beautiful language of Homer”: Judeo Spanish speaking Jews and the Greek language and culture between the Wars. Jewish History 16: 235 262. —— 2005. Musulmans et non musulmans dans la Salonique ottomane: L’affrontement sur les espaces et les lignes de démarcation. Revue des mondes musulmans et de la Méditerranée 107 110: 403 414. Givón, Talmy 1976. Topic, pronoun, and grammatical agreement. In Subject and Topic, edited by Charles N. Li, 149 188. New York: Academic Press. Glinert, Lewis 1989. The Grammar of Modern Hebrew. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Goldenberg, Gideon 1971. Tautological infinitive. Israel Oriental Studies I: 36 85. —— 1985. ‫( על תורת הפועל והפועל העברי‬On verbal structure and the Hebrew verb). In ‫מחקרים בלשון‬ ‫( א‬Language Studies I), edited by Moshe Bar Asher, 295 348. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University, Institute of Jewish Studies. (English translation in Goldenberg 1998a) —— 1987. ‫( יחסים תחביריים וטיפולוגיה בלשונות שמיות‬Syntactical relations and typology in Semitic languages). In ‫ דברים שנאמרו בערב לכבוד יעקב‬:‫עיונים בעקבות מפעלו של פולוצקי‬ ‫( פולוצקי בהגיעו לגבורות‬Following Polotsky’s Teachings: Lectures [Delivered at the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities in the Meeting Held on the 21st of January 1986] in Honor of H. J. Polotsky on the Occasion of His Gvurot (Eightieth Birthday)), 7 18. Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities. (English translation in Goldenberg 1998b) 287 —— 1998a. On verbal structure and the Hebrew verb. In Studies in Semitic Linguistics: Selected Writings [by Gideon Goldenberg], 148 196. Jerusalem: Magnes Press. —— 1998b. Syntactical relations and typology in Semitic languages. In Studies in Semitic Linguistics: Selected Writings [by Gideon Goldenberg], 138 147. Jerusalem: Magnes Press. —— 1995. Attribution in Semitic languages. Langues Orientales Anciennes: Philologie et Linguistique 5 6: 1 20. GRAE = See Real Academia Española and Asociación de Academias de la Lengua 2009. Grandgent, Charles Hall 1907. An Introduction to Vulgar Latin. Boston, U.S.A.: D.C. Heath & Co. Grevisse, Maurice 1986. Le bon usage: Grammaire française. 12e édition. Paris & Gembloux: Duculot. Grünbaum, Max 1896. JüdischEspanische Chrestomathie. Frankfurt am Main: J. Kauffmann. Gunn, Battiscombe George 1924. Studies in Egyptian Syntax. Paris: P. Geuthner. Hacken, Pius ten 2009. Chomskyan Linguistics and Its Competitors. London: Equinox. Hanssen, Friedrich 1910. Spanische Grammatik auf historischer Grundlage. Halle a. S.: Max Niemeyer. Harweg, Roland 1979. Pronomina und Textkonstitution. 2., verbesserte und ergänzte Auflage. München: W. Fink. Haspelmath, Martin 2001. The European linguistic area: Standard Average European. In Language Typology and Language Universals: An International Handbook, edited by Martin Haspelmath et al., vol. 2, 1492 1510. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. Harris, James 1825. Hermes: or, A Philosophical Inquiry Concerning Universal Grammar. London: J. Collingwood. Harvey, Leonard Patrick 1992. Islamic Spain: 1250 to 1500. Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press. Hawkins, John A. 1991. On (in)definite articles: Implicatures and (un)grammaticality prediction. Journal of Linguistics 27: 405 442. Helmbrecht, Johannes. Politeness distinctions in pronouns. Online at WALS: Ch. 45. Heringer, Hans Jürgen 1984. Wortbildung: Sinn aus dem Chaos. Deutsche Sprache 12: 1 13. 288 Heringer, Hans Jürgen; Strecker, Bruno; Wimmer, Rainer 1980. Syntax: Fragen – Lösungen – Alternativen. München: W. Fink. Hock, Hans Henrich 1991. Principles of Historical Linguistics. Second edition, revised and updated. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. Hottenroth, Priska Monika 1982. The system of local deixis in Spanish. In Here and There: Crosslinguistic Studies on Deixis and Demonstration, edited by J. Weissenborn and W. Klein, 133 154. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Hundt, Marianne 2007. English Mediopassive Constructions: A Cognitive, CorpusEbased Study of Their Origin, Spread, and Current Status. Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi. Iso Echegoyen, José Javier 1974. En torno al sistema deíctico pronominal en latín i su paso a las lenguas románicas. Revista Española de Lingüística 4/2: 459 472. Jacobi, Hermann 1897. Compositum und Nebensatz: Studien über die indogermanische Sprachentwicklung. Bonn: Friedrich Cohen. Jannedy, Stefanie; Weirich, Melanie; Brunner, Jana 2011. The effect of inferences on the perceptual categorization of Berlin German fricatives. In Proceedings of the 17th International Congress of Phonetic Sciences (ICPhS XVII), 17E21 August 2011, Hong Kong, edited by Wai Sum Lee et al., 962 965. Hong Kong: City University. Jespersen, Otto 1922. Language: Its Nature, Development, and Origin. London: G. Allen & Unwin. —— 1963. The Philosophy of Grammar. First published in 1924. London: G. Allen & Unwin. —— 1965. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. 7 vols. London: G. Allen & Unwin; Copenhagen: E. Munksgaard. —— 2010. Selected Writings of Otto Jespersen. First published in 1960. Abingdon, Oxon, U.K. & New York: Routledge. Joly, André 1994. Éléments pour une théorie générale de la personne. Faits de Langues 3: 45 54. Karolak, Stanisław and Wasilewska, Danuta 1977. Учебник польского языка. (Translation: A Handbook of the Polish Language). Warszawa: Wiedza Powszechna. Kaiser, Georg A. 2009. Losing the null subject: A contrastive study of (Brazilian) Portuguese and (Medieval) French. In Proceedings of the Workshop “NullESubjects, Expletives, and Locatives in Romance”, edited by Georg A. Keiser and Eva Maria Remberger, 131 156. Arbeitspapier 123. Konstanz: Fachbereich Sprachwissenschaft der Universität. 289 Kater, Henry and Lardner, Dionysius 1830. Mechanics. London: Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown, Green, & John Taylor. Kemmer, Suzanne 1993. The Middle Voice. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Kieffer, Jean Daniel and Bianchi, Thomas Xavier 1835 1837. Dictionnaire turcEfrançais: À l’usage des agents diplomatiques et consulaires, des commerçants, des navigateurs, et autres voyageurs dans le Levant. 2 vols. Paris: Imprimerie Royale. Kim, Alan Hyun Oak and Shin, Hyon Sook 1994. Information flow and relative clause constructions in Korean discourse. In Theoretical Issues in Korean Linguistics, edited by Young Key Kim Renaud, 463 494. Stanford, California: CSLI (Center for the Study of Language and Information) Publications for the Stanford Linguistic Society. Koén Sarano, Matilda 1991. ‫ ספרדיים‬-‫ עם יהודיים‬-‫ סיפורי‬:? ‫ מה הוא אומר‬, ‫( ג ' וחה‬Djoha ke dize?). Jerusalem: Cana (‫)כנה‬. —— 1993. Viní kantaremos: Koleksión de kantes djudeoEespanyoles. Notas por Betty Klein. Kacha i dekorasiones por Benny Nahmias. Yerushaláyim: M. Koén Sarano. —— 1999. Kurso de djudeoEespanyol (ladino) para adelantados. Beersheva: Merkaz Eliachar, Universidad Ben Gurion en el Negev. Koptjevskaja Tamm, Maria 2001. Adnominal possession. In Language Typology and Language Universals: An International Handbook, edited by Martin Haspelmath et al., vol. 2, 960 970. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. Koschmieder, Erwin 1965. Beiträge zur allgemeinen Syntax. Heidelberg: Carl Winter. Kreyer, Rolf 2003. Genitive and of construction in modern written English: Processability and human involvement. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 8/2: 169 207. Kunchev, Ivan 1976. Archaisms and innovations in the phonetic system of the Spanish Jewish speech in Bulgaria. Annual 11: 141 171. Lambert, Silke 2010. Beyond Recipients: Towards a Typology of Dative Uses. Ph.D. Dissertation. State University of New York at Buffalo. Lambrecht, Knud 1994. Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge & New York & Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. 290 —— 2001. Dislocation. In Language Typology and Language Universals: An International Handbook, edited by Martin Haspelmath et al., vol. 2, 1050 1078. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. Lamiquiz, Vidal 1967. El demostrativo en español y en francés: Estudio comparativo y estructuración. Revista de Filología Española 50/1 4: 163 202. Lamouche, Léon 1907. Quelques mots sur le dialecte espagnol parlé par les Israélites de Salonique. Romanische Forschungen XXIII: 969 991. Lapesa, Rafael 1981. Historia de la lengua española. Novena edición corregida y aumentada. Madrid: Gredos. Layton, Bentley 2000. A Coptic Grammar: Sahidic Dialect. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Lazar, Moshe and Dilligan, Robert J., (eds.) 1995. Libro de oracyones: Ferrara Ladino Siddur (1552). Lancaster, California: Labyrinthos. Lazar, Moshe and Pueyo Mena, Francisco Javier, (eds.) 2000. The Ladino Scriptures: ConstantinopleESalonica (1540E1572). Lancaster, California: Labyrinthos. Lehmann, Christian 1980. A review of: Harweg 1979. Kratylos 25: 194 195. —— 2005. Sur l’évolution du pronom possessif. In Latin et langues romanes: Études de linguistique offertes à József Herman à l’occasion de son 80ème anniversaire, edited by Sándor Kiss, Luca Mondin, and Giampaolo Salvi, 37 46. Tübingen: M. Niemeyer. —— 2009. El papel del pronombre personal sujeto en la desambiguación de formas verbales sincréticas. In Romanística sin complejos: Homenaje a Carmen Pensado, edited by Fernando Sánchez Miret, 147 170. Bern etc.: P. Lang. Lehmann, Christian; Shin, Yong Min; Verhoeven, Elisabeth 2004. Person Prominence and Relation Prominence: On the Typology of Syntactic Relations with Particular Reference toYucatec Maya. Second revised edition. Erfurt: Seminar für Sprachwissenschaft der Universität. Leite de Vasconcellos, José 1900 1901. Estudos de philologia mirandesa. 2 vols. Lisboa: Imprensa Nacional. Leonetti, Manuel 2007. Sobre la relación entre doblado de clíticos y movimiento de objetos. Cuadernos de Lingüística (Instituto Universitario Ortega y Gasset) 14: 135 152. Lepschy, Giulio Ciro 1966 (1971). La lingüística estructural. Barcelona: Anagrama. 291 Lermontov, Mikhail Jur’jevich and Chujko, Vladimir Viktorovich, (ed.) 1896. Полное собрание сочинений М.Ю. Лермонтова: В двух томах. (Complete Works of M.Yu. Lermontov: In Two Volumes). 2 vols. Saint Petersburg & Moscow: M.O. Vol’f. Levi, Judith N. 1978. The Syntax and Semantics of Complex Nominals. New York etc.: Academic Press. Lewis, Geoffrey Lewis 1977. Turkish: A Complete Course for Beginners and Students. First printed in 1953, fourteenth impression. New York: Teach Yourself Books. Liddell, Henry George and Scott, Robert 1883. A GreekEEnglish Lexicon. New York: Harper. Luria, Max Aaron 1930. A Study of the Monastir Dialect of JudeoESpanish Based on Oral Material Collected in Monastir, YugoESlavia. New York: Instituto de las Españas en los Estados Unidos. (Reprinted from The Revue Hispanique (1930) LXXIX: 323 583) Macdonell, Arthur Anthony 1959. A Sanskrit Grammar for Students. 3rd edition. London: Oxford University Press. Magnus, Leonard Arthur 1916. A Concise Grammar of the Russian Language. London: John Murray. Martinet, André 1955. Économie des changements phonétiques: Traité de phonologie diachronique. Berne: A. Francke. Matthews, Peter Hugoe 1981. Syntax. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press. —— 1997. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. Meier Brügger, Michael; Mayrhofer, Manfred; Fritz, Matthias 2010. Indogermanische Sprachwissenschaft. 9., durchgesehene und ergänzte Auflage. Berlin & New York: De Gruyter. Menéndez Pidal, Ramón 1904. Manual elemental de gramática histórica española. Madrid: Victoriano Suárez. Millán Chivite, Alberto 1997 1998. La ortología, una disciplina normativa presente en la obra de Amado Alonso. Cauce: Revista Internacional de Filología y Su Didáctica 20 21: 139 171. Minervini, Laura 1992. Testi giudeospagnoli medievali: (Castiglia e Aragona). 2 vols. Napoli: Liguori. 292 Narrog, Heiko and Heine, Bernd 2011. The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. Nebrija, Antonio de 2011. Gramática de la lengua castellana. Published in 1492. A modern, digital edition. Linkgua (Red ediciones). Nebrija, Antonio de and Walberg, Emmanuel, (ed.) 1492 (1909). Gramática castellana: Reproduction phototypique de l’édition princeps (1492). Halle a.S.: M. Niemeyer. Nehama, Joseph and Cantera Ortiz de Urbina, Jesús, (ed.) 1977. Dictionnaire du judéoEespagnol. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Instituto Benito Arias Montano. Nguyen, Tuong Hung 2002. Vietnam: Cultural background for ESL/EFL teachers. The Review of Vietnamese Studies 2/1. Online at: http://www.vietnamesestudies.org/review of vietnamese studies 2002.html Niccacci, Alviero 1990. The Syntax of the Verb in Classical Hebrew Prose. Translated by W.G.E. Watson. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Oesterreicher, Wulf 2004. Textos entre inmediatez y distancia comunicativas. El problema de lo hablado escrito en el Siglo de Oro. In Historia de la lengua española, edited by Rafael Cano, 729 769. Barcelona: Ariel. Okçugil, Vâsif [1945]. Yeni türkçeEingilizce okul lûgati. [Istanbul]: Kanaat Kitabevi. O’Meara, Maureen 1976. From linguistics to literature: The un time liness of tense. Diacritics: A Review of Contemporary Criticism 6/2: 62 68. (A review of Weinrich 1971) Orfali, Moisés 2006. Aspectos sociales y espirituales de los sefardíes de Ragusa a través de la documentación testamentaria (siglos XVI XVII). Sefarad 66/1: 143 182. Ornan, Uzzi 2009. Problems of the content clause in Hebrew. Hebrew Studies 50: 137 147. Ortega Gil, Pablo 2001. Information flow in TV series: A textual approach. Epos, Revista de Filología XVII: 261 277. Palmer, Frank Robert 1986. Mood and Modality. Cambridge & New York & Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. Pandharipande, Rajeshwari V. 1997. Marathi. London: Routledge. Panhuis, Dirk Gerhard Johanan 2006. Latin Grammar. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Penny, Ralph John 2002. A History of the Spanish Language. 2nd edition. Cambridge, U.K. & New York: Cambridge University Press. 293 Perez, Avner 2000. El ladino en la literatura rabinika: El undimiento de la nave Sezai Nur durante la gerra grego turka. Aki Yerushalayim 64: 43 44. Perez, Avner and Pimienta, Gladys 2007. Diksionario amplio djudeoEespanyol – ebreo: Lashon meEAspamia. Maale Adumim: Sefarad & La Autoridad Nasionala del Ladino i su Kultur. Pérez Vázquez, María Enriqueta 2007. El ‘se’ aparentemente opcional en el aula de español L2. Cuadernos de Italia y Grecia 6: 79 92. Madrid: Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia. Polotsky, Hans Jakob 1957. The ‘emphatic’ sḏm.n.f form. Revue d’Égyptologie 11: 109 117. —— 1971a. The Coptic conjugation system. In Collected Papers, edited by Edward Yechezkel Kutscher, 238 268. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, The Hebrew University. (= Orientalia 29 (1960): 392 422) —— 1971b. Zur koptischen Wortstellung. In Collected Papers, edited by Edward Yechezkel Kutscher, 398 417. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, The Hebrew University. (= Orientalia 30 (1961): 294 313) —— 1985. A note on the sequential verb form in Ramesside Egyptian and in Biblical Hebrew. In Pharaonic Egypt: The Bible and Christianity, edited by Sarah Israelit Groll, 157 161. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press. Quilis, Antonio 1970. El elemento esvarabático en los grupos [pr, br, tr...]. In Phonétique et linguistique romanes: Mélanges offerts à M. Georges Straka, edited by Georges Straka, Vol. I, 99 104. Lyon & Strasbourg: Société de Linguistique Romane. Quintana Rodríguez, Aldina 2006. Geografía lingüística del judeoespañol: Estudio sincrónico y diacrónico. Bern: Peter Lang. —— 2012. ‫ קסטיליאנית צפונית עם השפעות של האראגונית‬:'‫הלשון ב'סדר נשים‬. In Schwarzwald, 28 56. —— 2014. Judeo Spanish in contact with Portuguese: A historical overview. In PortugueseE Spanish Interfaces: Diachrony, Synchrony, and Contact, edited by Patrícia Amaral and Ana Maria Carvalho, 65 94. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: John Benjamins Publishing Company. RAE Grammar 1771 = See Real Academia Española 1771. RAE Grammar 1894 = See Real Academia Española 1894. Real Academia Española 1771. Gramática de la lengua castellana. Madrid: Don Joachin de Ibarra, Impresor de Cámara de S.M. —— 1894. Gramática de la lengua castellana. Madrid: M. Rivadeneyra. 294 Real Academia Española and Asociación de Academias de la Lengua 2009. Nueva gramática de la lengua española. 2 vols. Madrid: Espasa Calpe. Redhouse, James William and Wells, Charles, (ed.) 1880. Redhouse’s Turkish Dictionary: In Two Parts, English and Turkish, and Turkish and English. Second edition, revised and enlarged. London: Bernard Quaritch. Rhodokanakis, Nikolaus 1908 1911. Der vulgärarabische Dialekt im D̮ofâr (Ẓfâr). 2 vols. Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften. Südarabische Expedition, Bd. 8 und 10. Wien: A. Hölder. Roby, Henry John 1871 1874. A Grammar of the Latin Language: From Plautus to Suetonius. 2 parts. London & New York: Macmillan and Co. Rodrigue, Aron; Abrevaya Stein, Sarah; Jerusalmi, Isaac 2012. A Jewish Voice from Ottoman Salonica: The Ladino Memoir of Sa’adi Besalel aELevi. Edited and with an introduction by Aron Rodrigue and Sarah Abrevaya Stein. Translation, transliteration, and glossary by Isaac Jerusalmi. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Romano, Samuel 1995. Dictionary of Spoken JudeoESpanish/French/German: With an Introduction on Phonetics and Word Formation. Jerusalem: Misgav Yerushalayim. Romeu Ferré, Pilar, (ed.) 2007. Fuente clara, (Salónica, 1595): Un converso sefardí a la defensa del judaísmo y a la búsqueda de su propia fe. Barcelona: Tirocinio. Rosén, Haiim B. 1977. Contemporary Hebrew. The Hague: Mouton. Rossi, Giuanni 1864. Elementus de gramatica de su dialettu sardu meridionali e de sa lingua italiana: Aumentaus e rifundius in grandu parti po usu de is nazionalis e de is furisteris. Cagliari: Tipografia A. Timon. Rubattu, Antoninu 2006. Dizionario universale della lingua di Sardegna. 2nd edition. 2 vols. A digital Internet edition. Edizione Democratica Sarda. Rubinstein, Eliezer 1968. ‫ עיונים בתחביר ימינו‬: ‫ המשפט השמני‬. [Tel Aviv]: Hakibbutz Hameuchad. Saco y Arce, Juan Antonio 1868. Gramática gallega. Lugo: Imprenta de Soto Freire. Sadock, Jerrold M. and Zwicky, Arnold M. 1985. Speech act distinctions in syntax. In Language Typology and Syntactic Description, edited by Timothy Shopen, vol. 1, Clause Structure, 155 196. Cambridge & New York & Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. 295 Sâmî Frashëri, šemseddin 1883. KamusEi firansavi: Dictionnaire turcEfrançais. Constantinople: Mihran. Schilling, Julius Karl Josef 1884. Spanische Grammatik: Mit Berücksichtigung des gesellschaftlichen und geschäftlichen Verkehrs. Zweite, gründlich revidierte Auflage. Leipzig: G.A. Gloeckner. Schwarzwald, Ora Rodrigue 2012. ‫ המאה השש‬, ‫ ס לוניקי‬: ‫ סידור תפילות בלאדינו‬: ‫ סדר נשים‬. ‫עשרה‬. Contains an article by Aldina Quintana, '‫הלשון ב'סדר נשים‬. Jerusalem: The Ben Zvi Institute. Sephiha, Haïm Vidal 1982. Le ladino (judéoEespagnol calque): Structure et évolution d'une langue liturgique. 2 vols. Paris: Association Vidas Largas. Shafran, Omer 2014. Topics in the language of Shemuel De Medina’s rabbinical responsa, the 16th century, Hoshen Mishpat, paragraph He. Massorot 16 17: 239 278. (In Hebrew) Shakespeare, William 2012. El mercader de Venecia. [Written at the end of the 16th century]. Tercera edición. Traducción [del inglés] de Luis Astrana Marín. Prólogo de Vicente Molina Foix. Madrid: Alianza Editorial. Shaumyan, Sebastian Konstantinovich 1965. Структурная лингвистика. (Translation: Structural Linguistics). Moscow: Nauka. Shaumyan, Sebastian Konstantinovich 1971. Principles of Structural Linguistics. The Hague & Paris: Mouton. Shisha Halevy, Ariel 1972. The Circumstantial Sentence in Shenoute’s Coptic. Ph.D. Dissertation. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. (In Hebrew) —— 1986. Coptic Grammatical Categories: Structural Studies in the Syntax of Shenoutean Coptic. Analecta Orientalia 53. Rome: The Pontifical Institute. —— 1988. Coptic Grammatical Chrestomathy: A Course for Academic and Private Study. Orientalia Lovanensia Analecta 30. Leuven: Peeters. —— 2004. Juncture features in Shenoutean Coptic: Linkage and delimitation. In Coptic Studies on the Threshold of a New Millennium: Proceedings of the Seventh International Congress of Coptic Studies, edited by Mat Immerzeel and Jacques van der Vliet, 155 175. Leuven & Paris & Dudley, Massachusetts: Peeters & Departement Oosterse Studies. —— 2007. Topics in Coptic Syntax: Structural Studies in the Bohairic Dialect. Orientalia Lovanensia Analecta 160. Leuven: Peeters. 296 —— 2009. A note on converbs in Egyptian and Coptic. In Afroasiatic Studies in Memory of Robert Hetzron: Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of the North American Conference on Afroasiatic Linguistics (NACAL 35), edited by Charles G. Häberl, 95 105. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars. Šibi, Barux I., (ed.) 1970. ‫סדר הגדת ליל פסח‬. Salonika: Έκδοση Ισραηλιτικής Κοινότητας (The Jewish Community of Salonika). Sinclair, John McHardy, edited with Ronald Carter 2004. Trust the Text: Language, Corpus and Discourse. London & New York: Routledge. Širbīnī, Muḥammad ˀibn Aḥmad and Carter, Michael George, (ed.) 1981. Arab Linguistics: An Introductory Classical Text with Translation and Notes. Amsterdam: John Benjamins B.V. Schmidhauser, Andreas U. (forthcoming). Stoic deixis. Strong, James 2007. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers. Stubbs, Michael 2009. The search for units of meaning: Sinclair on empirical semantics. Applied Linguistics 30/1: 115 137. Subak, Julius 1906. Zum Judenspanischen. Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie XXX: 129 185. Symon, Keith R. 1960. Mechanics. Second edition. Reading, Massachusetts & London: Addison Wesley. Szymczak, Mieczysław, (ed.) 1996. Słownik języka polskiego. 3 vols. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. Taibo, Marcelo (year not indicated). Las construcciones con se en una muestra del corpus de referencia del español actual (CREA). http://old.liccom.edu.uy/bedelia/cursos/lenguaescrita/archivos/Tesis.pdf Tannen, Deborah 1989. Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Taube, Dana 1997. The Passive Construction and Its Functions in Contemporary Hebrew. Ph.D. Dissertation. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. (In Hebrew) —— 2008. ‫זה הוא" במשפט המבוקע בעברית בת ימינו‬-‫"מיהו זה ואי‬. Lešonenu 70: 533 552. Taube, Moshe 1995. ‫( תבנית הד ביידיש‬Echo construction in Yiddish). Massorot 9 10 11: 397 421. 297 Tesnière, Lucien 1959. Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck. Thompson, Chad 1996. On the grammar of body parts in Koyukon Athabaskan. In The Grammar of Inalienability: A Typological Perspective on Body Part Terms and the PartEWhole Relation, edited by Hilary Chappell and William McGregor, 651 677. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Tor Raz, Baruch 1989. El bombot: Roxel hassidqit. Tel Aviv: Yarón Golán. Trivellato, Francesca 2009. Sephardic merchants in the early modern Atlantic and beyond: Toward a comparative historical approach to business cooperation. In Atlantic Diasporas: Jews, Conversos, and CryptoEJews in the Age of Mercantilism, 1500 – 1800, edited by Richard L. Kagan and Philip D. Morgan, 99 120. Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Troup, Gordon J. 1976. Mechanics. Hawthorn: Longman. Tuwim, Julian 1984. W aeroplanie. 2nd edition. Illustrated by Mirosław Tokarczyk. Warszawa: Nasza Księgarnia. Vallejos Yopán, Rosa 2009. The focus function(s) of =pura in Kokama Kokamilla discourse. IJAL 75/3: 399 432. Varol Bornes, Marie Christine 2008. Le judéoEespagnol vernaculaire d'Istanbul. Bern, etc.: Peter Lang. Várvaro, Alberto and Minervini, Laura 2007. Orígenes del judeoespañol: Textos. Revista de Historia de la Lengua Española 2: 147 172. Vendryes, Joseph 1921. Le langage: Introduction linguistique à l’histoire. Paris: La renaissance du livre. Visser, Fredericus Theodorus 1963 1973. An Historical Syntax of the English Language. 3 parts. Leiden: E.J. Brill. Wackernagel, Jacob 1892. Über ein Gesetz der indogermanischen Wortstellung. Indogermanische Forschungen 1: 333 436. Wackernagel, Jacob and Langslow, David, (ed.) 2009. Lectures on Syntax: With Special Reference to Greek, Latin, and Germanic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wagner, Max Leopold 1914. Beiträge zur Kenntnis des Judenspanischen von Konstantinopel. Wien: Alfred Hölder. 298 —— 1931. Zum Judenspanischen von Marokko. Volkstum und Kultur der Romanen 4, Heft 3: 221 245. Watters, John Robert 1979. Focus in Aghem: A study of its formal correlates and typology. In Aghem Grammatical Structure: With Special Reference to Noun Classes, TenseEAspect and Focus Marking, edited by Larry M. Hyman, Stephen C. Anderson, and John Robert Watters, 137 197. Los Angeles: Department of Linguistics, University of Southern California. Weigand, Gustav Ludwig 1903. Praktische Grammatik der rumänischen Sprache. Leipzig: J.A. Barth. —— 1917. Bulgarische Grammatik. 2. vermehrte und verbesserte Auflage. Leipzig: J.A. Barth. Weinreich, Max 1980. History of the Yiddish Language. Translated by Shlomo Noble. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Weinreich, Uriel 1963. On the semantic structure of language. In Universals of Language, edited by Joseph Harold Greenberg, 114 171. Cambridge, Massachusetts: M.I.T. Press. Weinrich, Harald 1968. Estructura y función de los tiempos en el lenguaje. Translated by Federico Latorre. Madrid: Gredos. (Translation of one of the previous editions of Weinrich 1971) —— 1971. Tempus: Besprochene und erzählte Welt. 2. völlig neubearbeitete & 3. Auflage. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer. Wright, William and Caspari, Carl Paul 1896. A Grammar of the Arabic Language. 2 vols. Translated from the German of Caspari, and edited with numerous additions and corrections. 3rd edition. Revised by William Robertson Smith and Michale Jan de Goeje. New impression, 1996. Beirut: Librairie du Liban. Zulaika Hernández, Iker 2007. Demonstrative Pronouns in Spanish: A DiscourseEBased Study. Ph.D. Dissertation. The Ohio State University. Electronic Sources About.com = http://www.about.com – A website providing information about a wide variety of topics. CNRTL = http://www.cnrtl.fr – Centre National de Ressources Textuelles et Lexicales. 299 CORDE = http://corpus.rae.es/cordenet.html – Corpus Diacrónico del Español, banco de datos en línea, Real Academia Española. Corpus del Español = http://www.corpusdelespanol.org – Davies, Mark. Corpus del Español: 100 Million Words, 1200sE1900s. Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, U.S.A. CREA = http://corpus.rae.es/creanet.html – Corpus de Referencia del Español Actual, banco de datos en línea, Real Academia Española. Dictionary of American Family Names = http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780195081374.001.0001/acref 9780195081374 – Dictionary of American Family Names online, edited by Patrick Hanks, 2003. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. English Forums = https://www.englishforums.com/ – An Internet forum for English teachers and English as a Second Language students. Film Terms Glossary = http://www.filmsite.org/filmterms.html, at: http://www.filmsite.org – ‘Filmsite’, a Website containing interpretive, descriptive review commentary and background history on many of the best Hollywood and American classic films in the last century. Authored, edited, and managed by Tim Dirks. The Forest of Rhetoric = http://rhetoric.byu.edu – A guide to the terms of classical and renaissance rhetoric, provided by Dr. Gideon Burton of Brigham Young University. Glossary of Linguistic Terms = http://www 01.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticterms/ – Glossary of Linguistic Terms, a living glossary online, edited by Eugene Emil Loos, Susan Anderson, Dwight H., Day, Jr., Paul C. Jordan, and J. Douglas Wingate. SIL International. GloWbE = corpus.byu.edu/glowbe/ – The Corpus of Global Web Based English (GloWbE), composed of 1.9 billion words from 1.8 million web pages in 20 different English speaking countries. The corpus was created by Mark Davies of Brigham Young University, and released in 2013. Google = http://www.google.com – A search engine. HJP = http://hjp.novi liber.hr/ – Croatian Language Portal (Hrvatski Jezični Portal, HJP), a joint project of the publishing company ‘Novi Liber’ and the University Computing Centre ‘Srce’. 300 Ladinokomunita = https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Ladinokomunita/info – A correspondence circle written in Ladino (Judeo Spanish), established in December of 1999. At “Yahoo! Groups”. Founded and moderated by Rachel Amado Bortnick. Linguistics Stack Exchange = http://linguistics.stackexchange.com – A question and answer site for professional linguists and others with an interest in linguistic research and theory. Morphology and Syntax = http://www.christianlehmann.eu/ling/lg_system/grammar/morph_syn/index.html – Morphology and Syntax: Material for the course. Written by Christian Lehmann. University of Erfurt. OED = http://www.oed.com – Oxford English Dictionary: The Definitive Record of the English Language. Ottoman Turkish Dictionary = http://www.dictionary.gen.tr/ – A database of online dictionaries, including an Ottoman Turkish – Turkish dictionary.2 PELCRA = http://www.nkjp.uni.lodz.pl – Polish and English Language Corpora for Research and Applications, by Piotr Pęzik (2012). Wyszukiwarka PELCRA dla danych NKJP. Narodowy Korpus Języka Polskiego (Przepiórkowski A., Bańko M., Górski R., Lewandowska Tomaszczyk B. (eds.)). Wydawnictwo PWN. RAE Dictionary = http://www.rae.es/recursos/diccionarios/drae – El Diccionario de la lengua española, Real Academia Española. RNC = http://www.ruscorpora.ru/en – Russian National Corpus. WALS = http://wals.info/ – The World Atlas of Language Structures Online, edited by Matthew S. Dryer and Martin Haspelmath. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Wikipedia = http://en.wikipedia.org – A multilingual, web based, free content encyclopedia project operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, based on an openly editable model. Word Reference = http://forum.wordreference.com – Language forums for questions about vocabulary and grammar. 2 I thank Matan Stein for informing me about this source. 301 yo, nosotros ( as) / nozotros ( as) / nos !" # $, tu, vosotros ( as) / vozotros ( as), el, eya, eyo, eyos, eyas % & ' n /vos(/z) otros/ as yo, moz(otr)os ( as) / nozotros ( as) ( !" # $, tu, voz(otr)os ( as), el, eya, eyos, eyas me, nos / mos " # $, te, vos / os ) ! " #$, lo, la, los, las, le, les ) se se$ me, mos / nos ( ! " # $, te, vos, lo, la, los, las, le, les ) se se! & sen $ * $ + ! , mi, mio/ a, tu, tuyo/ a, su, suyo/ a + ! , mis, mios/ as, tus, tuyos/ as, sus, suyos/ as ! , nwes(tr)o/ a, vwes(tr)o/ a, , suyo/ a ! , nwes(tr)os/ as, vwes(tr)os/ as, sus, suyos/ as + ! , mi, mio/ a, tu, tuyo/ a, su, suyo/ a + ! , mis, mios/ as, tus, tuyos/ as, sus, suyos/ as ! , mwestro/ a nwestro/ a ( !" # $, vwestro/ a, ! " ! # , suyo/ a ) !" suyos/ as! " $ ! , mwestros/ as nwestros/ as ( !" # $, vwestros/ as, sus, suyos/ as este, esta, estos, estas ese, esa, esos, esas akel, akeya, akeyos, akeyas ! . esto, eso, akeyo, eyo Allocutive sg., tu Allocutive pl. ) , vos Allocutive pl. ) , vozotros ( as) Delocutive, el, eya, eyos, eyas; su mersé(d) / sus mersedes, vwesa senyoria, Allocutive sg., tu Allocutive pl. ) , vozotros ( as)! vos ! ! este, esta, estos, estas akel, akeya, akeyos, akeyas ! . esto akeyo! eyo " # $ Allocutive pl. ) , vozotros ( as), vozós ( ás) " # $. Delocutive, el, eya, eyos, eyas; su mersé(d) / sus mersedes, / $ nos % vos ozotros 0 1 ) ! 2 / ous, oi 3 ' s no otros, vo otros$! ' 4 & ' ' ‫' !ש‬ ' & & & ' ' ) ' 5 6! s + # % ! ! % 4 & ' ‫לו‬$ & Ladino ( 3& $ " $ 2 nos! $ &8 sen se $ * ! ! + + $ " $ 2 A el , n /moz(otr)os– n /moz(otr)as voz(otr)os–voz(otr)as7 ! n /moz(otr)os voz(otr)os & " # $ / , -> ? @?– -> ? @? A >3! & le! ! nwestro! $ &8 / * ' ) ) g /γwestro " & $) /vwéstoro! " $ # 0 vweso! & & $ + ' $ ! n /m ! ) ! ! vos + ! 3 ;;; , " < , ;$! ) nweso / $ sus 9 " ) & ' $! $ " ) 0 0 vozotros ( as)! eso $ + eyo = ; #, - //, "* , ;$7 . $! eyo & & / , a 9 -> ? @? $ -> ? @?! ! a mi $ me$! " $ >0/BC 9 C ++.C D D +4 >0$ - ++ ++/A -> ? @? 1 + $ ! " ' : '! ese, esa, esos, esas )) " $ $ / & ! ) ) $! ) ! / % , A >3– -> ? @?! -> ? @? & ! -> ? @? /?2C B0 D A >3 1 & " $ # / i -> ? @? ke A >3 " $ = n ' a para & el, eya, eyos, eyas ! anel E a el$ 3 ;;; , "< F , F$! + # $ ' / $ ) , / $ ! " " " ) & / , -> ? @? a 9 -> ? @?! ! me a mi$! ,? . tails & ,( 7 ) 7 ! ! 7 ! 7 7 7 " $ # / , / $ GH?0 +lo performative " $ / ) , -> ? @? ? ?.-> ? %/? C 0 /C 1 & " ! ) ) F / " $7 . $ ) , / $ & G ?0 lo " $ < Me se A >3 te se A >3 1) $ ! + 1 . ! $ " $ * Se l ... le(s) l ... 1 ! ) le(s) l ... " $ & ) $ ! " # $ % & '( ) (* ( - + . - - 0 - - 1% - 0 4 1- - 1 - 5 2 - +8 9 . &6 6 - & - 5 - - - - - (- - 4 4 (1 7 928 ( ( - 4 4 - 4 0 ! 2! 3 - 1( 5 % 0 ( - - - 1( 0 ( - . % ( ///& . 0 , - - ( 4 ; < 3 - (= % & '( 2 ; ( * ( 4 (4 - . ) - ; > 8 - 0 ( - 1 - 4 0 1 . 9 * 4 % & '( 6 % -?4& . 2 4 @ BC D. EF %, %@ 4 A & 4 %= & .A@5@ & % & '( : A ; ! (4 - 4 6 4 4 (6 6 ) - 4 4 - 6 4 - 4 - 4 A + . ! 4 A % & '( 2 - 8 9; , 0 1( 4 ( 4 %& G% = - 4&H 0 1 0 1 I % & J( 6 (> (6 ( ; * - ! ( 4 ( 5 @ ! ( ( , ( K5 I ' ( ; < 3 - (= ( ( = ( ! 34 4 L B3 6 A - 2 ! . B 4 - - I - ( 3! B. 4 & ! % ( - A H &H = % ( & - % &H C % 4 ( & . - , 4 0 1 0 1 4 - 2 - 0 - ( - - 6 O 4 ! . - - (? I A 4 - 4 % 4 6 $ ' < 0 %M - 0 ( 1 . ( (- N&) - 1( 1 = A . # 0 1( C % &H C "C C ! J $ A - 5 0 % 1( - &H C 4 " Q R QO B- ( ! ( O ( " " CE. =; "CE. =; : 2 - 4 ( H - 4 0 1 ! 0 ( - 1 - 6S - 6 4 0 1 ! H - 6 0 1 = (4 (0 1 0 0 . 1 - 1 0 0 1 5 1 I 4 ( 4 2 D 4 %3! & ; = -4 P ! & " " '(( ! " #! " $ % )( ! ! ! !" $ % & ' * +# ( , % -.. ( ! * , + -. ) 2 ) /0 ) " ) " . - % # ) 1 ) ) # " " 1 ' % . -. -) )1 2 ) ! 3 ) ) 4 " ) 52 )16 7 8 9" 52 " 7, . -= 52 -> ? < ) 0 @ 1 = 5 2 3 ! 06 :; ! 0< 5 2 6 % 3 6 1 2 " :; - . ) " " 6 5A /) " 06 ? 1 " 3 6 *& BC D . ! 3 " E' F ) G+ ' 7H ) . -% CB$ D$ ) 4 # E' ) + / %0 * 1 & ' = *& 2. 2 5 6 #7 ) %3# & ' + & , 5 ( + ( ) (8 & 9 %& ) / 5 *!+ ! . - . )! ! , % " = &# % 7 %( ' 7 3 ) !- * +# ) * + 8 5# 6 78 # ) # =? . , " 6? . ) > I ) . - J ! ! 0) ) / H " . % )0 0) ) # / , ) 0 , 90 )! " ? / % . ) . )! ) ) ! ) ! 0 / I ) K . ! 3 ) I K K ) = *& CCC D, -! ) ! I 6 7? 0 H 5 ) ) K) $" K 52 5# 6 2 % ) . - 6 7&L) 4 ! = L )! ! = , 58 - % ) " 0 ' = 3 % ! ) ) ) . . . ! ) - ! 6 . ) ) ' . - ' CCBC DK 0 . ) K 3 % E+ 2 . % / E+ 0" ) 7, *& L 78 - " ) ) ? " I # I L0A ) ) . . . ! = 5, - 2 . -6 72 . 0 )! 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N "1 A -K > 3 2 ) " % " / N7 8 ) =& / ) . L 2 N# ! 1 A - K /L > ) 0 ) ) . . 0 =2 30 H " -) ! ) ) 0 !1 ! . )! ) - ) - 1 . - . ) ! " ) - L 9 " . ) . ! - -) - " ! . )1 T - 62 " " 00 ) K )1 ) ! % 7 . L *, 0 K N5 2 . . 1 " . ' 0 ) / 7% 78 - % ! - 3 . ! ! 4 ! 3 " ) & 0 ! ) 3 =2 ! ) =M- L ! A . ) . ) 31 B$' & B$' P G+ P Acknowledgements My warmest thanks go to my supervisor, Professor David M. Bunis, for valuable advice, comments, and deep insights. I am also deeply thankful to him for editing and proofreading my work and my English. I also availed myself of the opportunity to use his vast, in-depth and intimate knowledge of Judezmo, and its textual sources. Additionally, I thank him for providing me with a great deal of electronic corpora, employed by me in this study, and for his continued support and encouragement. This dissertation has been written partly with support from Israel Science Foundation grant no. 1105/11, and the project funded by it, directed by Professor Bunis, in which I was involved as research assistant, “Spoken Judezmo (Ladino) as Represented in Written Conversations: Corpus and Linguistic Analysis”. Special thanks are owed to Misgav Yerushalayim: The Center for Research and Study of the Sephardi and Oriental Jewish Heritage, which provided grants to support my research. There were additional valuable research funding sources for which I am grateful: the Mandel Institute of Jewish Studies (Hebrew University of Jerusalem), the National Authority for Ladino Culture, the Israel Sephardi Federation, and others. Nowadays, one can find many helpful Internet resources. I would like to note especially the Global Jewish Database (The Responsa Project) at Bar-Ilan University, which helped me quickly find the Judezmo words, morphemes, etc. in rabbinical responsa; and the Bibliography of the Hebrew Book, that includes a detailed description of all Jewish publications printed in Hebrew characters between the years 1470-1960. I extend my thanks to Professor Yaron Ben-Naeh, who exposed me to some treasured Judezmo texts. I am deeply grateful to my thesis reviewers for their illuminating remarks and corrections. And finally, I would like to express my appreciation to my mother, – thanks to whose food I was able to put in the efforts –, and for the love and support of my family and close friends. ...‫ התאהבנו‬:ְ‫ רצינו לומר ל‬,‫לאדינו שלנו!!! בשם מוריי ועמיתיי למחקר ובשמי‬ 316 ‫תקציר‬ ‫בדיסרטציה שלפניכם בוצע מחקר שהתרכז בתחביר כינויי הגוף )‬ ‫( בג'ודזמו )המכונה גם לאדינו או‬ ‫ספרדית‪-‬יהודית(‪ .‬בחינת הנתונים התפרשה על פני התקופה מגירוש ספרד ועד ימינו אנו‪ .‬הקורפוסים ששימשו אותנו היו‬ ‫ברובם קורפוסים כתובים‪ ,‬אשר כוללים‪ ,‬בפרט‪ ,‬ג'ודזמו מדוברת כפי שהוצגה במבחר דיאלוגים ספרותיים‪ .‬יחד עם זאת‪ ,‬היה‬ ‫שימוש גם במקורות ספרותיים שאינם דיאלוגים‪ .‬זהו מחקר השייך לתחום של בלשנות מבנית )סטרוקטורלית( ובלשנות‬ ‫הקורפוס‪.‬‬ ‫פרק יתייחס לשיטות המחקר ולמינוח בעבודה‪ ,‬ויצביע על שאלות ונושאים כלליים הנוגעים לטבעם של כינויי‬ ‫הגוף‪ .‬בנוסף‪ ,‬יידונו סוגיות של טאוטולוגיה )פְּ לֶא ֹונַזְ ם( בלשונות במבט כולל‪ ,‬דהיינו מקרים שבהם כינוי הגוף מתלווה‬ ‫לאלמנט מסוים במשפט‪ ,‬באופן ששניהם מצביעים על אותה היישות‪.‬‬ ‫בפרק ידובר על סוגי הקורפוסים שאספנו וניתחנו‪.‬‬ ‫פרק בוחן את את כינויי הגוף בג'ודזמו‪ .‬בפרק‬ ‫מוסף לפועל הנטוי‪ .‬פרק‬ ‫אנו מראים את כינויי הנושא‪ ,‬בדגש על התנאים שבהם הכינוי‬ ‫סוקר את השימושים השונים והמצבים התחביריים של כינויי המושא‪ .‬בפרק‬ ‫נעסוק בכינויי‬ ‫הקניין‪ ,‬תוך התייחסות לשאלה אילו רבדים סמנטיים מסתתרים מאחורי היחס – שמבוטא על ידי כינויי הקניין – שבין‬ ‫"המשייך" ל‪"-‬משויך"‪ ,‬וכן ניגע בנושא השייכות ה)אינ(אליינאבילית‪ .‬פרק‬ ‫בג'ודזמו העתיקה יותר‪ ,‬בניגוד ל‪-‬‬ ‫‪ .‬פרק‬ ‫ישאף לתאר את הסמנטיקה של הכינוי הרומז‬ ‫ינתח היבטים מסוימים של נושא צורות הפנייה )בגוף שני יחיד‪ ,‬שני‬ ‫רבים וגוף שלישי(‪ .‬בנספח העבודה ישנה טבלה מסכמת‪ ,‬המתארת "ממעוף הציפור" את צורות הכינויים למיניהם ושימושיהם‬ ‫התחביריים‪ ,‬מהמאה הט"ז ועד לימינו אנו‪.‬‬ ‫המחבר מייחס חשיבות רבה להתנהגות כינויי הגוף בסביבה תחבירית של שיח לעומת זו של נרטיב‪ ,‬ולאורך העבודה‬ ‫מחלק את הדיון על פי הקריטריון הזה‪ .‬תשומת לב מיוחדת ניתנה למקרים של טאוטולוגיה הנזכרת לעיל‪ .‬מעבר לכך‪ ,‬היה‬ ‫עניין רב להציג תופעות ושימושים הייחודיים לג'ודזמו‪ ,‬שלא קיימים בספרדית‪ ,‬או שמתועדים רק כווריאצייה היסטורית או‬ ‫אזורית של הספרדית‪ ,‬או מצויים בלשונות האיברו‪-‬רומאניות הסמוכות לספרדית‪.‬‬ ‫עבודה זו נעשתה בהדרכתו‬ ‫של פרופ' דוד מ' בוניס‪.‬‬ ‫תחביר כינויי‪-‬הגוף בג'ודזמו של המאות הט"ז‪-‬כ'‪ ,‬ובפרט בייצוגי ג'ודזמו דבורה‬ ‫כפי שמוצג במבחר דיאלוגים ספרותיים‬ ‫חיבור לשם קבלת תואר דוקטור לפילוסופיה‬ ‫מאת‬ ‫עומר שפרן‬ ‫הוגש לסנט האוניברסיטה העברית בירושלים‬ ‫תמוז ה'תשע"ו ‪ /‬יולי‬ ‫תחביר כינויי‪-‬הגוף בג'ודזמו של המאות הט"ז‪-‬כ'‪ ,‬ובפרט בייצוגי ג'ודזמו דבורה‬ ‫כפי שמוצג במבחר דיאלוגים ספרותיים‬ ‫חיבור לשם קבלת תואר דוקטור לפילוסופיה‬ ‫מאת‬ ‫עומר שפרן‬ ‫הוגש לסנט האוניברסיטה העברית בירושלים‬ ‫תמוז ה'תשע"ו ‪ /‬יולי‬ © Omer Shafran