Gai (1993: 270), analysing a similar construction of CUrmi, explains it as follows:

[B]y inserting the subordinating d the noun is converted to nomen rectum, i.e., a subordinated one [=secondary of the CSC], and by lowering the status of the noun, the status of the adjective, its subordinator in the nominal phrase, rises. […] Thus, the communicatively more important element has the more important syntactic status, while the communicatively secondary element has the secondary syntactic status.

Cohen (2012: 101) mentions a third case of an adjectival primary, namely the use of the Arabic loanword ġēr 'other'. However, it is not clear synchronically why it should be considered as an adjective rather than a type of quantifier or pronoun.

#### 5.3.5 Infinitival primaries

Infinitives can be expanded by one of their arguments in the CSC. As a general rule, infinitive of transitive verbs are expanded by their object argument, while those of intransitive verbs are expanded by their subject. Most often the infinitives are marked by the construct state suffix, but also the apocopate form is available.

(37) JZakho: Infinitive–Noun (object) (ū= and= škəl-lu began-3pl b-ət) in-cst ʾwāz-ət make-cst ṣandūqa box ta for ḥakōma king 'They began preparing a box for the king.' (Cohen 2012: 99 (37)) (38) JZakho: Infinitive–Noun Phrase (object) (… … mən) than ʾwāz make.inf.cst [xōrūs friendship.cst bnās daughter.pl.cst mīr-e emir-pl ū= and= ṗāšā-ye] pasha-pl

'(Befriending you pleases me more than) befriending daughters of emirs and pashas.' (Cohen 2012: 99 (38))

Like other nouns (examples (12)–(13) on page 118), construct state marked infinitives can also be complemented by PPs, serving as indirect objects (Cohen 2012: 117):

### 5.4 The analytic linker construction (X lnk Y)

#### 5.4.1 Introduction

The common form of the pronominal linker in JZakho is dīd. It may be analysed as an expansion of the Classical Aramaic linker d- with an overt construct state suffix yielding də- + -əd = dīd. Yet contrary to regular cases where a construct state suffix appears, the linker dīd is compatible with possessive pronominal suffixes, as in example (41) on the following page, and thus the ending -īd must be

seen as an integral part of the linker itself.12

(41) JZakho: Noun–Pronoun qaḥra grief dīd-ox lnk-2ms 'your grief' (Cohen 2012: 95 (5))

In the context of a pronominal secondary realised as a possessive suffix, the linker is in syntagmatic complementary distribution with the proclitic linker d-: The base did- is used exclusively with the monosyllabic singular possessive pronouns, while d- is used with the bisyllabic plural ones; see Table 10.9 on page 332 (Cohen 2012: 453).

(42) JZakho: Noun–Pronoun līšāna language d-ēni lnk-poss.1pl 'our language' (Cohen 2012: 85 (347))

In other contexts, the proclitic d- is restricted almost exclusively to clausal secondaries, thus functioning similarly to a relativizer (see §5.4.3, but see also the rare exceptions in example (64) on page 132, example (83) on page 138 and example (65) on page 133).

The basic use of the linker is to create an indirect attributive relationship between a primary noun (whether explicit or implicit) and a secondary noun. This relationship is indirect, since it is the pronominal linker that stands in direct attributive relationship with the secondary. The primary noun, which is most frequently explicit, stands syntactically in apposition with the linking pronoun, and is never marked for construct state in JZakho:

(43) JZakho: Noun–Noun xa indf ṭēra bird dīd lnk ḥukūm sovereignty 'a royal bird' (Cohen 2012: 96 (18))

Pronouns which are realised as independent words, such as the reflexive pronouns, are treated in the same way as nouns:

12Diachronically, one finds the same form before possessive pronominal suffixes in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, and it may be related as well to the Syriac dil-. See §10.6.2 for a discussion of its development.

#### (44) JZakho: Noun–Pronoun

(sē-le came-3ms əl) to bāžer city dīd lnk gyān-e refl-3ms '(he came to) his own town' (Cohen 2012: 132 (176))

Whenever the secondary consists both of a pronominal suffix and a full noun, the linker is repeated:

(45) JZakho: Conjoined Nouns–Pronoun+Noun [ḥāl situation ū= and= quṣta] story dīd-i lnk-1sg ū= and= dīd lnk xa indf ṭēra bird 'the story of me and a bird' (Cohen 2012: 106 (74))

Note, in passim, that in the last example the primary itself consists of a conjunction of two nouns (being in this case an idiomatic expression). Noun phrases are quite common as primaries of the ALC, especially those consisting of a noun modified by an adjective:

(46) JZakho: Noun Phrase–Noun [ʾáy def.fs ʾasəqsa ring(fs) turta] broken.fs dīd lnk ḥakōma king 'the broken ring of the king' (Cohen 2012: 102 (51))

Compare the last example to the less common construction exhibited in example (7) on page 117.

Semantically, it is noteworthy that in some cases the adjective seems to have a wide scope over the entire AC, notwithstanding its syntactic position:13

(47) JZakho: Noun Phrase–Noun (āna 1sg …) … [brōna son yakāna] only dīd lnk yəmm-i mother-poss.1sg '(I am […]) my mother's only son.' (Cohen 2012: 102 (52))

13This is not related specifically to JZakho, but it is interesting to note the phenomenon. An alternative analytic possibility is to see the adjective as a primary of an embedded ALC: [Noun [Adj. lnk Noun]].

#### 5.4.2 Verbal nouns as members of the analytic linker construction

The notion of verbal nouns should be understood here as nominal elements which can participate in a verbal construction. In JZakho, these can be infinitives or certain participles.

Infinitives can appear both as primaries and as secondaries of the ALC. As secondaries, they are analogous to nouns:

(48) JZakho: Noun–Infinitive narʾa axe dīd lnk [qṭāʾ-ət cut-cst dār-e] tree-pl 'an axe to cut trees' (Cohen 2012: 132 (177))

When an infinitive is the primary of the ALC, the secondary is an argument of the infinitive, either its subject or object. In the latter case, if the infinitive is part of a verbal periphrastic expression, one could argue that the relation to its nominal complement is a completive relation rather than an attributive one (see §2.1.1 and cf. Cohen 2012: 100). However, it is interesting to see that formally this relation is expressed by the same construction.

Thus, in the following example the infinitive mēsōye 'to bring' functions both as the primary of an ALC with its objective argument as a secondary, and as a secondary of a wider ALC. Note that in the contrast to the object nāše 'people', the locative adverbial qam məšpaṭ 'before the court' is not marked by a linker.

(49) JZakho: Infinitive–Noun (object) (húl-lē-lu gave-a3ms-dat3pl šūla task dīd) lnk mēsōye bring.inf dīd lnk nāše people qam before məšpaṭ court '(He gave them) the task of bringing the people in front of court.' (Cohen 2012: 111 (87))

Pronominal arguments are also linked by means of the same construction, as can be seen in examples (15) on page 119 and (80) on page 137.

Parallel to example (45) on the preceding page, whenever both a pronominal and a nominal argument are expressed, the linker is repeated:

(50) JZakho: Infinitive–Pronoun+Noun (subjects) ʾīxāla14 eat.inf dīd-a lnk-poss-3fs u= and= dīd lnk gōr-a man-poss.3fs 'her and her husband's food (eating)' (Cohen 2012: 106 (73))

14The infinitive ʾīxāla functions here practically as a normal noun, denoting 'food'. Yet in general

Of special interest are cases in which the object of an infinitive is expressed pronominally on a linker, while it appears in immediate apposition to an explicit nominal object. These are in fact cases of prolepsis, discussed by Cohen (2012: 142–4). Note that there are two possible realisations of the full object: First, it may be a secondary of an ALC standing in apposition to the first linker. In this case the nominal may be marked by genitive case (on which see §5.5).

(51) JZakho: Infinitive–Pronoun/Noun (object) u= and= pəš-la became-3fs mahōye assist\_delivery.inf dīd-a, lnk-3fs dəd lnk d-ē gen-dem.fs baxta woman sməx-ta pregnant-fs 'She started to assist her in delivery, this pregnant woman.' (Avinery 1988: 53 (3))

Alternatively (and more frequently), only the explicit object appears, standing in apposition with the pronominal secondary. In this case it is not marked as genitive, since it does not stand in direct attributive relation with a linker. This is shown in the following example, taken from the same story as the previous one.

(52) JZakho: Infinitive–Pronoun/Noun (object) pəš-la became-3fs mandōye throw.inf dīd-e lnk-3ms ʾaw def.ms tūma garlic 'She started to throw it, the garlic.' (Avinery 1988: 53 (6))

It is important to note that the object of an infinitive may also be introduced by the accusative/locative preposition ʾəl (see Sabar 2002: 96), in which case an AC is not used. The functional equivalence of the two constructions, as apparent in the following example, suggests indeed that the AC serves in such cases to instantiate a completive relation. The following example illustrates the two possibilities:

(53) JZakho: Infinitive–Pronoun (object) (ū= and= pəš-la became-3fs ṭāl-a for-3fs maṛaq) desire nḥāqa touch.inf ʾəll-e acc-3ms ū and xpāqa hug.inf dīd-e lnk-3ms '(and it became her desire) to touch him and hug him' (Cohen 2012: (40))

it still functions as an infinitive (see Sabar 2002: 93), and thus deserves its place here.

Not only infinitives can act as primaries of this construction, but also resultative participles, which form part of the analytic perfect tense. Here again, functionally this is a completive relation, which is formally realised as an AC. The following example is analogous to example (52) on the previous page.

(54) JZakho: Participle–Pronoun (object) ṭamāha why wē-lu cop.pst-3pl mukīm-e blackened.res-pl dīd-a lnk-3fs ʾay def.fs bāžər city 'why had they blackened the town' (Cohen 2012: 144 (7))

#### 5.4.3 Clausal secondaries

Clausal secondaries (i.e., relative clauses) can follow both the linker dīd and the shorter form d-, apparently in free variation. Note that the form d- is typically reserved in JZakho for clausal secondaries. In both cases, the clausal secondary stands in direct attributive relation with the linker, which represents the modified primary. In this respect it is similar to a relative pronoun, except that it is external to the relative clause; indeed, inside the relative clause one normally finds a second pronominal index representing the primary.

Pronouns may also act as primaries of the ALC with clausal secondaries. Such is the case of the interrogative pronoun mani 'who' in the following example. Note that in this example mani itself acts as a secondary of a CSC headed by the pronoun kud 'every':

(58) JZakho: Pronoun–Clause ku-d every-cst [mani who dīd lnk [yāwəl sbjv.give.3ms pāre money ta for ṣədāqa]] charity 'each one who gives money for charity…' (Cohen 2012: 96 (13))

Contrast this example with examples (23) and (24) on page 121, in which both mani and kud are primaries of a construct state-marked AC with a clausal secondary. Note that kud cannot act as the primary of the ALC due to its inherent construct state marking.

#### 5.4.4 Numerals as ordinal secondaries

Numerals serving as ordinal secondaries occur frequently in this construction:

(59) JZakho: Noun–Ordinal ʾō dem.ms gabāra hero dīd lnk tre two 'the second hero' (Cohen 2012: 95 (11))

(60) JZakho: Noun–Ordinal ē dem.fs baxta woman dīd lnk ṭḷāha three 'the third wife' (Cohen 2010: 85 (12))

As Cohen (2010: 85) points out, a phrase headed by a pronominal linker is the syntactic counterpart of an adjective. This is especially clear in the case of ordinal numerals, since the ordinal 'first' is always expressed as a morphological adjective:

(61) JZakho: Noun–Ordinal

ē dem.fs baxta woman qamē-sa first-fs 'the first wife' (Cohen 2010: 85 (11))

For an elaboration of this point in the context of Syriac, see the discussion in §3.8.

#### 5.4.5 Adverbials as secondaries

Adverbials, whether true adverbs, or PPs, can occur following a linking pronoun:

(62) JZakho: Noun–Adverb ku-d every-cst žaġīl worker dīd lnk tam there 'any worker (who was) there' (Cohen 2012: 116 (109))

#### (63) JZakho: Noun–Prepositional Phrase aw def.ms gōra man dīd lnk go in māya water 'the man in the water' (Cohen 2012: 132 (175))

(64) JZakho: Noun–Adverbial Phrase xabra word d= lnk= [la neg l= to= dūk-e] place-poss.3ms 'inappropriate word (lit. word not in its place)' (Cohen 2012: 217 (11))

Given that the linker d- typically precedes clausal secondaries, the last example's secondary may be understood as a reduced clause, lacking a copula.

Note that adverbials (prepositions or conjunctions) cannot serve as primaries of the ALC. This is not surprising, since a pronominal element cannot in general represent a preposition. Moreover, adverbials by virtue of their function are equivalents of construct state nouns which require a complement, and are as such incompatible with the linker. When a linker occurs after a preposition, it refers anaphorically to an implicit primary (see example (71) on page 134).

#### 5.4.6 Linkers without an explicit primary

As explained in §2.3.4, the linker is seen as pronominal since it is capable of heading an AC without any explicit nominal preceding it, functioning analogously to a construct state noun. Yet in JZakho at least, the linker is different from fully fledged pronouns in that it does not in general replace an entire determined nounphrase, but rather only the head noun of a bare noun-phrase (see Table 1.2 on page 13). Thus, whereas a normal pronoun would not typically follow a determiner, the pronominal linker usually requires a determiner to precede it, as the following examples show. In the majority of cases the determiner is definite, but not always, as example (70) on page 134 shows.15 For clarity of exposition, I put a ∅ symbol in the examples, where an overt primary could have occurred.

15Following the terminology presented in Table 1.2 on page 13, the normal pronouns represent a determined NP (or DP), while the linker represents a bare NP.

This construction is also common with clausal secondaries, yielding a kind of free relative:

(67) JZakho: ∅–Clause

ʾay def.fs ∅ ∅ d= lnk= g-əbá-wā-le ind-want.a3fs-pst-p3ms 'the onefs who wanted him' (Cohen 2012: 134 (183))

(68) JZakho: ∅–Clause

ʾaw def.ms ∅ ∅ dīd lnk hāyē sbjv.be.3ms =b-e =in-3ms əll-i acc-1sg 'the onems who can defeat me' (Cohen 2010: 84 (9))

In some cases, as in the following example, the linker is seemingly coalesced with the genitive marking of the copula (see the discussion of example (91) on page 140). Alternatively, such cases could be analysed as case of asyndetic free relative clauses (see example (110) on page 146) with an attributive marked copula.

(69) JZakho: ∅–Clause

ʾan def.pl ∅ ∅ d-īlu {lnk}.gen-cop.pl ʾəsye came.res.pl m= from= qabəl before mənn-an from-1pl 'those who came before us' (Cohen 2012: 122 (141))

One may wonder whether the determiners themselves should not be simply analysed as pronouns in the primary position of an AC. To this Cohen (2012: 134) answers: "The dets ay, aw and an are neither pronouns nor do they function as such, and hence cannot be suspected to be antecedents. In all these examples, what we have are in effect determined complex nominal syntagms." Other cases, however, do cause an analytical ambiguity. Such is the case of xa 'one' in the

following example, where it can be analysed both as a indefinite determiner or as an indefinite pronoun. Cohen (2012: 111f.) seems to imply that xa in this position is a determiner.16 Note, moreover, that the noun phrase introduced by xa is itself the secondary of CSC headed by pumma 'mouth'.

(70) JZakho: Pronoun/∅–Clause (mən from pumm-ət) mouth-cst xā indf.pro/det {∅} {∅} d= lnk= [la neg ʾāwəz sbjv.do.3ms gāzənda complaint mən from baxt-e] wife-poss.3ms '(from the mouth of) someone who does not complain about his wife' (Cohen 2012: 112 (89))

In some cases, however, the linker does appear without an overt determiner or nominal element immediately preceding it, and these require some further examination.17 The first case occurs whenever the linker is complemented by a pronominal suffix, such as in the following examples (the relevant expressions are marked in bold):18

(71) JZakho: ∅–Pronoun mā= what= xulla rhetoric qaḥra grief(fs) dīd-ox lnk-2ms zōdan-ta superior-fs =la =cop.3fs mən from ∅ ∅ dīd-i lnk-1sg 'Is your grief superior to mine?' (Cohen 2012: 95 (5))

16One may argue that the long version [xā] present in the example represents necessarily a pronoun (cf. Sabar 2002: 191). Yet the vowel-lengthening may be due to prosodic reasons, like the lack of a stress-bearing nominal following xa, and as such cannot be taken as a clear indication of grammatical status. See also the similar example (109) on page 146 where xa does not have a long vowel.

17I dismiss cases where dīd forms part of a conjoint attributive complex, such as in examples (45) on page 127 or (50) on page 128, as in such cases one can argue that both dīd phrases are leaning on the same primary noun.

18Cohen (2012: 138) writes on the complex lnk-poss: "The latter is a pronoun, rather than an adjective", but at the same time dīd/d- is considered to be on its own a "construct-state pronoun" (Cohen 2012: 452).

(72) JZakho: ∅–Pronoun ha= here= wē-la cop-3fs šasəqsa ring dīd-a lnk-3fs ʾəmm-i with-1sg ū= and= kaffīya scarf dīd-a lnk-3fs ū= and= ∅ ∅ dīd-i lnk-1sg lēw-u neg.cop-3pl kəs-li at-1sg 'Here is her ring with me and her scarf, but mine are not with me' (Cohen 2010: 84, fn. 7)

Such cases call for two analyses: either the combination lnk+poss has been grammaticalised as an independent genitive pronoun (possibly due to the inherent definiteness of the pronominal suffix19), or it simply forms a bare NP that has a ∅ determiner (which is defined by Cohen (2012: 454) to be "±definite; generic"). The latter option may be more adequate, since a similar example of a linker followed by a possessive pronoun is found with an overt determiner (but note the somewhat unexpected non-definite meaning):

(73) JZakho: ∅–Pronoun

ay def.fs ∅ ∅ d-ōhun lnk-3pl (mərta said.res.fs =la) =cop.fs 'Onefem of them (has said).' (Cohen 2012: 138, fn. 36)

Another case where a linker construction appears without an overt determiner is in predicative position. In this position it may well be a bare NP, as the predicate position is quite flexible syntactically (it can accommodate as well bare adjectives or adverbial phrases). The following two examples constitute a question/answer pair, both having a predicative dīd.

(74) JZakho: ∅–pronoun ∅ ∅ dīd lnk mani who =le =cop.3ms ōqadda so\_much māl? property 'Whose is so much property?' (Cohen 2012: 95 (12))

(75) JZakho: ∅–noun

g-əmr-i: ind-say-3pl ∅ ∅ dīd lnk flāna certain nāša man =le =cop.3ms 'They say: it is of a certain man.' (Cohen 2012: 95 (12))

19Recall that the definiteness of the Semitic CSC is typically determined by the secondary; see §2.3.3.

Finally, there is a quite different usage of the d- morpheme without a nominal primary, namely its usage as a complementizer, such as in the following examples:

One may reasonably argue that when used as a complementizer, dīd/d- is not part of an AC, and is thus distinct from the linker.20 Further evidence to this is adduced by the fact that in some cases, such as in example (76) the copula does not appear in its genitive form, as expected in an AC.

#### 5.5 Genitive marking of secondaries

As discussed in §4.5, all determiners and demonstratives of JZakho which start with a glottal-stop or a vowel have a special genitive allomorph, formed by removing the glottal stop and prefixing the genitive d- marker. These include the definite articles (see Table 4.4 on page 108), some demonstratives and the interrogative determiner ēma 'which'. As mentioned there, the discovery and analysis of this phenomenon in JZakho is due to Cohen (2010), but it occurs in other dialects as well. As the facts motivating this analysis are the clearest in JZakho, I repeat them here briefly.

First, as stated above, the d- prefix appears only before a closed set of determiners and demonstratives, and not before other any ʾ or vowel-initial word (compare (17) on page 119), thus excluding a simple phonological conditioning of its appearance.21

20Paradigmatically, it can be replaced by other complementizing particles, such as ʾənnu 'that' or hakan 'whether', attesting to its different status. See also the discussion regarding the similar Syriac examples (59)–(62) on page 68.

21Clearly, such a phonological conditioning took part in the diachronic emergence of the marker,

Second, note that the d- prefix appears after primaries with a suffixed construct state marker, primaries marked by apocopate construct state, as well as unmarked invariable primaries:

The first example proves that the d- prefix is distinct from the construct state marker, while the second and third examples show that it occurs also when no /d/ segment is called for by a construct state marking.

The last point can also be exemplified when the genitive marking follows an adverbial which normally do not get the -əd suffix:

(81) JZakho: Preposition–Noun mən from d-ay gen-def xzēna treasure 'from the treasure' (Cohen 2012: 108 (77))

In contrast to other dialects, the genitive marking is obligatory whenever its appearance conditions are met. The very few exceptions listed by Cohen (2012: 108, fn. 15) can probably be explained by speech lapsi (or transcription errors), rather than a systematic optionality.

As we will see below, the genitive marker is also distinct from the linking pronoun, with which it can co-occur.

but it is no longer operative. In Nerwa (texts from the 17th century) one finds examples like šəmm-əd d-ʾəlāha 'name of God' (Sabar 2002: 38, §2).

#### 5.5.1 Genitive marking following the linker

Since the linker stands in direct attributive relationship with its complement (the secondary), the latter is marked by genitive case whenever possible:

(82) JZakho: Noun–Noun ʾōda room dīd lnk d-aw gen-def.masc gōra man 'the room of the man' (Cohen 2012: 106 (72))

A genitive marker following the short linker d- is also found, as in the following example (=example (16) on page 108). In the original source it is written as a separate word, but very likely it procliticizes to the following word. Given that d- typically comes before clausal secondaries (see §5.4.3), it is possible that it appears here as a phonetic simplification of the sequence dīd d-o > d= d-o.

(83) JZakho: Noun Phrase–Noun (mən) from [d-o gen-dem.ms bəhna breath(ms) rwīxa] wide.ms d= lnk= [d-o gen-dem.masc jwanqa] youngster '(from) the patience of this youngster' (Cohen 2012: 106 (71))

#### 5.5.2 Genitive marking of clauses

As we have seen above (§5.3.2), clauses may act as secondaries. In some cases, their secondary status is marked by the very same prefix d-. Indeed, JZakho has developed a special series of genitivally marked copulas, which consist of the normal (indicative present) copula preceded by d-. While the copula is the marked element, the scope of the marking should be understood as the entire secondary clause. As Cohen (2010) notes, this innovation of JZakho is similar to an Akkadian construction, but no direct influence can be adduced.22

22It should be noted that the genitive marking of clauses is different from the subjunctive mood (i.e. šaqəl forms without a pre-verbal particle) which exists in JZakho and other dialects. While the subjunctive mood is frequently found with embedded clauses, it adds a semantic mood value to the utterance, in contrast to the genitive marker, which is a pure grammatical mark of secondary position. Moreover, the subjunctive form can appear in matrix clauses, as example (92) on page 140 shows.

(84) JZakho: Noun–Clause (b-əd) in-cst ḥaqq-əd price-cst d-īlu gen-cop.3pl ʾəsye came.res mən from mōṣəl M. 'at the price which they had come to you from Mosul' (Cohen 2012: 119 (116))

#### (85) JZakho: Noun–Clause

(psōx) open.imp xā indf sandū́q chest [d-īle gen-cop.3ms mutwa placed.res go in qurnīs-ət corner-cst čappe] left 'open a chest that is placed in the left corner' (Cohen 2012: 119 (119))

Thus, the genitive marking appears both after nouns with suffixed cst marker or in apocopate cst form. It is worthwhile noting that the d- prefix occurs even when the copula is not the first element of the attributive clause, though this must occur quite rarely, as the following example is unique in my survey:

(86) JZakho: Noun–Clause (qam pst mesē-li brought.a3pl-p1sg ʾəl) to d-ay gen-def qaṣər castle.cst [maṭməryam VM. d-īla gen-cop.3fs ʾəll-e] on-3ms '(They brought me to) the castle, on which (the statue of) Virgin Mary is.23' (Cohen 2012: 119 (117))

The genitive marking appears also in ACs headed by adverbial conjunctions, whether they are invariable or construct state marked:

23If dīla is assumed to open the relative clause, it yields the quite odd interpretation "the castle of Virgin Mary, whose (statue) is on it".

The same genitive copula is used also for clausal secondaries of the ALC, i.e. following the linker:

In the last example the d- linker cliticizes to the d- genitive marker. This resulting d=d cluster is sometimes simplified to a de-geminated /d/, serving in both functions (cf. Cohen 2012: 122):

(91) JZakho: Noun (subject)–Clause ay def.fs ʾurxa road d-īl-a lnk.gen-cop-3fs msukar-ta closed.res-fs mən from qam before mšalxāne robbers ū= and= ganāwe thieves 'the road which is closed because of robbers and thieves' (Cohen 2012: 121 (137))

The genitive marking of clauses, on the other hand, is possible only whenever the secondary clause uses the indicative copula. When no such copula is present, such as when a form of the verb 'to be' is used, no genitive marking is apparent. This is exemplified by example (23) on page 120 and possibly also by example (109) on page 146. Similarly the existential particle (glossed ex), combined here with the preposition b- 'in' to denote ability, has no genitive marking:

(92) JZakho: Pronoun–Clause

(šaql-axni) sbjv.take-1pl mā-t what-cst [ʾī-b-an ex-in-1pl mṭāš-ax sbjv.hide-1pl go in jēbē-ni] pocket.pl-poss1pl 'Let's take whatever we can hide in our pockets.' (Cohen 2012: 96 (20))

### 5.6 The double annexation construction (X-y.poss lnk-y)

In general the DAC is not used in JZakho. A rare usage of it occurs when the secondary is pronominal, in which case a possessive pronoun can be suffixed both to the primary noun and to a linker. This yields some added pragmatic emphasis.

(93) JZakho: Noun–Pronoun baxt-i woman-poss.1sg dīd-i lnk-1sg 'my own wife' (Cohen 2012: 113, fn. 19)

### 5.7 Juxtaposition (X Y.{agr})

By juxtaposition I mean a construction in which the two members of the AC are put adjacent to each other, without any further marking (except for the possibility of agreement, in which case it is juxtaposition-cum-agreement). This type of construction is reserved in JZakho for several quite distinct cases, which are detailed below.

#### 5.7.1 Adjectival attribution

Adjectives are normally directly juxtaposed after the primary noun. Syntactically, they stand in apposition with the primary noun; the attributive relationship itself is expressed indirectly by agreement of the adjective with the head noun. Such cases are termed here accordingly juxtaposition-cum-agreement. The inflection of adjectives, however, is mostly restricted to adjectives of Aramaic origin, especially with regard to the gender feature.

#### 5 Attributive constructions in the Jewish dialect of Zakho

The ordinal qamāya 'first' acts as an adjective, as is seen in example (61) on page 131.

Borrowed adjectives sometimes do not inflect (or inflect only for number). This is the case of the adjective ʿāqəl 'wise', borrowed from Arabic (Sabar 2002: 246a). Such cases are truly zero-marked ACs:

(96) JZakho: Noun–Adjective ʾaxōna brother ʿāqəl wise(inv) '(the) wise brother' (Cohen 2012: 214)

Occasionally an inflecting definite determiner precedes the adjective, instead of the primary noun (Cohen 2012: 215). The reasons for this are unclear, and may be related to some unknown semantic or stylistic factors. One syntactic possibility is that it marks the grammatical features of a non-inflecting (or partially inflecting) adjective, as in the following example (=example (4) on page 12):

(97) JZakho: Noun–Adjective axōna brother aw def.ms rūwa big.sg24 'the older brother' (Cohen 2012: 214)

Another motivation might be the occurrence of a possessed noun as the primary, which normally is not marked by a determiner preceding it:

(98) JZakho: Noun Phrase–Adjective axōn-e brother-poss.3ms aw def.ms ʿāqəl wise(inv) 'his wise brother' (Cohen 2012: 214)

Recall, however, that similar examples occur also in Syriac (see example (109) on page 86).25

24Note that rūwa 'big' inflects only for number in JZakho (Sabar 2002: 288b).

25Another possibility suggested by Eran Cohen (p.c.) is that the determiner imitates the position of the Kurmanji linker Ezafe, which precedes the adjective (see §9.5.2 as well §<IP_ADDRESS>.5 on page 316). For possible relationship to the Semitic heritage see footnote 15 on page 11.

#### <IP_ADDRESS> Inverse order juxtaposition (Y X)

Cohen (2012: 214, fn. 2) mentions that "in a small number of cases", the adjective precedes the noun, creating an inverse juxtaposition construction:26

Interestingly, Sabar (2002) mentions a variant of this construction with the construct state suffix, which is very similar to the emotive genitive construction presented in example (34) on page 124.

(101) JZakho: Noun–Adjective xa indf fīt-a/əd huge-free/cst gōra man 'a huge person' (Sabar 2002: 263a)

Thus, it may be that inverse juxtapositioninverse juxtaposition construction of adjectives has some emotive value as well, but this question has not been investigated in the scope of this work.

#### 5.7.2 Adverbial primaries

As mentioned in §5.3.3, prepositions which are not explicitly marked with a construct state -əd suffix cannot be considered to be marked by apocope, since they do not have a free form (unless they are derived from nouns). In these cases they are merely juxtaposed before their complement, as in the following example (contrast with example (28) on page 122):

26Recall that the title of examples follows always the order Primary-Secondary.

27Sabar (2002: 172a) lists ṭūra as 'mountain', but I follow here the translation given by Cohen.

(102) JZakho: Preposition–Noun b= in= bəllūre flute 'with a flute' (Cohen 2010: 85 (15))

Nonetheless, most prepositions induce an attributive relationship, as is clear from the occurrence of genitive marked secondaries following them, such as in example (81) on page 137.

Cohen (2012: 104) does mention, however, one preposition, bēb 'with', which does not induce genitive case, and thus formally always realises a juxtaposition pattern:28

(103) JZakho: Preposition–Pronoun bēb with ʾāwa 3ms 'with him' (Cohen 2012: 104 (70))

It is interesting to note that a preposition can be diachronically derived from an apocopate construct state noun, without being any more synchronically connected to it. Such is the case of the preposition rəš 'on', derived from the noun rēša 'head', still present in the dialect. The former is a phonologically reduced form of the construct state of the latter, rēš. 29 While synchronically the noun can also occur as rēšəd, the preposition is invariable. The contrast is neatly shown in the following example (continuing example (43) on page 126):

(104) JZakho: Preposition–Noun Phrase rəš on [rēš-ət head-cst manī-t who-cst yātū-wa] sbjv.sit-pst 'on the head of whomever it would sit' (Cohen 2012: 96 (18))

28Sabar (2002: 108) lists this preposition as being possibly from Kurdish origin, while Mutzafi (2008a: 121) gives a possible Aramaic etymology b-ēh b- consisting of the preposition b- 'in' repeated with a proleptic pronoun. Given that Kurdish Kurmanji prepositions induce oblique case, the Aramaic etymology may be the correct one.

29The derivation of the preposition 'on' from the noun 'head' is probably a pattern borrowing from Kurdish, where the word ser has the same two meanings (Noorlander 2014: 206).

#### 5.7.3 Adverbial secondaries

Nouns, as well as pronouns, can be modified by at least some adverbial secondaries without any AC marking, neither on the primary nor on the secondary:

#### 5.7.4 Clausal secondaries

Clausal secondaries can follow an indefinite primary noun asyndetically, i.e. without any particular marking. Cohen (2012: 138) tentatively relates this pattern to Arabic influence, whether direct or indirect, as in Arabic too the construction is confined to indefinite primaries.30

(107) JZakho: Noun–Clause

(u= and= ʾāna 1sg gəb-ēn ind.want-1sg ṭāʾ-ət-tə) look-a2ms-dat.1sg [xa indf xamsa] maid [hōya sbjv.be.3ms mən from məšpāḥá family bāš] good 'I want you to look for a maid (who) is from a good family.' (Cohen 2012: 137 (214))

Such asyndetic clauses may be related to examples like the following:

(108) JZakho: Noun–Clause(?) (mpəq-le came\_out-3ms mən from xá= one= ʾāl) side [xa indf ʾarya] lion [ʾēn-e eye-poss.3ms smōq-e] red-pl 'From one side came out a lion, his eyes red' (Cohen 2012: 225 (63))

30"Most asyndetic adjective clauses [… are] perhaps modeled after the Arabic ([but] this phenomenon also occurs in NENA dialects that are clearly outside the Arabic speaking area)." (Cohen 2012: 137f.). See discussion in §11.3.1.

#### 5 Attributive constructions in the Jewish dialect of Zakho

Cohen (2012: 225) classifies such cases as non-clausal adjectival nexus. In his view, while these are expressions of a predicative relation (a nexus, see §2.1.1), they are not clausal, since they lack a copula.31 Nevertheless, since nominal clauses lacking a copula do occur (albeit rarely) in NENA dialects, one may relax the usage of the term clause to include such cases as well.

The morpheme xa, followed by an asyndetic attributive clause, presents the same analytical difficulty found in example (70) on page 134. Either one analyses it as an indefinite pronoun ('someone'), which is followed directly by an attributive clause, and is not marked as construct state (contrast with the construct state pronouns in examples (22)–(25) on page 120), or one analyses it as an indefinite determiner, followed by a ∅ primary noun + relative clause, which renders the structure parallel to the above examples:

(109) JZakho: Pronoun/∅–Clause (la neg ġzē-lu) saw-3pl xa indf.pro/det {∅} {∅} [šəmm-e name-poss.3ms hāwe sbjv.be.3ms qaramā́n] Q. 'They did not find anyone whose name is Qaraman.' (Cohen 2012: 137 (216))

Note that in either analysis, xa introduces a discourse referent, which is referred to in the secondary clause by the 3ms pronominal indices.

The latter analysis may also be preferred due to the rare occurrence of a similar structure introduced by a definite determiner. In such examples, as the following, I also posit the occurrence of a ∅ primary.32

(110) JZakho: ∅–Clause an def.pl ∅ ∅ k-sēm-i ind-hate-3pl mənn-an from-1pl 'those who hate us' (Cohen 2012: 138 (217))

31Cf. Goldenberg (2013a: 257) who writes: "such syntagms are not conceived as asyndetically embedded sentences, which in Neo-Aramaic would require a copula […] In other words, such syntagms might be said to incorporate the cohesive or relational, but not the assertive, constituent of the nexus."

32Note though that such cases are unusual, in that a definite primary would normally not allow an asyndetic relative clause. Cohen (2012: 138) mentions that such examples are only found in one source (Sabar 2007), which is a unique genre of autobiographical account.

#### 5.7.5 Infinitival primaries

As shown in §5.3.5, infinitives can be marked by construct state morphology. This marking, however, is not obligatory, probably due to the verbal nature of infinitives: When followed by an object argument, the infinitive can induce a completive relation, which is manifested by the unmarked juxtaposition construction, rather than a marked attributive relation. Contrast the following example with example (38) on page 125 (which is the continuation of this example):

(111) JZakho: Infinitive–Noun (bəš more xlē-la pleased-3fs ʾəll-i) to-1sg ʾwāza make.inf xōrūs-ax friendship-poss.2fs (mən than …) … 'Befriending you (pleases me more than befriending emirs' and pashas' daughters.)' (Cohen 2012: 99 (38))

### 5.8 Conclusions

JZakho has three types of AC markers (construct state marking, the linker, and genitive case), but only two can co-occur at the same time, as the cst and lnk marking are in complementary distribution. In other words, JZakho has two slots of marking the AC, presented in Table 5.1. Note that these slots do not correspond directly to head-marking vs. dependent marking, as the first slot opposes the head-marking construct state markers attaching to the primary with the dependent marking linker, which attaches syntactically and phonologically to the secondary.

The dialect presents both innovative and conservative aspects of the AC system, as compared to Classical Aramaic (of which I take Syriac as the main point of comparison). First and foremost, it conserves the classical Semitic logic of the attributive relation marking: this relation must be marked either directly on the primary noun (by means of construct state marking), or indirectly by means of

a pronominal linker. Moreover, the distinction between nominal/clausal attribution, in which the attributive relationship is overt, and adjectival attribution, in which it is covert (formally realised only by agreement) is strictly kept. On the other hand, JZakho innovated the morphological material available for marking the construct state, most notably the suffixed construct state -əd marker, and to a lesser degree novel apocopate forms. Cohen (2015: 121ff.) suggests that the development of the -əd suffix is related to pattern replication from the coterritorial Kurmanji, yet an internal development stemming from encliticization of the Classical Aramaic d- linker to the primary is possible as well (see discussion in §10.4.2).

Another related morphological innovation is the introduction of the variant form dīd as an independent linker, in contrast to a base appearing only with possessive pronominal suffixes as in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic. This may be explained by the resemblance of the dīd linker to a d- linker augmented by the construct state -əd suffix; see §10.6.2 for a discussion. Note that all the above discussed innovations do not change the basic logic of the system, but rather affect only the forms involved.

Structurally more innovative is the introduction of genitive marking in certain morphological environments (certain determiners, and the indicative copula). While genitive marking existed in ancient Semitic languages, it is unknown in prior strata of Aramaic,33 and must be considered as an innovation. It is clearly innovative in that it constitutes an additional marker of ACs (on top of the construct state marking or the linker). Moreover, in some cases, such as ACs headed by simple prepositions, it reveals the existence of an attributive relation which could in earlier strata only be posited abstractly. In this respect, the innovation of genitive marking is more important structurally than the innovation of new construct state forms, although it affects only a restricted number of grammatical items. Nonetheless, the overall effect of this innovation on the attributive system is small, as it only adds morphological marking in restricted cases, without restructuring any AC.

Another point which can be considered innovative is the usage of the linker in marking completive relations, following infinitives as well as resultative participles (see §5.4.2). This phenomenon, however, is situated at the periphery of the attributive system, and is in fact related to the development of periphrastic verbal constructions.

Another innovation, as compared to earlier strata of Aramaic, is the possibility of introducing relative clauses directly after primaries marked for construct state, irrespective of the type of marking (apocope or the -əd suffix). While this

33But see footnote 43 on page 109.

possibility existed in ancient Semitic languages (such as Biblical Hebrew), it must have been reintroduced in NENA. Indeed, the usage of clausal secondaries after apocopate construct state primaries is specific to the J. Cis-Zab group, as it is only clearly attested there.34 To be sure, it does not appear in Syriac. This innovation can be understood as filling a syntactic gap (or asymmetry) in the system which existed in previous Aramaic dialects, including Syriac, since it extends the possibility of marking ACs with nominal secondaries either by the linking pronoun or by the construct state marking to clausal secondaries as well. As such, it can be said to be an internally motivated development (due to the general force of analogy), but see again Cohen (2015: 123) who suggests that this possibility is due to pattern replication from Kurmanji. In the realm of relative clauses, one finds also the innovation of asyndetic relative clauses (see §5.7.4), which is known in other Semitic languages, but not in Aramaic. Here, the suggestion of borrowing from Arabic (Cohen 2012: 138) seems plausible; see further discussion in §11.3.1.

As for the phonological material, JZakho is clearly conservative, as it recycles the same material for the new morphological devices. The D-markers derive from the Classical Aramaic linker d-, which by various cliticization and re-analysis processes yielded the construct state suffix -əd (see §10.4) and the genitive prefix d- (§10.5). The linker dīd existed already in Classical Aramaic (in particular in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic) as a pronominal base of the independent genitive pronouns, but it has been reanalysed in JZakho as an independent linker, capable of introducing full nominal secondaries (see §10.6.2). Thus, no morphemes are borrowed from contact languages.

In summary, notwithstanding the possibility of language contact, it seems that most of the JZakho features regarding the AC system can be explained, at least in principle, by processes of internal development. These processes "shuffle around" morphemic material (making essentially analytical forms synthetic), but keep the essential logic of the system intact.

(i) Amədya: Noun–Clause ḥil until yom day.cst gawər-wa-la marry.a3ms-pst-p3fs 'until the day he married her' (Greenblatt 2011: 73)

34See Table 11.1 on page 349 and the following Amədya example for another J. Cis-Zab dialect showing this construction:

## 6 Attributive constructions in the Christian dialect of Qaraqosh

The data of the Qaraqosh dialect is based on Khan (2002a). Note that the town name Qaraqosh is referred to as Baġdedə in the dialect itself, as will be apparent in some of the examples below.1

Compared to JZakho, Qaraqosh presents a more conservative system of ACs, as we shall see below. With respect to the AC system, the dialect is quite similar to the neighbouring dialect of Alqosh (=Alqosh), described by Coghill (2003), but still somewhat more conservative.

The main ACs in Qaraqosh are the suffixed CSC (see §6.2) and the ALC (see §6.3). Due to the frequent resyllabification of the /d/ segment, however, it is not always easy to distinguish between the two. This fuzzy situation may be related to the conservative nature of the dialect. Moreover, in contrast to JZakho, there is no regular genitive d- marking, although some cases may resemble it (see example (76) on page 172). In Gospel translations one finds also the DAC (see §6.4.2).

The chapter discusses also some other constructions found in Qaraqosh: the use of the possessive pronominal suffixes, in which Qaraqosh has some particularities, is discussed in the next section. Double marking due to hesitation is discussed in §6.4.1. Juxtaposition constructions, on the periphery of the AC system of Qaraqosh, are discussed in §6.5.

#### 6.1 Possessive pronominal suffixes (X-y.poss)

Qaraqosh, like all NENA dialects, has a series of pronominal possessive suffixes, that can attach freely to nouns. The possessive pronouns replace the last vowel

1The examples are cited referring to the page in the grammar in which they are treated. Examples which are part of the texts collected by Khan are furthermore indicated by a textual reference, using Khan's notation system in square brackets. The single letters refer to informants' free speech, while the labels Proverbs, Play, Poetry and Gospel refer to recordings of a collection of proverbs, a theatre play, poetry recitation, and a Gospel translation. Note that the recordings of informant K (including the proverbs) are publicly available (see link under Khan 2002a in the Bibliography).

of the noun, which corresponds to the free state and number marking. As a consequence, when the number distinction is expressed solely by this vowel, it is lost. Such is the case of the noun tora 'ox' with the plural form torə:

(1) Qaraqosh: Noun–Pronoun tór-əḥ ox(en)-poss.3ms 'his ox(en)' (Khan 2002a: 76)

Qaraqosh, however, exhibits a special feature, in that the plural possessive pronominal suffixes retain the number distinction of the noun to which they attach: these suffixes transform a plural /-ə/ suffix to an /-e/ suffix, instead of suppressing it. As Khan (2002a: 77) notes, this is an archaism of the dialect, which conserves the reflex of an original \*ay:

The possessive suffix attaches strictly to the primary noun. A modifying adjective appears after this complex (contrast with example (59) on page 167):

(4) Qaraqosh: Noun Phrase–Pronoun sús-əḥ horse-poss.3ms kóma black 'his black horse' (Khan 2002a: 280)

An interesting phenomenon particular to this dialect is the insertion of an ətt suffix (glossed below as fs) before the possessive pronoun in some feminine nouns, such as ʾarnúwa 'rabbit':

(5) Qaraqosh: Noun–Pronoun ʾarnuw-ə́tt-əḥ rabbit-fs-poss.3ms 'his rabbit' (Khan 2002a: 204)

As most of the nouns which behave in this way are of Arabic origin, Khan (2002a: 206) relates this phenomenon to the retention of the Arabic tāʾ marbūṭa, which is an -ət suffix appearing in construct state feminine nouns.2 In this account, the gemination of the /t/ segment may be explained by a merger with the Aramaic feminine suffix -ta, yielding -ət + -ta = -ətta, noting that the final -a vowel is dropped before the possessive suffixes. The gemination could also be explained on phonological grounds, as a mean to conserve the short [ə] vowel in a closed syllable. Either way, in contrast to the Arabic tāʾ marbūṭa, the Qaraqosh -ətt is not a generalized feminine construct state marker, as it appears only before possessive pronouns, and not before full nominal secondaries.

Another possibility which Khan raises is that the -ətt segment may be related to the linker did, akin to the NWNA heavy possessive suffixes which contain the linker d-, 3 but this seems less plausible due to the restricted distribution of this suffix with feminine nouns only.

Infinitives, as well as particles, take the same possessive suffixes as nouns. These suffixes mark then the complements of the verbal lexeme (see also §6.2.7):

Some prepositions may also take the possessive pronominal suffixes:

2Khan (2002a: 204) notes that the final /a/ of Arabic loanwords, which corresponds to tāʾ marbūṭa (in its free state form), is often pronounced as [ə].

3 See footnote 11 on page 302 for an example.

(8) Qaraqosh: Preposition–Pronoun txíθ-əḥ under-poss.3ms 'under it' (Khan 2002a: 80)

Other prepositions, which cannot take this suffix, have a suppletive form which appears only with the possessive suffixes. Such is the case of ʾeka~gib- 'at' or da~ġdal- 'for':

As for the plural possessive suffixes, some prepositions take the plain variant, while others take the variant used after plural primaries, probably due to their nominal origin.

### 6.2 The construct state construction (X.cst Y)

The marking of the primary by the construct state suffix -əd is the most common type of AC in Qaraqosh, but its identification is not always easy, due to phonological considerations. Indeed, very often the construct state suffix syllabifies

with the subsequent secondary, rendering it similar to the linker construction, discussed in §6.3. At the same time, the historical apocopate construct state is only retained in a handful of expressions, discussed below.

#### 6.2.1 The historical construct state marking

The historical construct state marking, characterized synchronically by an apocope of the primary noun (minimally the removal of the free state suffix), is found only in a handful of "closely knit-phrases" (Khan 2002a: 209), i.e. proper nouns or fixed expressions (compounds), with either opaque semantics (see example (13) on the current page) or transparent semantics (see example (14) on this page). Additionally, one finds the primary bi 'house.cst' in the meaning of 'family/house of' used productively with a referential secondary (see example (15) on the current page).4 Note that in example (14) the word bắxət 'wife.cst' is formed from baxta 'wife.free' by the removal of the free state suffix -a and the insertion of an epenthetic ə.

In this respect, Qaraqosh differs from JZakho, in which the apocopate construct state is entirely productive (see example (6) on page 117 among others).

4 For a discussion of the various types of compounds in NENA, see Gutman (2014).

#### 6.2.2 The suffixed construct state formation

The productive formation of the construct state is made with the help of the -(ə)d suffix, which originates in the encliticization of the linker d-. 5 The suffix replaces the final vowel of the primary (if it ends in a vowel), leading often to a neutralisation of the number distinction of the primary noun:

(16) Qaraqosh: Noun–Noun kθáw-əd book-cst qášɑ priest 'the book of the priest' (Khan 2002a: 276)

In some cases, especially after liquid consonants following a vowel, the [ə] segment is not present, alluding to its epenthetic status.

(17) Qaraqosh: Noun–Noun gúr-d men-cst máθa town 'the men of the town' (Khan 2002a: 208 [F:96])

Some specific nouns seem to combine a historical apocopate construct state form with an -əd suffix. Such is the case of the nounsʾəbra 'son' and brata 'daughter':

As Khan (2002a: 208) mentions, in some cases the /d/ segment is phonetically syllabified with the secondary. This happens predominantly when the secondary starts with a vowel (often preceded by an epenthetic glottal stop) or a consonant

5Khan treats the construct state marker and the linker as two manifestations of the same annexation particle d; see Chapter 4 for similar opinions of other scholars. For the development of the construct state suffix see discussion in §10.4.

cluster, in which case an epenthetic [ə] is added after the /d/. These cases are still in principle differentiable from the linker d- (treated in §6.3), thanks to the replacement of the final (free state) vowel of the primary (typically an -a for singular nouns) by an [ə] (glossed in such cases as schwa), or its complete elision in some cases (typically when the last consonant of the primary is a liquid).6

The syllabification of the construct state suffix with a vowel-initial secondary is not automatic however, as example (18) on the preceding page and the following example show (contrast with example (20) on this page):

(22) Qaraqosh: Noun–Noun

báb-əd father-cst ʾaxón-əd brother-cst ʾə́mm-i mother-poss.1sg 'the father of the brother of my mother' (Khan 2002a: 276 [B:25])

Conversely, the suffix may syllabify with the secondary even when the above mentioned phonological conditions are not fulfilled:

6The elision of a final schwa in a CVCə CV environment seems to be a regular phonological process in Qaraqosh and the neighbouring Alqosh dialect (cf. Coghill 2003: 73). Since only a schwa is thus elided (and not the vowel [a]), the lack of a final vowel is a clear indication of an underlying -əd suffix. On the other hand, when a schwa is present, it is often difficult in normally paced speech to tell it apart from an /-a/ suffix, which is often realised as [æ]. When the primary noun ends in the free state with an [ə] (such as some plural nouns or infinitives) it is impossible to tell the difference between the two constructions in normal speech. Indeed, Coghill (2003: 298), describing the neighbouring Alqosh dialect, notices that it is often impossible to tell whether the /d/ segment is associated with the primary or the secondary, as in nāšə-d-jéš 'men of the army'.

7This is the text as it appears in the corpus. In the grammar, it is cited erroneously as ʾitə d-Ašmoni.

(23) Qaraqosh: Noun–Noun kθayáθ-ə chickens- -də= Baġdèdə isischwa -cst= B. 'the chickens of Qaraqosh.' (Khan 2002a: 208 [B:105])

In some cases, the /d/ segment is assimilated to the following segment. In Khan's transcription the assimilated segment is written as a proclitic of the secondary:

(24) Qaraqosh: Noun–Noun ʾilan-ə tree- -z= záʾθa isischwa -cst= olive 'olive tree' (Khan 2002a: 208 [K:56])

In cases where the resulting geminate is de-geminated, the only indicator of the construct state is the lack of the final free state vowel on the primary, and its replacement by an [ə] (in which cases it fully assumes the role of construct state marking, and is thus glossed cst):

(25) Qaraqosh: Noun–Noun ʾár-ə land-cst Baġdèdə B. 'the land of Qaraqosh' (Khan 2002a: 208 [S:48])

When the primary consists of conjoined nouns, one construct state suffix is sufficient for the entire phrase, as in the following example (=example (11) on page 104; compare to the other examples there):8

(26) Qaraqosh: Conjoined nouns–Noun [wánat= sheep= u and toráθ]-əd cows-cst Baġdèdə B. 'the sheep and cows of Qaraqosh' (Khan 2002a: 276 [F:1])

8Note that wanat is the plural form of ʾuwana, wana 'female sheep' and not an apocopate form (Khan 2002a: 727).

#### 6.2.3 Adverbial primaries

Recall that the term adverbial is used here as a cover term for both conjunctions and prepositions, as these often assume an adverbial function (see footnote 47 on page 44). However, the CSC of Qaraqosh admits only prepositions (taking nominal complements) as primaries:

In some cases, only the /-ə/ segment remains of the construct state suffix (compare with example (25) on the preceding page):

(30) Qaraqosh: Preposition–Noun báθr-ə behind-cst báb-əḥ father-poss.3ms 'behind his father' (Khan 2002a: 233)

Conversely, when the secondary is vowel-initial the /d/ segment tends to syllabify with the secondary (compare with example (20) on page 157). In such cases, the /ə/ segment tends to fall.

(31) Qaraqosh: Preposition–Noun txiθ under -d= -cst= àql-əḥ foot-poss.3ms 'under his foot' (Khan 2002a: 240 [F:38])

The same analysis holds for the prepositions mən 'from' and max 'like', though their construct state forms appear only before vowel-initial secondaries:9

As the above examples show, in many of these cases the vowel-initial element opening the secondary is a demonstrative pronoun. The attachment of the /d/ segment to it may be the first step in the path of its reanalysis as a genitive case marker conditioned morphologically by the presence of a demonstrative pronoun (see §10.5). This reanalysis has not taken place in Qaraqosh (or at least, not completely), as the attachment of the /d/ segment to the secondary is still conditioned by a vowel-initial phonological environment (as example (31) on the previous page shows), rather than being morphologically conditioned by the presence of certain demonstratives. Moreover, as example (115) on page 182 shows, the /d/ segment does not appear consistently before demonstrative pronouns where a

(i) Bohtan: Preposition–Noun mənn-ət from-cst karačüke gypsies 'from the Gypsies' (Fox 2009: 99)

9The simple forms of the preposition (without a /d/ segment) are used preceding consonantinitial secondaries, giving rise to the juxtaposition construction (see §6.5.2 and examples (114) and (117) there). This restriction does not hold in other dialects, where the construct state form mənn-əd is found preceding such secondaries, including Nerwa (see example (59) on page 377), JUrmi (see example (18) on page 193) and Bohtan, as illustrated by the following example:

genitive marking would be expected. See, however, example (76) on page 172 for a case where positing a genitive prefix seems to be the best analytical possibility.

#### 6.2.4 Adjectival primaries

There are two distinct types of cases in which adjectives appear in the primary slot of the construct state construction. In the first case, akin to the impure annexation in Arabic, the adjectival lexeme is modified syntactically by a secondary noun (which semantically is qualified by the adjective). The resulting AC is an adjectival phrase which modifies another noun (compare with the ALC in example (77) on page 172):10

(35) Qaraqosh: Adjective–Noun (góra) man xwár-əd white-cst kósa hair 'a white-haired (man)' (Khan 2002a: 281)

The second case represents an emotive genitive, in which the noun posing as a secondary is in fact the semantic head, and the use of the adjective as a primary (and subsequently as a syntactic head) adds emotional value to the phrase (compare with the JZakho example (34) on page 124 and see footnote 11 there.)

#### 6.2.5 The primary nafs 'the same'

An interesting example of borrowing a construct state construction together with its primary (a matter-cum-pattern replication in the sense of Sakel 2007), is the borrowing of the Arabic function word نفس nafs. This word, originally meaning

10Compare this with the Classical Arabic example ħasanu l-waǧh-i 'beautiful.cst def-face-gen' (Goldenberg 2013a: 277). See Goldenberg (2002: 204ff.) for a discussion.

#### 6 Attributive constructions in the Christian dialect of Qaraqosh

'soul', has been grammaticalised in Arabic into a reflexive pronoun, and as head of the CSC into a determiner meaning 'the same':

(38) Arabic: nafs–noun نفس الاكل nafs-u soul-nom l-ʾakl-i def-food-gen 'the same food'

In Qaraqosh, the reflexive pronoun is roxa, a native Aramaic word meaning 'soul' (see Khan 2002a: 84).11 The morpheme nafs has been borrowed, however, in its determinative function with the meaning the same. Moreover, its syntactic position as the head of a CSC is replicated, albeit being marked with NENA morphology, namely the construct state -əd suffix.

(39) Qaraqosh: nafs–Noun náfs-əd same-cst ʾəxàla food 'the same food' (Khan 2002a: 642 [F:77])

#### 6.2.6 Clausal secondaries

The suffixal CSC can also introduce a clausal secondary:

11This need not be a pattern replication, as this meaning is a common source for reflexive pronouns cross-linguistically. A single example of matter replication of this sense is attested in Qaraqosh as nafə̀ssə 'themselves' (Khan 2002a: 739).

In the following examples, the construct state suffix syllabifies with the clause, which starts either with a vowel-initial copula, or a consonant cluster (contrast with example (40) on the facing page):

Note that in the last example the pronoun mani 'who' loses its final /i/ vowel in presence of the construct state suffix.

#### 6.2.7 Infinitives in the construct state construction

Infinitives of transitive verbs can appear as primaries of the CSC, having their objective complement as the secondary. Infinitives of intransitive verbs are not found in this position, in contrast to JZakho, where infinitives can take their verbal subject as secondaries (see examples (35)–(36) on page 124).

(46) Qaraqosh: Infinitive–Noun (object) (dúkθ-əd) place-cst ḥfáḏ̣-əd store.inf-cst làxma bread '(the place of) the storage of the bread' (Khan 2002a: 276 [B:15])

As the last example shows, an infinitive can also appear as a secondary of a CSC. In this case, it is akin to a regular noun, as the following example shows:

(47) Qaraqosh: Noun–Infinitive yóm day.cst -də= -cst= gwàra marry.inf 'wedding day' (Khan 2002a: 208 [K:40])

### 6.3 The analytic linker construction (X lnk Y)

#### 6.3.1 Introduction

Qaraqosh has retained the usage of the linker as an important element of its AC system. However, due to the phonological considerations explained above regarding the construct state suffix, it is not always clear whether a specific occurrence of a proclitic d- should be analysed as a linker or rather as re-syllabified construct state suffix. As a general rule, if a free state suffix can be identified on the primary (sg: -a; pl: -ə), I assume a proclitic d- is indeed the linker. Note, however, that the plural free state suffix is ambiguous since an [ə] is also part of the construct state suffix.

In most cases, the linker can be analysed as being pronominal, i.e. representing a noun. In some cases, however, this analysis is not tenable, as we shall see below.

In Khan's transcription, the linker can occur in a variety of phonological shapes, be it d-, də-, ʾəd-. In many cases, this variation can be explained by the realisation of an epenthetic [ə] which breaks up a consonant cluster (cf. Khan 2002a: 64–65). A truly different morphemic shape is found in the rare form dəd-. 12

(48) Qaraqosh: Noun–Noun bšála cooked\_food d= lnk= nàšə people 'the food of people' (Khan 2002a: 207 [F:66])

12Khan analyses the form dəd- as a repetition of the "annexation particle" d-, and classifies its occurrence together with examples (102)–(103) on page 178.

(49) Qaraqosh: Noun–Noun xəlxálə bangles də= lnk= sə̀hma silver 'bangles of silver' (Khan 2002a: 207 [Poetry 29])

(50) Qaraqosh: Noun–Noun zònaˈ time dəd= lnk= roxáθa souls xəškanəˈ dark.pl 'the time of dark souls' (Khan 2002a: 209 [Poetry 8])

In principle the linker may assimilate to the first consonant of the secondary. One such example may be the following:

(51) Qaraqosh: Noun–Noun ʾén-ə eye-free.pl n= lnk= náša man 'the eyes of a man' (Khan 2002a: 208 [B:127])

This analysis relies on the possible identification of the suffix -ə as a plural free state ending. Yet as this kind of assimilation normally happens in "fast speech" (Khan 2002a: 208), it is rather more probable that such examples should be understood as cases of the CSC, with a re-syllabified suffix -əd, similarly to example (24) on page 158 .

When the secondary is a pronoun realised as a pronominal suffix, the linker takes the form did-~dəd-. 13 These forms are mostly used with those Arabic loanwords which cannot be inflected directly with the possessive pronominal suffixes (for which see §6.1):14

(52) Qaraqosh: Noun–Pronoun tarkīź concentration dìd-əḥˈ lnk-poss.3ms 'his concentration' (Khan 2002a: 271 [F:47])

13The vowels [i] and [ə] are in allophonic complementary distribution, depending on the syllable structure. The latter is used in closed syllables.

14From a typological point of view, the linker qualifies as being a possessive noun in the sense of Bickel & Nichols (2013), which is an "abstract or generic noun [that] is put in apposition to the semantically possessed non-possessible [primary noun]". Thus, one could add Qaraqosh to the very short list of languages having exactly one possessive noun. It would moreover be the first identified possessive noun in Eurasia.

(53) Qaraqosh: Noun–Pronoun ʾaṭfāl= children= dìd-əḥ lnk-poss.3ms 'his children' (Khan 2002a: 271 [B:22])

In one case, the linker is doubled before a possessive suffix. This may be due to an ad-hoc re-analysis of the lnk+poss construction as a genitive pronoun, which is compatible with a preceding linker (see general discussion in §10.6.1):

(54) Qaraqosh: Noun–Pronoun šúrṭa police də= lnk= də̀d-xuˈ lnk-poss.2pl 'your police' (Khan 2002a: 271 [F:77])

As expected from a pronominal linker, the linker phrase has a certain prosodic and syntactic autonomy vis-à-vis the primary. The primary and secondary can be separated prosodically (see example (50) on the preceding page) and by intervening material:

Of interest is also the possibility to negate the linker, thus denying the existence of the specified primary. Note also in this case the repetition of the linker before each conjoint secondary:

(56) Qaraqosh: Negated noun–Conjoined nouns (lá neg pəšlí= remain= b-ə) in-3ms qàtta,ˈ stick lá neg d= lnk= xəṭṭíθa= wheat= w and lá neg d= lnk= sʾə̀rta.ˈ barley 'No stick remains in it, neither of wheat nor of barley.' (Khan 2002a: 277 (4) [B:62])

In the following poetic example, two linker phrases are topicalised before their primaries. For clarity, the secondaries and primaries are marked with corresponding subscripts in the glosses, while the translation follows the normal English word-order:

(57) Qaraqosh: Noun–Noun də= lnk= rəxmúθa loveY k-óḏa ind-do ʾìḏa,ˈ festivalX màθ-an,ˈ village-poss.1pl ʾu= and= də= lnk= šláma peaceY k-péša ind-become yawə̀ntaˈ doveX 'It makes a festival of love, our town, and becomes a dove of peace' (Khan 2002a: 278 (11) [Poetry 18])

Finally, whenever the primary consists of a noun qualified by an adjective, the ALC is regularly used. This can be contrasted with the situation in JZakho, in which the CSC is available in such cases; see example (7) on page 117.

With a pronominal secondary, an alternative formulation is possible, with the adjective following the possessive suffix; see example (4) on page 152.15

#### 6.3.2 Verbal nouns as primaries

Recall that verbal nouns are nouns which can form a verbal construction, typically infinitives and participles.

As the following examples show, infinitives as well as active participles can be complemented by their object by means of the ALC:

(i) CAradhin: Noun Phrase–Adjective qalp-e hull-poss.3ms dīy-e lnk-poss.3ms aw def zȧra yellow 'Its yellow hull' (Krotkoff 1982: 22 [19])

15In CAradhin one finds a similar alternative construction, making use additionally of the linker:

#### 6 Attributive constructions in the Christian dialect of Qaraqosh

#### 6.3.3 Clausal secondaries

The ALC is also compatible with clausal secondaries:

As these examples show, the linker is often followed directly by a verb or a copula.

In case of conjoined attributive clauses, the linker can be repeated:

(64) Qaraqosh: Noun–Conjoined Clauses súsə horse d= lnk= àxəlˈ eat gúrgur= burghul= u and maràqa soup =wˈ =and d= lnk= sátə drink ʿəràqˈ araq 'a horse that eats burghul and soup and drinks arak' (Khan 2002a: 475 (8) [F:79])

16This example appears as such in the transcribed corpus, but in the recording the speaker is saying muqāsam-əd əxala 'division.cst food', using the Arabic loanword muqāsama. Indeed, the apparent usage in the transcription of an Aramaic infinitive as a complement of a light verb is quite odd.

As we have seen above in the context of nominal secondaries, the linker phrase can be separated from its primary, in line with the pronominal nature of the linker.

(65) Qaraqosh: Noun–Clause ʾu= and= nášə people makìx= simple= iyewa cop.pst d= lnk= g-ʿéši ind-live.3pl bgáw-aḥˈ in-3fs 'and the people were simple, those who lived in it' (Khan 2002a: 475)

In some cases a pronoun, either interrogative or demonstrative, is inserted between the primary noun and the linker. This pronoun should be understood as standing in apposition to both elements.

When a demonstrative pronoun is used, it usually follows a prosodic break:

(68) Qaraqosh: Noun–Clause ʾu= and= ʾə́tlan ex-1pl biráθa wells Baġdédə,ˈ B. ʾán dem.pl də= lnk= k-maʾtəmdì-waˈ ind-depend.3pl-pst ġdedàyəˈ B.\_inhabitants 'And we have wells in Qaraqosh, upon which the inhabitants depended.' (Khan 2002a: 369 (5) [K:87])

As in Syriac (see §3.5.2), the particle d- is used also as a complementizer. While such a usage may resemble formally an AC without a primary (see §6.3.7), the syntactic function of this d- is different, as it introduces a clausal complement of a verb (but see footnote 30 on page 68).

(69) Qaraqosh: Verb–Clause ʾáxni 1pl g-báʾax ind-want.1pl d= comp= šákxax complain.1pl l= about= àneˈ dem.dist.pl 'We want to complain concerning those people.' (Khan 2002a: 505 (1) [F:73])

As a complementizer, d- can also introduce an adverbial purpose clause.

(70) Qaraqosh: Verb–Clause daré-wa-l put.a3pl-pst-p3ms tàma,ˈ there ʾəd= comp= yàwəšˈ dry.3ms 'They used to put it there to dry.' (Khan 2002a: 494 (8) [K:52])

#### 6.3.4 Adverbial primaries

The d- morpheme is used following adverbials serving as conjunctions, i.e. complemented by a clause. Superficially, these constructions may be assimilated to the ALC with clausal secondaries discussed above. Yet as the d- in such cases cannot be said to represent pronominally the conjunction, I prefer to analyse the d- morpheme in this position as a complementizer, as in examples (69)–(70) on this page.

The principal difference between a linker and a complementizer in the current framework is that a linker stands in apposition to its primary, while the complementizer is governed by the conjunction. This is represented schematically in Table 6.1.

In some respects, however, the complementizer d- is quite similar to the linker d-. For instance, with conjoined complement clauses, it can be repeated before

Table 6.1: Complementizer and linker constructions

each conjoint (compare the structure to example (64) on page 168). Note also the variation between the forms dəd and d-.

```
(73) Qaraqosh: Conjunction–Conjoined Clauses
    ʾə́mma
    when
           dəd=
           comp=
                  k-oḏí-la
                  ind-do.a3pl-p3fs
                                    b=
                                    in=
                                        idàθθəˈ
                                        hands
                                               wa=
                                               and=
                                                     də=
                                                     comp=
                                                           g-dáre
                                                           ind-put
                                                                    tùma
                                                                    garlic
    bgáw-aḥˈ
    in-3fs
    'when they make it with their hands and put garlic in it' (Khan 2002a: 488
    (5) [S:77])
```
Other data also support the idea that the difference between the complementizer d- and the linker d- is not so great. This is the case when the interrogative pronoun ma 'what' is inserted between the conjunction and the d- morpheme.17 In such cases, it is possible to analyse the d- as a linker whose antecedent is the interrogative pronoun:

(74) Qaraqosh: Pronoun–Clause ʾəm= from= qámə before má what d= lnk= yadə̀ʾ-laˈ know-p3fs 'before he knew her' (Khan 2002a: 492 (3) [Gospel 1 = Matthew 1:18])

In such cases the conjunction governs the interrogative pronoun, which in turn stands in apposition to the linker. The apposition between the interrogative pronoun and the linker can be deduced from cases in which the linker is absent:

(75) Qaraqosh: Pronoun–Clause m= from= qámə before ma= what= máṭax reach.1pl ʾəl= 18 to= Már M. Qurṭàya Q. 'before we reach (the monastery) of Saint Q.' (Khan 2002a: 492 (2) [K:79])

17Functionally, ma does not serve here as an interrogative pronoun, but rather as a kind of indefinite pronoun, representing the event described in the complement clause.

18The preposition ʾəl, absent in the original transcript, can be heard in the recording. This is immaterial to the current discussion.

The two possibilities are represented schematically in Table 6.2:.

Table 6.2: Combinations of conjunctions and interrogative pronouns

In contrast to conjunctions, prepositions cannot in general be followed by a d- morpheme, neither as a linker nor as a complementizer. Examples where this seems to be the case were analysed above as cst-marked prepositions where the -d suffix was resyllabified with the secondary; see examples (31)–(34) on page 159. There is, however, one case which cannot be explained in this way, due to the conservation of the final /-a/ vowel at the end of the preposition, which excludes the occurrence of an -əd suffix. This is the case of the preposition eka 'at':

(76) Qaraqosh: Preposition–Noun ʾeka= at= d= gen(?)= áwa dem.dist.ms xána square(fs) xə̀nna other.ms 'in the other square' (Khan 2002a: 234 [B:186])

Such cases may arise by analogy to the above mentioned examples, and may represent the first signs of an emerging genitive marker.

#### 6.3.5 Adjectival primaries

In one instance, an adjectival primary is modified by a noun with the aid of the linker. The construction is similar to the impure annexation of Arabic, except for the fact that linker replaces the construct state marking of the primary present in Arabic (contrast with example (35) on page 161, and the Arabic example given there).

(77) Qaraqosh: Adjective–Noun xlíθ-i sweet.fs-poss.1sg smóqta red.fs də= lnk= pàθaˈ face 'my rosy-faced sweet-heart' (Khan 2002a: 281 [Poetry 3])

#### 6.3.6 Pronominal primaries

There are some cases of pronominal primaries in the ALC. According to my survey, in such cases the secondary is always clausal. The analysis of these cases as representing the ALC rather than the CSC relies on the fact the final vowel of the primary noun is not altered, and moreover the /d/ marker cannot be said to replace a free state suffix. Yet from a prosodic point of view the distinction is quite fuzzy, as the /d/ segment is often syllabified with the pronominal primary.

Different types of pronouns can act as primaries. Among these are personal pronouns, as in the following example:

(78) Qaraqosh: Pronoun–Clause w= and= áhu 3ms d= lnk= là neg g-laqə́m-waˈ ind-catch-pst 'anyone who did not catch it' (Khan 2002a: 479 (1) [B:172])

Interrogative pronouns are quite common:

(79) Qaraqosh: Pronoun–Clause ʾu= and= šqə́lhə took.3pl ma= what= d= lnk= šqə́lhə took.3pl m= from= Baġdèdə.ˈ B. 'And they took what they took from Qaraqosh.' (Khan 2002a: 480 (1) [F:4])

(80) Qaraqosh: Pronoun–Clause w= and= éma which d= lnk= g-laqə́m-wa ind-catch-pst ʾáḏi dem qátta stick zùrtaˈ small 'whichever (person) caught the small stick' (Khan 2002a: 480 (7) [B:172])

When the initial pronoun is a demonstrative pronoun, two analyses are possible. Either the demonstrative is seen as the primary element, as in the preceding examples, or it is analysed as determiner, in which case there is no primary (its absence is marked by a ∅below). The latter analysis is possible since the linker acts as a syntactic head, due to its pronominal nature. Recall that such an analysis was suggested for JZakho, in which phonologically reduced demonstratives serve as determiners (see §5.4.6).

(81) Qaraqosh: Pronoun/∅–Clause ʾáḏa dem.ms {∅} {∅} d= lnk= ilə cop mənn-àḥˈ with-3fs 'The one who is with her' (Khan 2002a: 479 (3) [Play 17])

Interesting to note is a short version of the plural demonstrative anə, which resembles the determiner of JZakho (see also example (68) on page 169):19

(82) Qaraqosh: Pronoun/∅–Clause ʾan dem.pl {∅} {∅} də= lnk= g-náṭri ind-guard.pl xə̀θnaˈ groom 'Those who look after the groom' (Khan 2002a: 479 (7) [K:44])

Similar analytical difficulty is present in the case of the element xa, which can be interpreted either as an indefinite pronoun or an indefinite determiner. Yet in the following example, the fact that xa follows the quantifier ay 'any' (borrowed from Arabic) renders the pronominal interpretation more plausible (compare with JZakho example (70) on page 134). Be it as it may, both possibilities are given in the glossing below:

(83) Qaraqosh: Pronoun/∅–Clause ʾáy= any= xa indf.pro/det {∅} {∅} d= lnk= ílə cop márʾa ill ḥabábəˈ pustules 'anyone who is ill with pustules' (Khan 2002a: 479 (1) [S:16])

It should be noted, moreover, that a determiner category has not been posited by Khan for Qaraqosh. The analysis required to establish the existence of such a category is outside the scope of the work, and therefore I leave the two possibilities open.

#### 6.3.7 Linkers without an explicit primary

In subject position, cases of the ALC without a preceding primary are quite rare, and seem to be restricted to formal genres. Such are example (57) on page 167, where the (semantic) primary appears after the construction, as well as the following example, where no primary appears at all (=example (3) on page 97). For convenience, the place of the absent primary is marked by the symbol ∅, without implying the existence of a ∅ morpheme there.

(84) Qaraqosh: ∅–Noun kə-mzámri ind-sing.3pl ∅ ∅ də= lnk= ʾurxàθa.ˈ roads '(The people) of the roads sing.' (Khan 2002a: 279 (21) [Poetry 29])

19Khan (2002a: 82) explains that "[t]he final /ə/ may be elided altogether when the pronoun is closely connected to what follows by the relative particle d-". See also footnote 64 on page 324.

A similar example is attested in the Gospels translation, with a clausal secondary:

(85) Qaraqosh: ∅–Clause (əmbùrx blessed =elə) =cop ∅ ∅ d= lnk= áte come.3ms b= in= šə́mm-əḥ name-poss.3ms əd= lnk= rább-i.ˈ lord-poss.1sg 'Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.' (Khan 2002a: 482 (1) [Gospel 19 = Matthew 23:29])

Clausal secondaries following a linker without an immediate primary occur rarely also in cleft sentences.

(86) Qaraqosh: ∅–Clause ʾu= and= ʾàḏe dem.prox.ms =l =cop ∅ ∅ d= lnk= k-oḏí-la ind-make.a3pl-p3fs da= into= gùpta.ˈ cheese 'It is this that they make into cheese.' (Khan 2002a: 508 (2) [S:73])

As a predicate, on the other hand, a linker phrase can easily appear without an immediate primary (as the latter is typically mentioned in the subject position). The predicate position is easily recognized as it is normally marked by a following copula.

(87) Qaraqosh: ∅–Noun

fá and ʾáḏa dem.prox.ms pàšmaʾ garment ∅ ∅ ʾəs= lnk= sáw-i grandfather-poss.1sg =iwa.ˈ =cop.pst 'This pašma belonged to my grandfather.' (Khan 2002a: 279 (16) [F:112])

(88) Qaraqosh: ∅–Noun ʾáhi 3fs ʾiyáwa 3fs.cop.pst ∅ ∅ d= lnk= ʾə̀zla.ˈ wool 'It was of wool.' (Khan 2002a: 279 (18) [K:29])

(89) Qaraqosh: ∅–Pronoun ʾəxála food lélə neg.cop ∅ ∅ dìd-ux.ˈ lnk-poss.2ms kása stomach lélə neg.cop ∅ ∅ dìd-ux?ˈ lnk-poss.2ms 'The food is not yours, but the stomach is indeed yours!' (Khan 2002a: 273 (10) [Proverbs 11])

Occasionally a nominal subject acting as primary is lacking altogether in the sentence, though it appears in the textual context. Such are the following examples, the first one being poetic:

#### 6.3.8 Ordinal secondaries

Ordinals are regularly formed by placing cardinal numerals as secondaries of the ALC. These agree with the primary noun, possibly by analogy with adjectives (see example (108) on page 180), though morphologically the agreement pattern is different:

This construction, however, is often avoided in favour of the construction using borrowed Arabic numerals, as in examples (110)–(111) on page 181.

### 6.4 Double-marking constructions

#### 6.4.1 Simple double-marking (X.cst lnk Y)

The occurrence of an AC marked both by a construct state suffix and a linker happens mostly due to hesitation according to Khan (2002a: 208). The following examples illustrate this (the … sign signals the hesitation):

Indeed, even when there is no hesitation sign in the transcribed corpus, listening to the examples reveals a hesitation, which I have marked in the following examples:20

(99) Qaraqosh: Noun–Clause

əl= to= ʾén-əd spring-cst … … də= lnk= kəind- … … masxé-wa-la make\_swim.3pl-pst-3fs qadə́šta St. Sàra S. 'to the spring in which they made Saint Sarah swim' (Khan 2002a: 209 [K:12])

20Recall that only the recordings of informant K are publicly available.

```
(100) Qaraqosh: Adverbial–Pronoun
     (yəʾə́l-wa-la
     entered-pst-3fs
                      káθlaka
                      Catholicism
                                   ʾə̀ll-aḥˈ)
                                   to-3fs
                                            …
                                            …
                                              ʿan=
                                              by=
                                                   ṭarīq-əd ̀
                                                           21
                                                   way-cst
                                                             …
                                                             …
                                                                ʿan=
                                                                by=
                                                                     ʾùrx-əd
                                                                     way-cst
     …ˈ
     …
        də̀=
        lnk=
              xxaˈ
              one
                  (šə̀mm-əḥˈ
                  name-poss.3ms
                                   …
                                   …
                                     Már
                                     M.
                                          Yoḥánna
                                          Y.
                                                    Dilèmi.ˈ)
                                                    D.
     '(Catholicism entered it) by means of one (whose name is Mar Yoḥanna
     Dilemi.)' (Khan 2002a: 479 (2) [K:1])
```
Of special interest are cases where the primary noun is the reflex of an historical construct state form, i.e. without a /-d/ suffix. This shows that it is not a simple repetition of the /d/ segment:

(101) Qaraqosh: Noun–Noun ʾu= and= bí house.cst … … d= lnk= Aqlìmus.ˈ A. 'and the family of Aqlimus.' (Khan 2002a: 544 [K:18])

All these cases can be analysed as instances of two appositive ACs, in which the first one is lacking a secondary, due to a difficulty of the speaker.

Table 6.3: Appositive repetition of an AC due to hesitation

However, the same construction is used "sporadically", according to Khan, also where no hesitation is present (I could not verify this by listening to these examples):

21The wordsʿan ṭarīq-əd ̀ are not present in the transcript, but are clearly audible in the recording. Indeed, the speaker first uses the Arabic loan-expression ʿan ṭarīq with an Aramaic construct state suffix, before correcting to the native Aramaic word ʾurxa (but still employing the Arabic preposition ʿan).

(103) Qaraqosh: Infinitive–Noun dyáq-t-ət beat.inf-fs-cst də= lnk= ləbbawàθa hearts 'the beating of hearts' (Khan 2002a: 208 [Poetry 14])

The first case may be explained by the emergence of a genitive marker before a demonstrative pronoun (see examples (32)–(34) on page 160 for a discussion, as well as example (76) on page 172), while the second one is taken from a poetic text, which may explain its peculiar syntax.22 Two other cases which Khan (2002a: 209) mentions as repetition of the /d/ particle are simply cases where the /dəd/ allomorph of the linker is used (see example (50) on page 165).

Another exceptional case of seemingly double marking is the following example, in which the primary is marked by a /-ə/ suffix, while the secondary is marked by the /ʾəd/ allomorph of the linker. Although it resembles cases of a re-syllabified construct state suffix (see examples (20)–(24) on page 157), it differs from them by the intervening glottal stop. Again, the poetic origin of this example may explain its peculiar morpho-phonology.23

(104) Qaraqosh: Noun–Noun máθ-ə town-cst ʾəd= lnk= dérə monasteries ʾu= and= ʾitàθa churches 'town of monasteries and churches' (Khan 2002a: 208 [Poetry 17])

To summarize, the cases of double marking which are not motivated by difficulties in production (i.e. hesitation) are highly exceptional.

#### 6.4.2 The double annexation construction (X-y.poss lnk Y)

Another type of double marking, which occurs only in the Gospel translations, arises from a direct translation of the Syriac double annexation construction (see §3.6).

22It is also possible that the linker is in fact a resyllabified construct state suffix. If this is true, the doubling of the /d/ segment may be explained by the phonological constraint of conserving the short [ə] vowel in a closed syllable. Note that the schwa cannot be elided (as is sometimes the case), since it follows a consonant cluster in both cases.

23The sources marked as Poetry are transcriptions of recitations of poems, which may obey specific metrical rules, on the one hand, or try to imitate a classical syntax, on the other hand.

(105) Qaraqosh: Noun–Noun Yósəf Y. ʾə́br-əḥ son-poss.3ms əd= lnk= Dawìdˈ D. 'Joseph, the son of David' (Khan 2002a: 279 (22) [Gospel 3 = Matthew 1:20)

### 6.5 Juxtaposition (X Y.{agr})

Juxtaposition in principle does not serve as an AC in Qaraqosh, as it cannot be used to modify a noun by a noun.24 However, it is used in some tangential cases:

#### 6.5.1 Adjectival modification: Juxtaposition-cum-agreement

Adjectives follow their primary, and – if inflecting – agree in number (and possibly in gender) with it, forming effectively a juxtaposition-cum-agreement construction:

The ordinal 'first' behaves as an adjective:

(108) Qaraqosh: Noun–Ordinal (first) báxta woman qaméθa first.fs 'the first woman' (Khan 2002a: 225)

24A possible exception is the phrase ḥŭ́kum Qaraqòš 'the governance of Qaraqosh' (Khan 2002a: 3; 643 (83)), but the usage of the Arabic name of Qaraqosh indicates that the entire expression is borrowed from Arabic.

In some cases an adjective can precede the primary.25 This is the case for the Kurdish-borrowed adjective xoš 'good' which occurs regularly before the noun, as in the following example:26

(109) Qaraqosh: Noun–Adjective xóš good(inv) ʾəmmàθaˈ mothers 'good mothers' (Khan 2002a: 281 [Play 120])

Arabic ordinals, used often instead of the Aramaic equivalents, are regularly placed before their nominal primaries, mirroring the Arabic construction (contrast with examples (92)–(93) on page 176 as well as (108) on the facing page):27

The word xənna 'other', although semantically not a typical adjective28 behaves syntactically as one insofar it agrees with the modified noun in number and gender. Unlike typical adjectives, however, it may variably appear before or after the noun (compare to example (39) on page 162).

(112) Qaraqosh: Noun–Adjective (ʾə́t-lan) ex-1pl xə́rta other.fs ṭaʿólta game '(We have) another game.' (Khan 2002a: 285 [K:35])

25Recall that the titles of the examples always follow the order Primary-Secondary.

26This adjective shows also exceptional order in Kurdish, which normally has post-nominal adjectives. Its irregular syntax is due to the fact that it originates in Turkic languages (Turkish hoş, Azeri xoş), which regularly have pre-nominal adjectives.

27In Arabic, the numeral is formally in construct state, but this is no longer apparent in the borrowed expression.

28Unlike a typical adjective, it does not refer to an attribute (i.e., quality) of the referent, but rather signals that it is different from a similar previously-mentioned referent. Indeed, Khan (2002a: 285) classifies it as a "non-attributive modifier".

Finally, "emotionally charged" adjectives may appear before their noun. This is possible related to the emotive genitive construction shown in examples (36)– (37) on page 161:

(113) Qaraqosh: Noun–Adjective məskín-ə poor-pl ġdedáy-ə inhabitants-pl 'the poor inhabitants of Qaraqosh' (Khan 2002a: 281 [B:68])

#### 6.5.2 Adverbial primaries

Most adverbials attach to their complements without any special marking. Compare the following example to example (34) on page 160:

(114) Qaraqosh: Preposition–Noun máx like [tóbba ball(fs) zùrta] small.fs 'like a small ball [K:31]' (Khan 2002a: 238)

Note also the following example, in which the preposition is directly followed by a vowel-initial demonstrative pronoun (with an epenthetic glottal stop), without any special marking (unlike in JZakho, where it would take genitive marking):

(115) Qaraqosh: Preposition–Noun (zə́l-le) went-3ms hál until ʾáya dem.dist.fs máθa village 'He went as far as that village' (Khan 2002a: 235)

A preposition may appear unstressed and cliticize to its complement:

(118) Qaraqosh: Preposition–Adverb hal= until= daha now 'until now' (Khan 2002a: 235 [K:87])

Conjunctions can also precede their clausal complement without any special marking. Such cases may be assimilated to asyndetic attributive clauses (see §6.5.4), but have a wider distribution (contrast with example (73) on page 171):

(119) Qaraqosh: Conjunction–Clause fa= and= ʾə́mma when zálh= go.3pl= ắmi say.3pl da= to= sàw-iˈ grandfather-poss.1sg 'and, when they go and tell my grandfather' (Khan 2002a: 489 (12) [F:25])

#### 6.5.3 Infinitival primaries

The complement of an infinitive may be attached to it without any marking (contrast with examples (44)–(46) on page 163 showing the CSC and example (60) on page 168 exhibiting the ALC, as well as the doubly-marked examples (96)–(97) on page 177):

(120) Qaraqosh: Infinitive–Noun (object) (xálṣi) finish.3pl wáḏa do.inf ay= dem.prox= ràqqəˈ dish 'They finish making those raqqe.' (Khan 2002a: 369 (6) [B:134])

#### 6.5.4 Clausal secondaries

Certain restrictive clausal secondaries may follow their primary without any marking. This occurs exclusively with indefinite primary nouns. It may allude to Arabic influence, which has a similar distribution of asyndetic relative clauses only after indefinite primaries. Judging by the examples given by Khan (2002a: 477) such examples occur most frequently when the matrix-clause is an existential clause.

(121) Qaraqosh: Noun–Clause ʾə́t-lan ex-1pl ʾəxálta dish k-amáx-la ind-say.a1pl-p3fs harìsa.ˈ harisa 'We have a dish called harisa.' (Khan 2002a: 477 (9) [K:62])

One exceptional case is the following (the second half of example (71) on page 170):

(122) Qaraqosh: Preposition–Clause lə́= to= ġḏa indf.fs dúka place ʿamùqt= deep= elaˈ cop 'to a place that is deep' (Khan 2002a: 477 (10) [S:26])

Cases of attributive nominal clauses which lack a copula (similar to the nonclausal adjectival nexus of JZakho example (108) on page 145) also occur. Note that the subject of such attributive clauses is always definite by virtue of a possessive pronoun.

(123) Qaraqosh: Noun–Clause ʾíθə ex náša man lə́bb-əḥ heart-poss.3ms níxa content b= in= áḏa dem.prox.ms yòma?ˈ day 'Is there a person whose heart is content nowadays?' (Khan 2002a: 478 (14) [Play 96])

A similar example occurs with an indefinite pronominal primary xa (=end of example (100) on page 178):

(124) Qaraqosh: Adverbial–Pronoun xaˈ one šə̀mm-əḥˈ name-poss.3ms Már M. Yoḥánna Y. Dilèmi.ˈ D. 'one whose name is Mar Y.D.' (Khan 2002a: 479 (2) [K:1])

### 6.6 Conclusions

The dialect of Qaraqosh has in principle two loci of marking: the primary (by the construct state -əd suffix) and the secondary (by the d- linker). The two strategies are in principle mutually exclusive, but in some peripheral cases they are used simultaneously, as explained in §6.4. The distinction, however, between the two types of marking is not always so clear, due to the frequent re-syllabification of the /d/ segment of the construct state suffix with vowel-initial secondaries. Since the emergence of the construct state suffix is related (at least partly) to the re-syllabification of the linker with the primary (see §10.4), the flux between the two constructions in Qaraqosh may be related to its conservative nature (Khan 2002a: 10).

An important source of impact on Qaraqosh is Arabic. Geographically, the town of Qaraqosh is located near the Arabic speaking regions of Iraq (only 32 km away from Mosul), and as such it is influenced by Arabic more than other dialects. While Khan (2002a: 9) claims that the Arabic influence is relatively recent, judging by the lexical material, we see that the dialect possess many constructions which are similar to Arabic ones. These include the replication of the Arabic tāʾ marbūṭa (example (5) on page 153), the Arabic adjectival AC (impure annexation; example (35) on page 161 and example (77) on page 172), the integration of the Arabic nominal modifier nafs (see §6.2.5) and ordinal numbers (examples (110)–(111) on page 181) and possibly also asyndetic clausal secondaries (see §6.5.4). On the other hand, direct Kurdish influence is harder to pinpoint, except for the pre-nominal use of the Kurdish (originally Azeri) loan-adjective xoš 'good' (example (109) on page 181).

## 7 Attributive constructions in the Jewish dialect of Urmi

The data for JUrmi is based on two different sources: Garbell (1965b)1 and Khan (2008b).2 For consistency, I use the transcription system of Khan.3 In citations of examples from Khan, the reference to the section number in the corpus is given in square brackets, when available.

The richest and most prominent attributive construction strategy of JUrmi is head-marking. Pronominal head marking is covered in §7.1 while the construct state construction is addressed at §7.2. There are reasons to believe that in JUrmi, unlike in JZakho and Qaraqosh, the construct state -əd suffix is a word-level inflectional suffix rather than a phrasal suffix.

Alongside the CSC one finds in JUrmi the analytic linker construction using an alternative linker form ay (see §7.3). Moreover, it differs from the typical ALC in that the primary is normally marked as construct state, making it a doublemarked construction. Another additional marking is the usage of genitive marking, covered in §7.4, yielding triple-marked constructions. The classical double annexation construction, occurring rarely in JUrmi, is covered in §7.5.

The usage of the borrowed relativizer ki before clausal secondaries is discussed in §7.6. Finally, the use of juxtaposition is presented in §7.7. The usage of inverse juxtapositioninverse juxtaposition construction (where the secondary precedes

1Garbell's description covers several dialects of Iranian Azerbaijan as well as the neighbouring Turkish territory, which she divides into a northern group (JUrmi and neighbouring dialects) and a southern group (J. Solduz and Šĭno). The data used here is based on her description of the northern group, of which JUrmi is considered to be representative.

2 I have also conducted fieldwork with Rabbi Ḥaim Yeshurun, a speaker of JUrmi currently living in Israel, and have consulted the corpus of Ben-Rahamim (2006). Though no examples from these sources are presented here, both Yeshurun and Ben-Rahamim's texts are in accordance, according to my examination, with the descriptions of Garbell and Khan, especially in what regards the AC system.

3Note especially the marking of velarized words by an initial ⁺ sign. In some examples I have added a missing velarization mark between parenthesis ⁽⁺⁾, when such a mark was justified according to the sources' lexica. Note that in Garbell's work, the lack of velarization may be due to dialectal variation, as her work describes several related dialects, as explained in footnote 1.

the primary) is presented in §7.8, together with the claim that it arose due to language contact.

### 7.1 Possessive pronominal suffixes (X-y.poss)

In JUrmi, as in other North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic dialects, a possessive pronominal suffix can attach directly to a noun or to a preposition:

Two possessed nouns can sometimes be conjoined asyndetically, with the repetition of the possessive pronoun:

(3) JUrmi: Asyndetically Conjoined Nouns–Pronoun da-ew mother-poss.3ms dad-ew father-poss.3ms 'his parents' (Garbell 1965a: 171)

Garbell (1965a: 171, §2.32.11) attributes the availability of this constrution to Azeri influence: "On the border between syntactical and stylistical interference of T[urkish Azeri] with the dialect is the extremely frequent occurrence of two asyndetic heads in a nominal phrase, more often than not alliterative". She compares the above example to the following Azeri example:4

(4) Azeri: Asyndetically Conjoined Nouns–Pronoun anna-si mother-poss.3sg baba-si father-poss.3sg 'his parents' (Garbell 1965a: 171)

4The asyndetic construction is not limited to possessed nouns. Garbell (1965a: 171) gives also the Azeri example gille glale 'grasses strings, vegetation'.

### 7.2 The construct state construction (X.cst Y)

#### 7.2.1 Introduction

JUrmi, like the NENA dialects surveyed in the previous chapters, has a suffixed construct state marker -əd, related to the Classical Aramaic linker d-. Garbell (1965a: 171) claims this "is clearly due to the impact of the K[urdish] relation suffix -i [=Ezafe]", an idea which is discussed in §10.4.2. The exact form of the suffix varies: Normally it is realised as /əd/~/ət/, but following stems whose last vowel is /a/ it is optionally realised as /at/~/ad/ as in example (6) on the current page (Khan 2008b: 174), a phenomenon which may be attributed to local vowel harmony.5

gor-ət man-cst tre two reše heads 'the man of two heads' (Garbell 1965b: 86)

In contrast to JZakho (example (7) on page 117) and Qaraqosh (example (26) on page 158), I could not find in my survey of JUrmi cases where an NP is marked phrase-finally by a single -əd suffix. Such cases seem to require the ALC (see §7.3). An apparent exception is example (32) on page 196, where a participial phrase is marked by a final -əd suffix. Yet this apparent phrasal-final marking is only possible since the participle itself is the last element of the phrase.6 Another possible

5 In this it may reflect some influence of Turkish, in which vowel harmony is abundant.

6 In this I disagree with Khan (2008b: 230), who draws from this example the quite general conclusion that "[i]f the head of the annexation [the primary ] consists of a phrase in which one noun is dependent on another, the annexation inflection is placed only on the head of this phrase".

deviation is shown in example (87) on page 211. There an optional construct state suffix appears phrase-finally on a noun itself serving as secondary of a CSC (thus not being the head of the NP). This may be explained as a product of a wrong bracketing of the expression, in analogy to an [x-əd [y-əd z]] expression (instead of the actual [[x-əd y] z] required by the semantics).

Notwithstanding these exceptional cases, in JUrmi it seems safe to analyse -əd as a word-level inflectional marker, rather than a phrasal suffix.7 Such an analysis is corroborated by cases where two asyndetically conjoined nouns occur in the primary slot, and each is marked by an -əd suffix ((8)=example (13) on page 105):

'the family and relations of the bridegroom' (Garbell 1965b: 86)

From a language contact angle, one may relate such cases to the availability of asyndetic conjunction in JUrmi, which Garbell (1965a: 171) attributes to Azeri influence (see discussion of example (3) on page 188). While the asyndetic conjunction of nouns is not restricted to ACs, the repetition of the -əd suffix may facilitate the asyndetic conjunction, as the conjoined nouns are often alliterative in this construction. Note, moreover, that the -əd suffix seems to block the occurrence a coordinating conjunction following it.8

One finds asyndetic conjunction of nouns also in secondary position, as in the following example. Khan (2008b: 235) restricts the occurrence of asyndetic conjunction (whether in an AC or not) mainly to a "few sets of tightly-knit nouns".

(10) JUrmi: Noun–Asyndetically Conjoined Nouns šúl-ət affair-cst [góra man baxtá] woman 'the affairs of a husband and wife' (Khan 2008b: 230 [48])

7Cf. Garbell (1965b: 54, §2.12.2), who treats the construct state markers, both the -əd suffix and apocope, as "inflection in relation" of nouns.

8 Judging by the few examples I have, the conjoined possessed nouns appear to be semantically inalienable nouns, but it is not clear whether this a real restriction of the construction.

#### 7.2.2 Apocopate construct state marking

Alongside the suffixed construct state -əd morpheme, JUrmi can mark construct state nouns by means of apocope. In these nouns, the final free state vowel, typical of words of native Aramaic origin, is elided (see §11.1 for a discussion of the development of these forms).

(11) JUrmi: Noun–Noun bron son.cst əčči sixty šənne years 'a man 60 years old' (Garbell 1965b: 86)

In feminine nouns, except brata 'daughter', the feminine-gender marker -t-, is elided as well (Garbell 1965b: 55), unlike in the apocopate construct of Classical Aramaic. Contrast the following two examples:

(12) JUrmi: Noun–Noun pqar neck.cst ay lnk d-o gen-dem.dist.ms gora man 'the neck of that man' (Garbell 1965b: 87)

(13) JUrmi: Noun–Noun brā́t daughter.cst ⁺šultanà king

'the daughter of the king' (Khan 2008b: 175 [29])

Khan (2008b: 175) qualifies the occurrence of the apocopate CSC as happening "occasionally", and gives no semantic or functional qualifications of it. Garbell (1965b: 55) sees the apocope as a zero suffix being in free variation with the -əd suffix (the only restriction being that the stem should not end in a consonant cluster). Indeed, judging by the examples, the two types of marking are functionally equivalent, though the suffixed marking seems to be more frequent.

Prosodically, when the primary is marked by apocope, it is sometimes devoid of stress, and cliticizes to the secondary, as in the following example:

(14) JUrmi: Noun–Noun tār= door.cst= šəmmé heavens 'the door of heaven' (Khan 2008b: 175 [52])

Some nouns have an apocopate form which is not restricted to the contexts where one would expect a construct state noun (i.e., head of a CSC). Khan (2008b: 161) lists the nouns naša 'person' and gaba 'side' as having short variants naš and gab respectively, used "predominantly when they are indefinite". Diachronically, these apocopate forms may be derived from the absolute state, which was used in indefinite contexts (see §2.3.1). As it is hard to establish whether such forms should be analysed as marked for construct state when they serve as primaries, I have in general not analysed them as being marked for construct state.

#### 7.2.3 Adjectival primaries

An adjective modified by a noun can appear as a primary of the CSC:

(15) JUrmi: Adjective–Noun ó dem.dist ⁺torbá bag ⁺mlit-ə́t full.fs-cst fəssé money dehwéˈ gold\_piece.pl 'the bag full of gold coins' (Khan 2008b: 219 [60])

An adjective appearing in the primary position of the CSC followed by a plural noun yields a superlative meaning. The grammatical information regarding the referent (gender and number) is marked inflectionally on the adjective, which is the syntactic head. A similar construction is found JZakho (see example (32) on page 123).

(16) JUrmi: Adjective–Noun sqəl-t-ət beautiful-fs-cst niše women(pl) 'The most beautiful woman' (Garbell 1965b: 55)

#### 7.2.4 Adverbial primaries

Some prepositions may be marked by the construct state suffix when they are complemented by a noun. Mostly this is optional (see §7.7.4 for examples), but for some prepositions it seems to be obligatory. Thus, the preposition bod 'because', adapted from the Kurdish preposition bo 'because', always appears with a construct state suffix -d (Garbell 1965a: 166).

Similarly, some conjunctions are in fact interrogative adverbs augmented with the construct state suffix (cf. examples (37)–(38) on page 197).

9The sbjv is marked by the lack of an indicative prefix ad- attached to the stem.

#### 7.2.5 The pronominal primary od

In rare cases, the distal singular demonstrative pronoun o appears in the construct state form od after some prepositions, such as bod 'because' (itself marked obligatorily by the construct state suffix; see example (20) on the preceding page).10 This pronoun allows the introduction of a clausal complement of the preposition (yielding an apparent composite conjunction bod od).

(23) JUrmi: Pronoun–Clause bo-d= because-cst= ó-d dem-cst hála still zùrt young =ela =cop.fs 'because of the fact that she is still young' (Khan 2008b: 374 [74])

The construct state pronoun od is compatible with the relativizer, as is shown in examples (101)–(102) on page 215.

#### 7.2.6 Pronominal, ordinal and adverbial secondaries

A pronoun can occupy the secondary slot. The following two examples present both the use of an indefinite (interrogative) pronoun and a definite (reflexive) pronoun in this position:

Modification by ordinal numerals uses the same construction, whether the numeral is marked by the ordinal suffix -minji, 11 or not:

10In this I agree with Khan (2008b: 374), but disagree with Garbell (1965b: 61) who sees the /od/ segment as an allomorph of the construct state ending.

11Garbell (1965a: 166, §1.22.3) explains this suffix is a combination of the Sorani (originally Persian) ordinal suffix -emîn and the Azeri ordinal suffix -ji.

Adverbial modification (either by a PP or by an adverb) can also occur within this construction. While this is attested also in other dialects (see §5.3.1 on page 118 for JZakho examples), it seems to be more widespread in JUrmi:

Note that the last example has a participle as its primary. Khan (2008b: 78) notes that normally the participle is used "as a noun or adjective describing a characteristic, time-stable property of a referent". This nominal character is retained also when participles are complemented by an object, as in the following

example, which has a participial phrase as its primary (regarding the initial position of the complement, see §7.8.2).

(32) JUrmi: Participial Phrase–Noun [ixala food bašl-an-ət] cook-ptcp-cst ⁺sultana king 'the king's cook (lit. "food cooker")' (Garbell 1965b: 86)

#### 7.2.7 Clausal secondaries

Nouns in construct state may be followed by participial or infinitival phrases, which can be seen as reduced relative clauses (for the order of elements inside these phrases, see §7.8):

A noun may also be complemented like this by a clause, but, according to Garbell (1965b: 88), only when the clause has no NP functioning as a subject argument (i.e., it has only the obligatory pronominal subject marking on the verb).12

(35) JUrmi: Noun–Clause šat-ət year-cst adya sbjv.come.3fs 'the coming year' (Garbell 1965b: 88)

12Garbell qualifies this type of clause as a VP, which implies that the subject suffix on the verb is merely an agreement marker. Note, however, that the subject of the embedded clause may be different than the primary noun, as in example (36) on the next page. The only restriction is that the subject must be expressed pronominally as a verbal suffix. See, however, example (39) on the facing page for a possible counter-example of Garbell's assertion.

(36) JUrmi: Noun–Clause gor-ət man-cst [bron-ew son-poss.3ms ⁺qtə́l-wa-le] killed-pst-a3ms 'the man whose son he had killed' (Garbell 1965b: 88)

Note that in the last example, bronew 'his son' cannot be the subject of the clause due to the above-mentioned restriction on appearance of subject NPs in secondary clauses.

The interrogative pronouns ma 'what' and măni 'who' can also be complemented by a clause in this construction:

Exhibiting such a primary, the following example shows that Garbell's abovementioned restriction does not hold. This may be due to the fact that the construct state suffix has been grammaticalised into the primary pronoun, and is not felt any more as such. As the counter-example comes from Khan's description (about 40 years after Garbell's) it may reflect, moreover, a subtle language change.

(39) JUrmi: Pronoun–Clause má-t what-cst nā́š man m= from= əlhá God abèˈ sbjv.want.3ms 'whatever a person wants from God' (Khan 2008b: 358 [109])

For the alternative strategy of using a relativizer, see §7.6.

### 7.3 The analytic linker construction (X lnk Y)

#### 7.3.1 Introduction

JUrmi uses the morpheme ay as a linker, and not the inherited d- as do JZakho and Qaraqosh. It is identical in form to the singular proximal demonstrative ay (which Garbell 1965b: 58 qualifies as an "archaic" form), and very probably related to it diachronically, but, contrary to the latter, it does not inflect according to number. Nonetheless, in some cases it is difficult to decide between the two possible analyses (as example (73) on page 207 shows).

Garbell (1965a: 171) relates the linker ay to the "relational morpheme of [Kurdish, which] is likewise demonstrative in its origin". She notes moreover that in the related dialects of Southern Persian Azerbaijan, J. Solduz and Šĭno, the Sorani marker i is used in the same position. A similar suggestion is made by Khan (2008b: 176):

It is likely to have developed under the influence of the izafe construction in Iranian languages. It appears not to be a direct loan from Iranian, in which the izafe is in principle monosyllabic (e, i, a), but rather an imitation of the izafe using Aramaic morphological material.

For an evaluation of these proposals see §10.6.4.

In general ay is an independent phonological word, as it carries stress. Quite often, however, it is found cliticized forward with the secondary or, sporadically, backward with the primary.13 The latter possibility is especially frequent with adverbial primaries, which tend to cliticize forward on their own account (but see example (47) on page 200).

The pronominal origin of ay, and – more importantly – the fact that it can form an AC without an explicit primary (see §7.3.7), are the main motivations to analyse it as a pronominal linker, rather than a simple secondary marker. As such, it forms an independent syntactic (and sometimes prosodic) constituent with the secondary. From a comparative perspective, it may be seen as the functional equivalent of the d- or did linkers of other dialects. Yet in contrast to the dialects surveyed in the previous chapters, in JUrmi, the linker regularly occurs with cst-marked primaries, as examined in §7.3.2. In fact, cases where the primary is marked by the free state (i.e., the default form) are only found sporadically according to Khan (2008b: 175).

13Information about stress and cliticization is given only in Khan (2008b), where clitic boundaries are marked by a hyphen.

(40) JUrmi: Noun–Noun o dem.dist.sg aġa lord ay lnk ašqalon A. 'that lord of Ascalon' (Garbell 1965b: 87)

(41) JUrmi: Noun–Noun gora man ay lnk tre two reše heads 'the man of two heads' (Garbell 1965b: 87)

Yet, as noted in §7.2, whenever the primary is a noun phrase, rather than a simple noun, the CSC is generally not available, and the ALC becomes the sole option (ignoring possible circumlocutions). Since the construct state marking in JUrmi is not phrasal, the primary NP cannot be marked as construct state:

In such cases the linker may form an independent prosodic constituent with the secondary:

There is one case where two separate secondaries appear, each in its own prosodic phrase. Note that the linker phrase áy awuršúm 'of silk' is adjacent to the adjective sqilè 'beautiful.pl' which refers semantically to the primary gory-ə́t awuršùm 'silk stockings'. Yet syntactically the adjective can be analysed as being an attribute of the pronominal linker itself:

(46) JUrmi: Noun Phrase–Asyndetically Conjoined Nouns xá= one= zoa pair gory-ə́t stockings.cst awuršùmˈ silk áy lnk šušà,ˈ nylon áy lnk awuršúm silk sqil-èˈ beautiful-pl goryé stockings mabruq-é shining-pl mditàˈ brought.res.fs bá-at for-cst ⁺kalò.ˈ bride 'She has brought a beautiful pair of silk stockings, of nylon, of silk, shining stockings for the bride' (Khan 2008b: 219 [94])

There may also be rare cases where the linker forms a prosodic constituent with the primary. Yet, such cases may be analysed differently. For instance, in following example the primary and the secondary are co-referential, atypically for an AC. In this case, the ay element may equally well be analysed as a demonstrative pronoun, followed by a prosodic stress due to hesitation:14

(47) JUrmi: Noun–Noun

brona son =àyˈ =lnk/dem.sg ⁺hatā́n groom 'the son (who is) the groom' (Khan 2008b: 219 [79])

#### 7.3.2 Linker following a construct state (X-cst lnk Y)

The typical usage of the linker is following a cst-marked primary:

(48) JUrmi: Noun–Noun

o dem.dist.sg aġá-ad lord-cst ay lnk ašqalon A. 'that lord of Ascalon' (Garbell 1965b: 87)

14According to Khan's transcription it is the noun that loses the stress and apparently "procliticizes" to the stressed linker. Yet, since in JUrmi the default stress placement is on the ultimate syllable, especially before intonation boundaries (Khan 2008b: 46), it is more plausible to analyse this case as an encliticization of the linker to the primary, with a default stress placement on the resulting phonological word.

(49) JUrmi: Noun–Noun gor-ət man-cst ay lnk tre two reše heads 'the man of two heads' (Garbell 1965b: 87)

This construction can easily be iterated:

(50) JUrmi: Noun–Noun Phrase ó dem.dist.sg raís-ət head-cst áy lnk [komsér-ət police-cst áy lnk Urmì] U. 'the head of police of Urmi' (Khan 2008b: 230 [134])

Note that the primary can also be marked by the apocopated construct state, as in the following example (=example (12) on page 191; cf. pqarta 'neck' in free state):15

(51) JUrmi: Noun–Noun pqar neck.cst ay lnk d-o gen-dem.dist.ms gora man 'the neck of that man' (Garbell 1965b: 87)

These cases, appearing regularly, pose a problem to the analysis of ay as a classical pronominal linker. As outlined in §2.3.4, the essence of the classical Semitic ALC, is that the linker stands in apposition with a nominal in free state, being outside the scope of the attributive relation, strictly speaking. Yet this analysis is not tenable with regard to those cases in which the primary is explicitly marked by the construct state. One possible solution is to argue that the linker and the primary are still in apposition, yet the primary shows agreement in state with the linker, which is syntactically in construct state. This means that both the primary and ay head this type of construction, similarly to cases where two construct state nouns head a CSC, as in examples (8)–(9) on page 190. The resulting construction, moreover, is one cohesive NP, as is clear from the fact that the primary in construct state cannot be separated from the following linker.

Yet this analysis is challenged by cases where the linker intervenes between a construct state marked preposition and its complement:

15Regarding the genitive marking, see §7.4.4.

#### 7 Attributive constructions in the Jewish dialect of Urmi

It is not possible to argue that a pronominal element stands in apposition with a preposition, as the latter is not nominal. Thus, at least in the latter cases, ay must have lost its pronominal force (i.e. the necessity of representing a noun), and has become a simple marker of the prepositional phrase, a pure linker. As such, it approaches the status of a phrasal genitive marker.

#### 7.3.3 Syllabification of the construct state suffix with the linker

Some analytic confusion arises from cases in which the linker ay is preceded by /d-/ segment. While it is tempting to simply analyse this segment as the genitive prefix, which can occur before vowel-initial pronominal elements (see discussion in §7.4), this analysis is inconsistent with the view advocated here that the linker is not governed by the primary, but rather stands in apposition with it.16

The solution to this difficulty is to analyse the /d-/ segment as part of the construct state suffix -əd, which has been resyllabified with the linker due to phonological reasons, in particular the fact that the linker is vowel-initial.17

In some cases, a vestige of the vocalic nucleus of the construct state suffix (/ə/ or /a/, glossed in both cases

isischwa) remains attached to the primary, while in other cases the vowel is elided.

16In other words, while the linker marks the secondary, it stands outside it. This is true even if one sees ay as a pure marker of the AC, as suggested in the previous section. Of course, this is only the case if the particle under consideration is not in fact the homophonous demonstrative pronoun ay in genitive case.

17As Khan (2008b: 175) in fact suggests: "The consonant of the genitive enclitic [-d] may be syllabified with the ay particle."

(54) JUrmi: Noun–Noun bél-ə house- -d= áy ⁺flankás isischwa -cst= lnk so\_and\_so 'the familly of so-and-so' (Khan 2008b: 175 [72])

(55) JUrmi: Noun–Proper Noun yá dem.prox.sg ⁺šultán-a king- -d= áy Pahlawìˈ isischwa -cst= lnk P. 'that king (Reza Shah) Pahlavi' (Khan 2008b: 370 [169])

A similar resyllabification occurs with prepositional primaries. In these cases it is further motivated by the fact that the prepositions themselves cliticize to the linker as a whole.

(56) JUrmi: Preposition–Noun əl-d= acc-cst= áy lnk ⁺amart-èw palace-poss.3ms 'his palace18' (Khan 2008b: 198 [45])

(57) JUrmi: Preposition–Noun ba-d= for-cst= áy lnk elčyè messengers 'for the messengers' (Khan 2008b: 198 [77])

Note that in the last examples the construct state morpheme is realized as a sole /d/ without a vocalic nucleus: Contrast this example with example (19) on page 193, where it is realized with a vocalic nucleus as /-at/.

#### 7.3.4 Adjectival secondaries following an apparent linker

There are sporadic cases where an adjective follows an ay morpheme, which a priori could be analysed as a linker. Such an analysis would reinforce the idea that the JUrmi ALC is a pattern replication from Kurmanji, where adjectives follow the Ezafe (see §9.5.2). Closer scrutiny nevertheless suggests that, given the

18The preposition əl 'to' serves in this case as an accusative preposition, i.e. marking an object of a phrase. It is thus not rendered in the translation.

rarity of such occurrences, the ay in these cases is actually the demonstrative pronoun. Thus, in the following example, ay can be analysed as a definite determiner attached to the adjective rather than the possessed noun (compare with JZakho example (97) on page 142):19

(58) JUrmi: Noun–Adjective [kpan-aw] shoulder-poss.3fs ay def.sg ⁺rast right(inv) 'her right shoulder' (Garbell 1965b: 87)

In the following example ay is also a definite determiner, serving to nominalize the adjective:

(59) JUrmi: Preposition–Adjective gáll-ə with- -d= áy smoqà,ˈ idá smoqàˈ isischwa cst= def.sg red.ms hand(ms) red.ms 'with red, a red hand' (Khan 2008b: 198 [173])

#### 7.3.5 Infinitival phrases as secondaries

Infinitive phrases as well can appear as secondaries in the JUrmi ALC.

19As discussed in footnote 25 on page 142, Eran Cohen has suggested that this very placement of a determiner in the pre-adjectival position may itself represent pattern replication of the Ezafe construction. If this is true, this development may be regarded as a pre-cursor to the re-analysis of the demonstrative pronoun as a linker. Yet the rarity of this construction could argue against such a scenario, at least in the context of JUrmi. An alternative possibility is to consider ⁺rast as a noun meaning 'the right side'; see discussion of the Kurmanji example (62) on page 276.

#### 7.3.6 Ordinal and adverbial secondaries

Also ordinals and adverbs can serve as secondaries in the ALC:

(62) JUrmi: Noun–Ordinal o dem.dist.ms gor-ət man-cst ay lnk tre-mənji two-ord 'that second man' (Garbell 1965b: 87)

Compare the above example to (27) on page 195.

(63) JUrmi: Noun–Adverb ⁺qayd-ət custom-cst ay= lnk= 20 lòkaˈ there 'the custom of the place' (Khan 2008b: 230 [151])

#### 7.3.7 Linkers without an explicit primary

As explained in §2.3.4, the ALC is analysed as a construction in which the linker is standing in an attributive relationship with the secondary and in apposition with the primary. As such, the linker is expected to be able to occur without an explicit primary. This expectation is indeed borne out, but only when the linker phrase acts as the predicate of the clause.

20Arguably, the ay element here could be an instance of the demonstrative ay serving to nominalize the adverb. Indeed, Khan translates this example as 'the custom of that place'. Compare with example (86) on page 211 and see also example (70) on the next page and the discussion following it.

#### 7 Attributive constructions in the Jewish dialect of Urmi

One case where a linker phrase is found in a non-predicative position is after the adverbial magon 'like', itself appearing in predicative position:

(70) JUrmi: ∅–Adverb magón like ∅ ∅ ay= lnk= láxxa here là neg k-awyá-waˈ ind-be.fs-pst 'It was not like (the situation) here' (Khan 2008b: 198 [106])

In this case, one may reasonably interpret the ay as referring pronominally to an implicit situation, in essence nominalizing the adverb laxxa 'here'. An alternative analysis would be to see ay as a pure linker standing between magon and its complement, but in this case one would expect magon to be marked with the construct state suffix, as in examples (52)–(53) on page 202.

### 7.4 Genitive marking of secondaries

#### 7.4.1 Introduction

Demonstrative and interrogative pronouns, which are normally vowel-initial,21 are marked by a genitive prefix d- when they appear as secondaries, either as determiners of NPs or as full NPs in their own right. The motivation to analyse this segment as a genitive marker, rather than a phonological artefact, is given in §4.5. The possible development path of this marker is discussed in §10.5.

In general, the primary is expected to be marked as construct state, either by means of the -əd suffix or by apocope. This exception is indeed borne out in some cases:

Khan (2008b: 175) brings some cases in which the primary is apparently left unmarked:22

21JUrmi does not have initial glottal stops (Khan 2008b: 35).

22In Khan's analysis this is the default case. For him, there is only one d morpheme, which is a particle that can attach either to the primary as an "annexation enclitic" or to the secondary's determiner as a prefix. Moreover, he does not consider reduced nouns, such as bel 'house' in example (73), to be in construct state, but rather as lacking the enclitic, which is attached to the following demonstrative (Khan 2008b: 174–175). See §4.4 for arguments against such an analysis.

'This apple belongs to which child?' (Khan 2008b: 175) Both these examples may be explained differently, however: In example (74),

the primary ni⁺šā́n 'sign' can be analysed as being an instance of apocopated construct state, since there exists a long variant ni⁺šā́na.

As for the example (75) on this page, judging by Khan's translation ('This is the apple of which child?'), it seems that he analyses xabúša d-émnu yalè as one NP. Yet it seems more reasonable to analyse áy xabúša as the subject NP and d-émnu yalè as a predicate NP, in which case d-émnu is an independent genitive pronoun, lacking an explicit primary. Functionally, the genitive marking without an explicit primary is somewhat similar to the pronominal linker d-, otherwise absent in JUrmi, as it can be said to assume a pronominal role of representing the primary.

#### 7.4.2 Genitive marking following adverbials

Prepositions stand in a direct attributive relation with their complement and thus induce a genitive marking on it, irrespective of the question whether the preposition itself is marked as construct state or not.

(76) JUrmi: Preposition–Noun dowr-ət d-o

around-cst gen-dem.dist.sg bela house 'around that house' (Khan 2008b: 194)

(77) JUrmi: Preposition–Pronoun dowr-ət around-cst d-o gen-dem.dist.sg 'around that one' (Khan 2008b: 194)