Volume 14, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1871-1340
  • E-ISSN: 1871-1375
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Zakho is a highly endangered dialect of North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic which was spoken by the Jews of Zakho (northern-Iraq) up to the 1950s, when virtually all of them left Iraq for Israel. Thanks to documentation efforts which started in the ’40s at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, as well as the interest of native speakers, we possess a rich textual documentation of this dialect today (Cohen, 2012Y. Sabar, 2002Avinery, 1988). These resources, together with recently conducted fieldwork, are used in order to analyze the linguistic status of the verbal personal indices in this dialect, following the concepts presented by Bresnan & Mchombo (1987) as well as Corbett (2003). For each person marker, its status as a pronominal affix or as an agreement marker is established. The synchronic situation is compared with the known historic situation in older strata of Aramaic, such as Classical Syriac. The resulting analysis shows that the same apparent person marker may behave differently in different syntactic environments. Another conclusion is that there is no clear-cut dichotomy between pronominal affixes and agreement markers, as transitional cases exist.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Aloni, O.
    (2011) Towards a corpus of Jewish Zakho. Handout distributed in theCambridge Neo-Aramaic Conference, July 2011.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Avinery, I.
    (1988) The Aramaic dialect of the Jews of Zākhō. In Hebrew. Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of the Sciences and Humanities.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Baerman, M.
    (2007) Morphological reversals. Journal of linguistics, 43(1), 33–61. 10.1017/S0022226706004440
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226706004440 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bresnan, J. & Mchombo, S.
    (1987) Topic, pronoun, and agreement in Chicheŵa. Language, 63(4), 741–782. 10.2307/415717
    https://doi.org/10.2307/415717 [Google Scholar]
  5. Coghill, E.
    (2016) The rise and fall or ergativity in Neo-Aramaic: Cycles of alignment change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198723806.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198723806.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  6. Cohen, E.
    (2008) The copular clause in Jewish Zakho Neo-Aramaic. Journal of Semitic Studies, 53(1), 43–68. 10.1093/jss/fgm044
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jss/fgm044 [Google Scholar]
  7. (2012) The syntax of Neo-Aramaic: The Jewish dialect of Zakho. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press. 10.31826/9781463234737
    https://doi.org/10.31826/9781463234737 [Google Scholar]
  8. Corbett, G. G.
    (2003) Agreement: the range of the phenomenon and the principles of the Surrey database of agreement. Transactions of the Philological Society, 101(2), 155–202. 10.1111/1467‑968X.00117
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-968X.00117 [Google Scholar]
  9. Creissels, D.
    (2006) A typology of subject and object markers in African languages. InF. K. E. Voeltz (Ed.), Studies in African linguistic typology (pp.43–70). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.64.04cre
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.64.04cre [Google Scholar]
  10. De Cat, C.
    (2005) French subject clitics are not agreement markers. Lingua, 115(9), 1195–1219. 10.1016/j.lingua.2004.02.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2004.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  11. Doron, E. & Khan, G.
    (2012) The typology of morphological ergativity in Neo-Aramaic. Lingua, 122(3), 225–240. 10.1016/j.lingua.2011.11.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2011.11.008 [Google Scholar]
  12. Downing, L. J.
    (2018) Differential object marking in Chichewa. InI. A. Seržant & A. Witzlack-Makarevich (Eds.), Diachrony of differential argument marking (pp.41–67). Berlin: Language Science Press. doi:  10.5281/zenodo.1228245
    https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1228245 [Google Scholar]
  13. Fox, S. E.
    (1990) Cliticization in Neo-Aramaic. InW. Heinrichs (Ed.), Studies in Neo-Aramaic (pp.69–78). Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press. 10.1163/9789004369535_007
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004369535_007 [Google Scholar]
  14. (1997) The Neo-Aramaic dialect of Jilu. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Frei, H.
    (1953) Le livre des deux mille phrases. Genève: Librairie Droz.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Garbell, I.
    (1965) The impact of Kurdish and Turkish on the Jewish Neo-Aramaic dialect of Persian Azerbaijan and the adjoining regions. Journal of the American Oriental Society, 85(2), 159–177. 10.2307/597988
    https://doi.org/10.2307/597988 [Google Scholar]
  17. Givón, T.
    (1976) Topic, pronoun, and grammatical agreement. InC. N. Li (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp.149–188). New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Goldenberg, G.
    (1998) On verbal structure and the Hebrew verb. InStudies in Semitic linguistics (pp.148–196). Jerusalem: Magness Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. (2013) Semitic languages: Features, structures, relations, processes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Greenblatt, J.
    (2011) The Jewish Neo-Aramaic dialect of Amədya. Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Gutman, A.
    (2008) Reexamination of the bare preterite base in the Jewish Neo-Aramaic dialect of Zakho. Aramaic Studies, 6(1), 59–84. 10.1163/147783508X371286
    https://doi.org/10.1163/147783508X371286 [Google Scholar]
  22. (2015a) Review ofSemitic languages: Features, structures, relations, processes, byGideon Goldenberg [Goldenberg 2013] Linguistic Typology, 19(1), 131–139. doi:  10.1515/lingty‑2015‑0005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2015-0005 [Google Scholar]
  23. (2015b) Some features of the Gaznax dialect (South-East Turkey). InG. Khan & L. Napiorkowska (Eds.), Neo-Aramaic and its linguistic context (pp.305–321). Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press. 10.31826/9781463236489‑019
    https://doi.org/10.31826/9781463236489-019 [Google Scholar]
  24. (2018) Attributive constructions in North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic. Berlin: Language Science Press. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1182527
    https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1182527 [Google Scholar]
  25. Gutman, A. & van Peursen, W. T.
    (2011) The two Syriac versions of the Prayer of Manasseh. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press. 10.31826/9781463216870
    https://doi.org/10.31826/9781463216870 [Google Scholar]
  26. Haspelmath, M.
    (2007) Pre-established categories don’t exist: consequences for language description and typology. Linguistic Typology, 11(1), 119–132. 10.1515/LINGTY.2007.011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/LINGTY.2007.011 [Google Scholar]
  27. Hever, Y.
    (2005) Two preterite forms in Jewish Zahko Neo-Aramaic. Unpublished Hebrew University linguistics seminar paper (in Hebrew).
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Hoberman, R. D.
    (1989) The syntax and semantics of verb morphology in Modern Aramaic: a Jewish dialect of Iraqi Kurdistan. New Haven, CT: American Oriental Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Khan, G.
    (2008) The Neo-Aramaic dialect of Barwar. Vol.1, Grammar. – Vol.2, Lexicon. – Vol.3, Texts. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/ej.9789004167650.i‑2198
    https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004167650.i-2198 [Google Scholar]
  30. (2009) The Jewish Neo-Aramaic dialect of Sanandaj. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Poizat, B.
    (2008) Manuel de soureth: initiation à l’araméen d’aujourd’hui, parlé et écrit. Paris: Geuthner.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Sabar, A.
    (2009) My father’s paradise: a son’s search for his family’s past. Chapel Hill, NC: Algonquin Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Sabar, Y.
    (2002) A Jewish Neo-Aramaic dictionary: dialects of Amidya, Dihok, Nerwa and Zakho, northwestern Iraq. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Sinha, J.
    (2000) Der neuostaramäische Dialekt von Bēṣpən (Provinz Mardin, Südosttürkei): Eine grammatische Darstellung. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error