14Pace Williams (2001: 8) this should not be seen as a "mixed construction" (as is the case with example (35) on page 61), but rather as two conjoined ACs. This structure should furthermore be contrasted with example (14) on page 53 in which we have one AC, consisting of a primary modified by two conjoined secondaries.

state.15 Therefore, while example (27) on the preceding page clearly represents an AC, it is not exactly an instance of the CSC.16

As we shall see in the following section, the most frequent function of the dproclitic is to stand between an overt NP and its attribute. Therefore, as discussed in §2.3.4, we shall call it a pronominal linker or simply linker (glossed lnk). In cases such as example (27) on the previous page, we may say that it links between an implicit referent and the secondary.17

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

Probably the most frequent AC in Syriac is the construction where the primary and the secondary are mediated by the pronominal linker d(a)-. This construction, which we term the analytic linker construction (=ALC) is illustrated by the following examples:18

(29) Syriac: Noun–Noun deḥltā fear.emph d= lnk alāhā God 'fear of God19' (Goldenberg 1995: 4)

15It can be traced back to the Northwest Semitic pronominal \*ðū, of which Aramaic retained the fossilized genitive form \*ðī which evolved into d- (Gzella 2011: 437). As such, it is etymologically related to the demonstrative pronouns, as is evident from the fs demonstrative pronoun hāḏē, but synchronically it is hard to see it as the construct state form of the former. See also Duval (1881: 297, §316):"Le pronom ܕ] d-] est un ancien démonstratif, qui se subordonne un mot ou une phrase, comme un nom à l'état construit".

16Bar-Asher Siegal (2013a) presents a competing analysis, according to which d- is in essence a subordinating particle, introducing always clausal secondaries (cf. §3.5.2). A noun following dshould be understood, according to this idea, as a clause representing a predicative possessive construction, in which only the possessor is overtly expressed as a topic. While this idea is thought provoking, it suffers from some shortcomings: first, it requires the postulation of a null existential particle in each such case. More importantly, the expression of possessors as topics is unknown in Aramaic outside this context.

17Goldenberg calls this element a pronominal head, a term which may raise some confusion since every pronoun serves as a head of its phrase. Another term found in the Semitic literature, following the work of Pennacchietti (1968) is determinative pronoun. Wertheimer (2001), using a somewhat different perspective, analyses the d- as a translatif, a term due to Tesnière denoting a conversion morpheme, as the d- can convert a noun to an an attribute, a clause to a noun, etc.

18See footnote 40 on page 38 for the use of the term analytic genitive construction. The very same construction with the linker d- is attested in other Eastern Classical Aramaic languages, such as Classical Mandaic (Häberl 2007), and Jewish Babylonian Aramaic (Bar-Asher Siegal 2013b: 93, §4.3).

19Goldenberg translates this example as "fear N of God", emphasizing the nominal nature of the linker, which is not apparent in the English translation otherwise.

Goldenberg (1995) analyses this construction as two constituents standing in apposition to each other, only the latter being a genitive construction. In the terminology used here, however, the entire construction qualifies as being an AC, the primary and secondary standing in indirect attributive relationship.20 Goldenberg's analysis, contrasted with this study's terminology, is presented in the Table 3.2:

Table 3.2: Goldenberg's analysis of the ALC, contrasted with terminology used in this study

20Compare with the formulation of Goldenberg (2000: 79) discussing this construction: "We may call 'indirect annexion' a construction in which the head noun is represented by a formal head substitute […] and the full noun which is replaced by that formal substitute precedes the kernel annexion as in ܐüܘܕø-ܕ ܪܘܚܐ] rūḥa [d-quḏša]]". The bracketing of the example clearly shows the unity of the whole construction.

#### 3 Attributive constructions in Syriac

The pronominal nature of the linker d- becomes evident when it appears without an immediate nominal antecedent, such as in examples (27)–(28) on page 57. In this work such cases are treated as having a zero (∅) primary, and we shall indicate the position where a nominal primary could have appeared by the symbol ∅.21 The following famous quotations illustrate this (and see also example (61) on page 68):

(32) Syriac: ∅–Noun

```
ܐ
ܵ
ý
  ܵ
  ܢ
   ̈
   ܝ
     ܿ
    ܼܒܢ
        ܿ
        ܸ ܐܠܗܐ ܐܵĀ ܼܕ
                                ܿ
                                ܼܕ
                                  ݁ ÿ
                                     ̄
                                     ܢ
                                      ܹî ܼܐ ܐ ܿ
                                                 ܿ
                                                ܸĀ ܡ݂ÿܼܪ
```
lā neg metraʿē think =ʾat =2sg ∅ ∅ d= lnk= alāhā God ʾellā but ∅ ∅ da= lnk= bnay= son.pl.cst= nāšā man 'You are not thinking of things of God but of things of men.' (Peshiṭta, Matthew 16:23; Muraoka 1997: 71)

(33) Syriac: ∅–Noun

ܐ ܗܵ ܵ ܠ ܼܐ Ā ܿ ܗܵ ܵ ܿܐܠ ܼ û ܘܕ ܿ éܼ ùܠ û ܸ ܸܟ ܸ ܝܠ ܕø ܼé ܿ ݂ܒܘ ܗܵ ܼܗ ܿ habaw give.imp.pl hākēl then ∅ ∅ d= lnk= qesar Caesar l= to= qesar Caesar w= and= ∅ ∅ d= lnk= alāhā God l= to= alāhā God 'Give then that which is of Caesar to Caesar and that which is of God to God.' (Peshiṭta, Matthew 22:21; Muraoka 1997: 71)

An intervening clitic can easily be attached to the primary in this constriction:

(34) Syriac: Noun–Noun

̈ܢܝܐ èܘܓܐܐ ܓܝû ܕܒ sogā multitude =gēr =indeed da= lnk= bnayā sons 'many children, indeed' (Acts of Thomas, ed. Wright 1871: ܐòø)

Since the primary does not directly govern the secondary, but rather stands in apposition with the linker, it must appear in the free state, typically being the emphatic state in Syriac. There are, however, some rare exceptions to this rule:22

21This ∅ is thus a paradigmatic zero. In Saussurian terms it relates in absentia to a possible antecedent. Cf. Muraoka (1997: 70): "At times the nucleus noun phrase to be qualified by the following Dalath [=d- linker] phrase is wanting".

22Nöldeke (1898: 155, §205B, fn. 1), however, sees such cases as textual errors. Similarly, Hopkins (1997: 25, fn. 6) comments: "The correctness of this construction is not well established and most of the examples alleged in the literature are plain blunders occurring in unreliable sources or the result of mistaken analysis of the text." In the context of the JUrmi NENA dialect, where such constructions are regular, I shall analyse this phenomenon as agreement in state (see §7.3.2).

(35) Syriac: Noun–Possessed Noun ܽܘܬܝ ܰ ܠܝ ܰܘܡܰ̈ ܝ ܕܛ ܝ yawmay day.pl.cst d= lnk= ṭaliut-i youth-poss.1sg 'the days of my youth' (S. Ephræmi Opera vol. 3 ed. S. E. Assemanus 1743: 429; Duval 1881: 339, §357g)

As Duval (1881) notes, this construction should be kept apart from the similarlooking sequence of morphemes corresponding to a simple CSC, in which the linker is an integral part of the secondary, lacking an explicit primary (here noted as ∅).

(36) Syriac: Noun–Noun Phrase

ܘܣ ܳ ܢ ܰ ܽܘøܠÿܝ ܶܝÿ ܕ ̈ ܕܒ ܝ ܰܘܡܰ ܝ yawmay day.pl.cst [∅ ∅ d= lnk= bēt house.cst Dokletiyanos] D. 'the days of those of the house of D.' (Julianos der Abtrünnige, ed. Hoffmann 1880: 24, 9 apud Duval 1881: 339, §357g)

Whenever two conjoined nouns appear as secondaries, the linker is normally repeated:

(37) Syriac: Noun–Conjoined Nouns ̈ āø ܕܨñܘܢܘܬܐ ܘܕܗܕĂܘĀ qālā voice d= lnk= ṣepunwātā bagpipes.pl w= and= d= lnk= hadrulē water\_organ.pl 'sound of pipes and organs' (Acts of Thomas, ed. Wright 1871: ܕïø)

Cases without the repetition of the linker appear as well, especially if the conjoined nouns form an idiomatic expression, as in the first of the following two examples:

(38) Syriac: Noun–Conjoined Nouns

̈ܪܐ ܕܒûéܐ ܘܕܡܐ ܕ dārē generation.pl d= lnk= [besrā flesh wa= and= dmā] blood 'the generations of flesh and blood' (Peshiṭta, Sirach 14:18 apud Van Peursen 2007: 209)

#### 3 Attributive constructions in Syriac

(39) Syriac: Noun–Conjoined Nouns ܢܡ̈ ܘèܐ ܕøĂܡܝܐ ܘܐܘèĂܝܐ ܘăîܒܝܐ nāmusē laws d= lnk= [rāqāmāyē Rakamaens w= and= ursāyē Edessans w= and= ʿarbāyē] Arabs 'the laws of the Rakamaens, the Edessans and the Arabs' (Bardaisan, Book of the Laws of the Countries ed. Drijvers 1965: 46:13 apud Bakker 2011: 125)

In contrast to the CSC, both the primary and the secondary can be expanded to multi-word NPs, as in the following example:

(40) Syriac: Noun Phrase–Noun Phrase ̣ ܒûܐ ܡýܠܡܢܐ ܕĂܗܡܐ ܡ̈ ýܠܡܢܐ [brā son mšalmānā] perfect.ms d= lnk= [raḥmē mercy(pl) mšalmānē] perfect.m.pl 'perfect son of perfect mercy' (Acts of Thomas, ed. Wright 1871: ܛïø)

The secondary itself can be a CSC:

(41) Syriac: Noun–Noun Phrase ܘܬܪîܐ ܕܒܝÿ ܓܢܘܢܐ tarʿā door d= lnk= [bēt house.cst gnonā] bridal\_bed 'the door of the bridal chamber' (Acts of Thomas, ed. Wright 1871: óø)

Similarly, a noun inflected with a possessive pronominal suffix can act as a primary or as a secondary of the ALC. Its usage as a primary should not be confused with the DAC discussed in §3.6.

݂ܒܕܘܗܝ ܠܘܝܐ ܕî̈ lewyā companion d= lnk= ʿabd-aw servant-pl.poss.3ms 'companion of His servants' (Acts of Thomas, ed. Wright 1871: ܛïø)

It is difficult to come across cases where two conjoined nouns act as a single primary of the analytic linker construction. Van Peursen (2007: 204) notes that in the book of Ben-Sira such potential constructions are rendered instead by a conjunction of two ACs, the first being the ALC and the second the possessive suffix construction:

(44) Syriac: Conjoined Nouns–Noun ܟܘܠ ܡĀÿ ܘܚܟܝܡ̈ ܐ ܘܐܘܚ̈ܕܬܗܘܢ [kol all matlē proverbs d= lnk= ḥakkimē] wise.pl w= and= [ʾuḥdātat-hon] riddles-poss.3pl 'all the proverbs of the wise and their riddles' (Peshiṭta, Sirach 50:27; Van Peursen 2007: 204)

This may, however, be an artefact of this text being translated from Hebrew. In the source text this construction would have been rendered by a CSC which prohibits (in classical Hebrew) conjoined primaries. Indeed, in other sources one finds such cases regularly:

(45) Syriac: Conjoined Nouns–Noun ܬܪܒܝÿܐ ܘüܡܠܝܐ ܕñܓûܐ [tarbitā growth w= and= šumlāyā] perfection d= lnk= pagrā body 'the growth and perfection of the body' (Bardaisan, Book of the Laws of the Countries ed. Drijvers 1965: 34:14 apud Bakker 2011: 123)

(46) Syriac: Conjoined Noun–Noun Phrase ̣ܘܗܕܝܐ ܘܡܕܒûܢܐ ܕܐܝܠܝܢ ܕܡܗܝܡܢܝܢ ܒܗ w= and= [hadāyā guide wa= and= mdabrānā] conductor d= lnk= [aylēn who.pl da= lnk= [mhaymēnin believe.ptcp.m.pl.abs b-ēh]] in-3ms 'and guide and conductor of those who believe in Him' (Acts of Thomas, ed. Wright 1871: ܛïø)

(47) Syriac: Conjouned NPs–Participle ̈÷ܐ ̇ܚܐ ܕܐܠܝ ܘܒܝÿ ܓܘèܐ ܘܢܝ [[bēt house.cst gawsā] refuge wa= and= nyāḥā] rest d= lnk= ʾaliṣē afflict.pass.ptcp.emph.m.pl 'refuge and repose of the afflicted' (Acts of Thomas, ed. Wright 1871: ܛïø)

A somewhat unusual usage of the linker construction is to introduce a secondary noun which is appositive to the primary. It could tentatively be assimilated with cases of adjectival secondaries in the ALC, which are normally analysed as reduced relative clauses (see §3.5.3), but in contrast to those cases, the secondary is in the emphatic state.

(48) Syriac: Noun–Noun ̈ ܓܒăܝܗܝܢ ܕܓܠܝܐܐ gabrey-hen man.pl-poss.3f.pl d= lnk= gelyāʾē G.m.pl 'their men, (who are) the Gelians' (Bardaisan, Book of the Laws of the Countries ed. Drijvers 1965: 44:17 apud Bakker 2011: 121)

In this case, the linker stands not only in apposition with the primary, as is always the case in the analytic linker construction, but also with the secondary, as all nominal expressions in this example – the primary, the linker and the secondary, have the same referent.

#### 3.5.1 Pronominal secondaries

Pronominal secondaries are realized in the ALC by means of the possessive pronominal suffixes (see §3.3) attached to an allomorph of the linker, namely dil-. Diachronically dil- can be analysed as a combination of the linker d- with the dative preposition l- but synchronically it is simply the allo-form the linker takes when it attaches to the pronominal suffixes.23

As Gutman & Van Peursen (2011: 90) note, it is difficult to establish a functional difference between this construction and the possessive suffix construction, as different manuscripts of the same text may use one or the other construction. Muraoka (1997: 71), on the other hand, states that this construction puts some emphasis on the secondary. This may be related to the fact that unlike the pronominal suffixes, the base dil- can bear stress. Contrast examples (1)–(3) on page 49 with the following:

23The same form is found in Classical Mandaic (Macuch 1965: 404, §260). In Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, on the other hand, the form is normally dīd- (Bar-Asher Siegal 2013b: 108), though one finds the form dīl- as well in "rare and dialectal use" (Sokoloff 2002: 331). Nöldeke (1875: 332, fn. 2) proposes to analyse the form dīd- as originating in d + yād 'lnk+hand.cst' (cf. Garbell 1965b: 60), but it seems more plausible to explain it as a cognate of dil- mutated by assimilation (Bar-Asher Siegal 2013b: 108). The earliest attested form, from the Early Aramaic period, is ðīl-.

ܒýܡܐ ܕܝܠܟ ba= in= šmā name.emph dil-āk lnk-poss.2ms 'by your name' (Peshiṭta, Prayer of Manasseh, ed. Baars & Schneider 1972: B3; Gutman & Van Peursen 2011: 90 (3B))

(51) Syriac: Noun Phrase–Pronoun

̣ܚܡÿܐ ܘܪܘܓܙܐ ܕܝܠܟ ḥemtā fury.emph w= and= rugzā rage.emph dil-āk lnk-poss.2ms 'your fury and rage' (Peshiṭta, Prayer of Manasseh, ed. Baars & Schneider 1972: B5, Gutman & Van Peursen 2011: 90 (4B))

As the last example shows, in contrast to the possessive suffix construction, when the linker construction is used, one pronominal secondary is enough for a conjoined NP primary, as the linker can be appositive to an entire NP (compare also with examples (44)–(45) on page 63).

Moreover, the syntactic autonomy of the linker permits it to precede the primary:

(52) Syriac: Noun–Pronoun

ܕܝܠܗ ûòèܐ dil-ēh lnk-poss.3ms seprā book 'his book' (Muraoka 1997: 71, §91f)

#### 3.5.2 Clausal secondaries

Relative clauses in Syriac cannot be introduced by the CSC; Rather, the ALC is obligatory used (Goldenberg 2013a: 236f.).24 For this reason, the linker d- is referred by some authors also as relative pronoun (Muraoka 1997: 21, §15). It can be co-referent with any argument (or adjunct) of the relative clause.25

While I agree with Goldenberg (1995) that d- represents one and the same morpheme regardless of the material that follows it, it is worthwhile noting that the distribution of d+Clause is somewhat different from d+Noun, implying that these combinations are not equivalent (Van Peursen 2007: 245f.). This can be illustrated by cases in which the same primary is expanded both by a nominal and a clausal secondary. In such cases, the two d- phrases are not conjoined (contrast with example (37) on page 61):26

(55) Syriac: Noun–Noun+Clause ܼ ܝܗܘܢ ܒýܘî̈ܝÿܐ ܕèܒ̈ܐ ܕüܡïܘ ܡܢ ܐܒܗ̈ b= in= [šoʿitē tales d= lnk= sābē] elders da= lnk= [šmaʿ-u heard-3pl men from ʾabāh-ayhon] fathers-poss.3pl 'the discourse of the elders, which they have heard from their fathers' (Peshiṭta, Sirach 8:9 apud Van Peursen 2007: 232)

24Other classical Semitic languages allow the usage of the CSC with clausal secondaries, notably Akkadian, but also Classical Hebrew, Arabic and Ge'ez (Goldenberg 2013a: Ch. 14).

25The term clause is used here to cover verbal clauses with finite verbs. Nominal clauses, and in particular clauses with participial predicates are treated in the next section.

26One may argue that the NP šoʿitē d=sābē 'discourse of the elders' is the primary of the relative clause, rather than the noun šoʿitē. Yet in the dependency model I use, as well as from the semantic point of view, the relative clause is an expansion of šoʿitē 'discourse' alone.

Notwithstanding the pronominal nature of the linker d-, in its usage as a relative pronoun it does not co-occur with a zero primary, according to my survey. Instead, an explicit pronominal primary can occur in this construction, yielding either a free relative, or, less frequently, a non-restrictive relative clause.

(56) Syriac: Pronoun–Clause

ܠ ܸܒ ݁ ܿ ܼ ܢܝ ܡù ܼܠܚܿ ܿ ܼ ܢ ܕü ܼ ܠ ܠܡ ܿ ܸܒ ݁ ܿ ܼ ܼܡù ܼܡ ܿ ܢ ܕܠܝ man who d= lnk= [l-i to-1sg mqabbel] receive.ptcp.ms l-man to-who d= lnk= [šalḥa-ni ] sent-p1sg mqabbel receive.ptcp.ms 'he who receives me receives him who has sent me27' (Peshiṭta, Matthew 10:40; Muraoka 1997: 87, §111)

(57) Syriac: Pronoun–Clause

ܐܢÿ ܕܐûèܬܝܗܝ ܠܝܡܐ ʾat 2ms d= lnk= esar-t-āy bound-a2ms-p3ms l-yammā acc-sea 'You, who bound the sea' (Peshiṭta, Prayer of Manasseh, ed. Baars & Schneider 1972: B3; Gutman & Van Peursen 2011: 221 (3a))

As Gutman & Van Peursen (2011: 87) note, the interrogative pronoun man 'who', which typically introduces non-specific free relatives as in example (56), can in fact also introduce free relatives referring to specific referents, as in the following example:28

(58) Syriac: Pronoun–Clause

̣ ܡܢ ܕܐܚܕܬ ܠÿܗܘܡܐ man who d= lnk= eḥad-t held-a2ms la-thomā acc-abyss 'Who held29the abyss' (Peshiṭta, Prayer of Manasseh, ed. Baars & Schneider 1972: B3; Gutman & Van Peursen 2011: 221 (3b))

A quite distinct usage of the d+Clause pattern occurs when d- serves as a complementizer. This is the case when d- introduces complements of verbs, be

27Note that the first relative clause is in fact a participial clause, treated in the next section.

28Peripherally to this, note that in Modern Hebrew the pronouns introducing free relatives are frequently preceded by the definite accusative marker את ʾet, rendering them syntactically (but not necessarily semantically) definite.

29In the Syriac text, the verb appears in the 2nd person, yet the grammatical context seems to require a 3rd person. Indeed, in another version of the same text, the verb appears in the 3rd person; see discussion of Gutman & Van Peursen (2011: 87f.).

#### 3 Attributive constructions in Syriac

they direct object or adverbial complements. These constructions are arguably not ACs at all, as their function is not to modify an implied referent. Indeed, in these cases, no nominal antecedent appears before the d-, and one could argue that no nominal primary is possible at all in this position. Nonetheless, I list these examples for the sake of completeness, but I gloss the d- in this function as comp.30

(59) Syriac: Verb–Clause

ܸܠܠ ܼ ܢܡ ܿ ܿ ܼ ܼܕ ܿ ûܝ üܼ šarri begin.prf.3ms da= comp= nmalel speak.impf.3ms 'He began to speak.' (Peshiṭta, Mark 12:1; Muraoka 1997: 65, §82)

(60) Syriac: Verb–Clause

ܐ ܵ ݂ܬܪ ܼܢ ܐ ܿ ܿ ܸܝ ݂ܒ ܠܟܘ ܿ ܸܐ ܕ ܼܐܛ ܵ ܢ ܸܠ ܐ̄ ܙ ܐܵ ʾāzel go.ptcp =nā =1sg d= comp= eṭayyeb prepare.impf.1sg l-kon to-poss.2m.pl ʾatrā place 'I go to prepare a place for you.' (Peshiṭta, John 14:2; Muraoka 1997: 65, §82)

The distinct functions of d- serving either as a complementizer or as pronominal linker are especially clear in the rare cases where two d- morphemes follow, each with another function, as in the following example:31

(61) Syriac: ∅–Noun

̇ ùܝܐ ܗܝ ܼܐܝ ̣ ܕܐ ܕܕü ̣ ܐÿü ̣ܟܚÿ݀ ʾeštakḥat was\_found.3fs ʾidā hand(fs) d= comp= ∅ ∅ d= lnk= šāqyā cupbearer = h i =3fs 'the hand was found to be that of the cupbearer' (Acts of Thomas, ed. Wright 1871: ܚïø)

The d- morpheme functions likewise as a complementizer when it follows an adverbial acting as a conjunction. Note that in such cases the attributive rela-

30Wertheimer (2001: 275) argues that both functions of d-, introducing relative clauses or complement clauses, stem from its more general function as a conversion morpheme (translatif in her terms), and indeed both uses are in fact nominalizations: as a relativizer d- nominalizes clauses into adjectives, while as a complementizer it nominalizes clauses into nouns (or substantives in her terms).

31The ∅ primary refers to the noun ʾidā 'hand', which can be analysed as having been raised out of the CP to serve as the subject of the matrix-clause. See also Muraoka (1997: 35\*, fn. 51). The continuation of this sentence is given in example (79) on page 74.

tionship is already marked by the construct state of the adverbial. Compare the following with example (24) on page 56:

(62) Syriac: Adverbial Noun–Clause ܴܓā ܳ ܰ ܪܢ ܶܐ ܬ ûùܶ ܡ ܕܢ ܳ øܕ qdām front.cst [d= comp= neqrē call.impf.3ms tarnāglā] cock 'before a cock crows' (Payne Smith 1903: 490)

The structure of this example is superficially parallel to that of examples (35)– (36) on page 61, in that the d- follows an element in construct state. The fine difference is that here it acts as a complementizer (nominalizing an event), and thus does not designate any implied referent. Note also that the construct state marking is needed in order to transform the noun ܐ ܡ ܳ ܳ ܕø qdāmā 'front', which can by itself be used adverbially, into a conjunction requiring a complement phrase.

#### 3.5.3 Adjectives and participles as secondaries

Adjectives and participles are closely related in Syriac. Both show nominal inflection, and are characterised by the fact that in predicative position they commonly appear in absolute state. Moreover, with a 3rd person subject, they can dispense with the enclitic personal pronoun (e.p.p.) which normally appears after predicative nominals. In the following examples, the two categories are kept separate, but in some cases it is difficult to tease them apart.

As explained in §3.8, adjectives used attributively stand in apposition with their head noun and thus agree with it in state, being most commonly the emphatic state. The usage of absolute state, on the other hand, is typical of the predicative use of adjectives and participles.32 Moreover, in absolute state they can appear as secondaries in the ALC. As the absolute state is typical of predicative function, these secondaries are often considered in Syriac grammars as elliptical relative clauses, lacking an explicit subject argument (Muraoka 2013: 66, §94; Van Peursen 2007: 211ff.).33

It is quite difficult to find cases of single-word adjectival secondaries following a nominal primary in this construction. Van Peursen (2007) gives the following example as a case of d+Adjective:

32This distinction is also true in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic; see Bar-Asher Siegal (2013b: 63).

33Alternatively, Goldenberg (1983: 115, §§9–10) analyses these elements as being quasi-verbal conjugated predicates, of which the 3rd person marker is a ∅. Yet appositive nominal secondaries in emphatic state can also appear in a similar syntactic structure, as example (48) on page 64 shows.

(63) Syriac: Noun–Participle ܢýܐ ܕèܐܒ nāšā man d= lnk= sāb old.abs.ms 'an old person' (Peshiṭta, Sirach 8:6 apud Van Peursen 2007: 211)

Yet most cases of adjectival secondaries introduced in this construction are multi-word expressions:

This tendency is inverted whenever there is no overt primary. In such cases, one can easily find single-word adjectives following the linker. The adjective in these cases is effectively nominalized, as the following example demonstrates:

(66) Syriac: ∅–Adjective ܼܝû ݁ ò ܿ ܸîܒ݂ܕ ܼ ܘ ܕü ʿbed-u do.imp-pl ∅ ∅ d= lnk= šappir beautiful.ms.abs 'Do what is good' (Peshiṭta, Matthew 5:44; Muraoka 1997: 87, §111)

According to Wertheimer (2001: 271), who discusses similar cases with clausal secondaries, the nominalisation is achieved exactly due to the lack of an overt primary.

34Bakker (2011: 129, fn. 117) argues that the secondary modifies only the second noun, arguing that "it would seem superfluous to specify intemperance with the notion of not being necessary". Note, however, that it is the second noun that means "intemperance". Nonetheless, given that the adjective has a singular form, it is probably correct that it modifies only one of the nouns.

One finds similar expressions with the pronominal primary ܡܕܡ meddem 'something':

(67) Syriac: Pronoun–Adjective

ܡܕܡ ܕòüܝû meddem something d= lnk= šappir beautiful.ms.abs 'something (that is) beautiful' (Peshiṭta, Sirach 23:5; Van Peursen 2007: 211)

Longer, phrasal adjectival secondaries can also follow ∅ or pronominal primaries:

(68) Syriac: ∅–Adjective Phrase ܘܕøܠܝܠ ܛܒ w= and= d= lnk= [qalil light.ms.abs tāb] very 'and what is very light' (Peshiṭta, Sirach 22:18 apud Van Peursen 2007: 199)

Participial phrases following pronominal primaries are quite regular. See the participial secondaries in example (56) on page 67 or example (46) on page 63, or the following example:

(69) Syriac: Pronoun–Participial Phrase ܗܠܝܢ ܕîܒăܢ ... ܘܠܗܠܝܢ ܕĀ îܒăܢ hālēn dem.pl d= lnk= [{lā} {neg} ʿābr-ān] pass.ptcp-abs.f.pl 'those that are {not} transitory' (Acts of Thomas, ed. Wright 1871: ܓòø)

In contrast to the case of clausal secondaries with finite verbs (see §3.5.2), participial secondaries can co-occur with ∅ primaries, though this does not happen very frequently:

(70) Syriac: ∅–Participial Phrase

ܹܡܗ ܹܐܬ ܼ ܝܢ îܿ ܵ ݂ û ܠܕ ܸܘ ܼܐܡ ܿ (w= and= emar said l=) to= ∅ ∅ d= lnk= [ātēn come.ptcp.abs.m.pl ʿamm-ēh] with-poss.3ms 'and he said to those who were coming with him' (Peshiṭta, Matthew 8:10; Muraoka 1997: 87, §111)

(71) Syriac: ∅–Participial Phrase ܼܘ ݂ܕ ܗ̄ ܹ ܛ ܓ ݂ ܝû ܒܟ ܼܠ ܚ ܿ ܼܠܝ ܿ ܼܕü ∅ ∅ d= lnk= [šalliṭ rule.ptcp.ms.abs gēr however b= in= kol] all (ḥad one = hu) =3ms 'He who controls all (is one).' (Muraoka 1997: 87, §111)

For discussion of the factors motivating the appearance of adjectives in the ALC versus simple apposition, see §3.8.2.

#### 3.5.4 Adverbial secondaries

Similarly to adjectival secondaries, adverbial secondaries are usually considered to be reduced clauses. Being in fact PPs, they always consist of multiple words (considering the preposition itself, being a proclitic, as a separate syntactic word):

(72) Syriac: Noun–Prepositional Phrase ܐ ܝéܵ ܿ ܼ ݁ ܿûܕ ݂ܒ݂ ܼò ܿ ܼܐ ܕ ̈ ܹܢ ܵ ܼܐܝܠ ʾilānē tree.pl da= lnk= b= in= pardaysā garden 'the trees in the garden' (Peshiṭta, Genesis 3:2; Muraoka 1997: 72)

The preposition ܐܝܟ ʾak 'as' is also found followed by d+PP. If the PP is seen as a reduced clause, such cases should be treated as similar in structure to example (62) on page 69, where the d- serves as a complementizer.

(73) Syriac: Conjunction–Prepositional Phrase ܵܐ ܝ ܼýܡ ܿ ܿ ݂ܝܟ ݂ ܼܕܒ ܼܐ ܿ ʾak as d= comp= ba= in= šmayyā heaven 'as in heaven' (Muraoka 1997: 64, §78)

(74) Syriac: Conjunction–Prepositional Phrase ܐܝܟ ܕܒܐܟéܢܝܐ ʾak as d= comp= b= in= aksnāyā stranger 'as upon a stranger' (Acts of Thomas, ed. Wright 1871: ܗïø)

#### 3.5.5 Numerals as ordinal secondaries

An noteworthy usage of this construction is to form ordinal numerals out of the cardinal numerals. The construction is especially interesting, since the secondary, i.e. the numeral, agrees in gender with the primary.35 Example (75) can be directly contrasted with example (105) on page 85.36

#### (75) Syriac: Noun–Ordinal

ܝܢ ̈ ܷܬܖ ܰ ܱܝܘܡ ܳ ܐ ܕ yawmā day(ms) da= lnk= trēn two.m 'the second day' (Nöldeke 1898: 178, §239)

#### (76) Syriac: Noun–Ordinal

```
ÿ݂
 ܵ
݂ܬܠ
      ܿ
     ܼܐ ܕ
              ܵ
             ÿ݂
                ̄
                ܢ
                   ܿ
                  ܼܒý
```
b= in= šattā year(fs) da= lnk= tlāt three.f 'in the third year' (Peshiṭta, Deuteronomy 26:12; Muraoka 1997: 38, §44b)

This construction too can be used without an explicit primary:

```
(77) Syriac: ∅–Ordinal
```
ܘܕܬܠÿܐ da= lnk= tlātā third.m 'a third one' (Peshiṭta, Sirach 23:16 apud Van Peursen 2007: 258)

#### 3.5.6 The analytic linker construction with a correlative

(i) Syriac: Noun–Cardinal ܝܢ ܰܘܡܺ ܳ ܐ ܝ ÿ ܳ ܰ ÿܠ ܳܐ ܠ ܚܕ xdā one.f la= to= tlātā three.m yawmēn day.pl.abs 'once in three days' (Payne Smith 1903: 614)

Similarly to an ordinal numeral, a cardinal numeral agrees in gender with the modified noun. The linker d- appears only sometimes following the cardinal óܐܠ ʾālef 'thousand', but in this construction the cardinal acts syntactically as a primary (see Nöldeke 1898: 177, §239).

35This construction is preserved in many NENA dialects, although the gender distinction is lost in some; see §11.5.2.

36When a numeral functions as a cardinal, it typically precedes the quantified noun without any marking of an attributive relation:

The ALC exhibits a variant construction in which the linker is preceded by a demonstrative or interrogative pronoun, traditionally termed "correlative" (Nöldeke 1898: 175f., §236). This happens especially frequently with clausal secondaries. Pat-El (2010) discusses this construction, bringing inter alia, the following example:

(78) Syriac: Noun Phrase–Clause

ܼܐܝܕܗ ܕܝܡܝܢܐ܇ ܗ ̇ ܝ ܕܐܪܝܡ îܠ ܝܗܘܕܐ [ʾid-ēh hand-poss.3ms d= lnk= yamminā] right(fs) hāy dem.fs d= lnk= [arim struck.3ms ʿal on Yhudā] Judas 'his right hand with which he had struck Judas' (Acts of Thomas, ed. Wright 1871: ܚïø)

In the same textual source there is another such example, but with an enclitic personal pronoun intervening between the primary and the demonstrative pronoun. This example is the continuation of example (61) on page 68:

```
(79) Syriac: Noun–Clause
```
̣ ܘ ܕܡܚܝܗܝ ܗܘܐ ܠܝܗܘܕܐ ܿ ùܝܐ ܗܝ. ܗ ̇ ܼ ܕܕü d= lnk= šāqyā cupbearer = h i =3.fs haw dem.ms da= lnk= mḥā-y struck-p.3ms = hwa =pst l-Yhudā acc-J. 'it was that of the cupbearer who had smitten Judas' (Acts of Thomas, ed. Wright 1871: ܚïø)

While structurally the pronoun may be analysed as a pronominal primary (see the analysis of Wertheimer 2001: 274), functionally Pat-El argues that it should be seen as a definite article, marking the attribute, and thus the entire AC, as definite.37. Indeed, such a demonstrative, acting as a definite article, can precede nominal primaries as well (see also examples of Pat-El 2010: 67):

(80) Syriac: Noun–Noun

ܪܘܡܐ ܗ ̇ ܘ ܕüܡܝܐ

rawmā height haw dem.ms da= lnk= šmayyā heaven 'the height of heaven' (Peshiṭta, Prayer of Manasseh, ed. Baars & Schneider 1972: A10; Gutman & Van Peursen 2011: 91 (7A))

37It is interesting to note the parallelism between this construction and the classical Semitic CSC, in which the definite article is attached to the secondary, as discussed in §2.3.3. See in this context also example (16) on page 53

This last example is parallel functionally to example (85) on the next page, which uses instead a proleptic pronoun to render the AC definite. This is discussed in the following section.

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

#### 3.6.1 Plain construction

Another frequent AC used in Syriac is a variant of the ALC with a proleptic (i.e. cataphoric) possessive pronominal suffix attached to the primary, indexing the secondary. Following Goldenberg (2013a: 234, fn. 15) I shall term this construction the double annexation construction (=DAC).38

(81) Syriac: Noun–Noun

Ăܓܠܘܗܝ ܕüܠܝܚܐ regl-awhi foot-pl.poss.3ms da= lnk= šliḥā apostle 'the feet of the apostle' (Acts of Thomas, ed. Wright 1871: ܚïø)

(82) Syriac: Noun–Noun

ܵܐ ܝ ܕܡܵ ûܝ ܘܗ̄ ܿ ܼܠ ܸܡ̈ mell-aw word-pl.poss.3ms d= lnk= māryā Lord 'the words of the Lord' (Muraoka 1997: 88, §112d)

(83) Syriac: Noun–Noun šm-āh name-poss.3fs d= lnk= attətā woman 'the name of the woman' (Goldenberg 2013a: 236)

Goldenberg (2013a: 234) analyses this construction as "a complex construction made of a sequence of two correlated annexions n1–pron2 ~ pron1–n2 , identical indices indicateting coreferentiality". Schematically, he represents the construction as if there were two appositions involved:39

The syntactic independence of the two phrases is demonstrated by cases where an intervening clitic appears:

38See footnote 45 on page 43 for further information on this term.

39The apposition between the two attributes must be understood as an indirect apposition, or merely co-reference, since each attribute is governed by another head.

#### 3 Attributive constructions in Syriac

Table 3.3: Goldenberg's representation of the Double Annexation Construction

(84) Syriac: Noun–Noun ܐܚܘܗܝ ܐܢܐ ܕܝܗܘܕܐ ʾaḥ-aw brother-poss.3ms =na =1sg d= lnk= Yhudā Judas 'I'm the brother of Judas' (Acts of Thomas, ed. Wright 1871: ܐòø)

According to Muraoka (1997: 61f.) the DAC is used "when both nouns … are logically determined". Indeed, this construction is used as an alternative to marking definite determination by means of a "correlative" demonstrative pronoun (contrast with example (80) on page 74):

(85) Syriac: Noun–Noun

ܪܘܡܗ ̇ ܕüܡܝܐ rawm-āh height-poss.3fs da= lnk= šmayyā heaven(fs) 'the height of heaven' (Peshiṭta, Prayer of Manasseh, ed. Baars & Schneider 1972: B9; Gutman & Van Peursen 2011: 90 (7B))

It is not accurate, however, to claim that both constituent nouns are determined. Rather, it is the AC as a whole which is determined. Thus, we can find cases where the secondary is indefinite, albeit with a generic reading.

(86) Syriac: Noun–Noun

ܕܢýòܗ ܕܡéܟܢܐ napš-ēh soul-poss.3ms d= lnk= meskēnā poor 'the soul of a poor man' (Peshiṭta, Sirach 35:20 apud Van Peursen 2007: 207)

(87) Syriac: Noun–Noun î̇ ܒܕܗ ܕܢܓûܐ ʿbād-ēh work-poss.3ms d= lnk= naggārā carpenter 'the business of a carpenter' (Acts of Thomas, ed. Wright 1871: ܕïø)

The secondary may be expanded into a multi-word noun phrase or a possessed noun:

The primary, on the other hand, cannot be a possessed noun, as the possessive suffix is a marker of the construction itself (contrast with example (42) on page 62). Whenever the primary is expanded to a multi-word NP, the possessive suffix, being a nominal suffix, must be attached to the head noun itself, or if some head nouns are conjoined, to each of them (cf. Duval 1881: 340, §359b):

(90) Syriac: Noun Phrase–Noun

ܐ ܗܵ ܵ ܿܐܠ ܼܐ ܕ ܵ݁ ܒ ܿ ܹܝܠ ܼܗ ܪ ܼܚ ܿ [ḥayl-ēh power-poss.3ms rabbā] great.ms d= lnk= alāhā God 'the great power of God' (Peshiṭta, Acts 8:10; Muraoka 1997: 89, §112j)

#### 3 Attributive constructions in Syriac

The DAC can also be embedded in a larger AC. This is the case of example (86) on page 76, which is embedded in the following example. Note that the definite value of the DAC is propagated to the entire AC:

(92) Syriac: Noun–Noun Phrase

ܡûܪܐ ܕܢýòܗ ܕܡéܟܢܗ mrārā bitterness d= lnk= [napš-ēh soul-poss.3ms d= lnk= meskēnā] poor 'the bitterness of the soul of a poor man' (Peshiṭta, Sirach 35:20 apud Van Peursen 2007: 207)

The secondary can itself be pronominal, leaning on the linker dil-:

(93) Syriac: Noun–Pronoun

ܕܝܠܗ ܗûܹò݂èܸ sepr-ēh book-poss.3ms dil-ēh lnk-poss.3ms 'his book' (Muraoka 1997: 71, §91f)

Only in such cases can we find a possessive pronoun on the primary which is not of the 3rd person:

(94) Syriac: Noun–Pronoun

ܠܙîܘܪܘܬܝ ܕܝܠܝ zʿorut-i littleness-poss.1sg dil-i lnk-poss.1sg 'my littleness' (Acts of Thomas, ed. Wright 1871: ܓòø)

The DAC is found also with adverbial heads, serving to mark the secondary as definite (Mengozzi 2005a: 371). Pat-El (2013a: 324) suggests that it spread from nominal primaries to prepositional primaries due to the fact that most of the prepositions in Semitic languages are derived from nominal forms.

(95) Syriac: Preposition–Noun ܗ ܵ ÿ݂ ܵ ܢ ̈ ݂ܒ ܿ ܹܡܗ ܼ ܝܢ ܕ ܿîܼ ʿamm-hēn with-poss.f.pl da= lnk= bnāt-ēh daughters-poss.3ms 'together with his daughters' (Muraoka 1997: 88, §111e)

(96) Syriac: Preposition–Noun ʿamm-ēh with-poss.ms d= lnk= malkā king 'with the king' (Mengozzi 2005a: 377)

In such cases, one may question whether the linker can be analysed as standing in apposition with the prepositional primary, as it does with nominal primaries. Mengozzi (2005a: 372), drawing a parallel between the cases of nominal primaries and prepositional primaries, suggests that the answer is positive:

The construction [with a prepositional primary] is a variant of the genitive phrase with proleptic pronoun [= DAC with nominal primary]. The determinative pronoun [= d- ] functions in [the former case] as a "pro-preposition", in that it resumes the head of the prepositional phrase, i.e. the preposition itself.

Cohen (2015: 118), on the other hand, writing on a similar construction occurring in the NENA JZakho dialect, suggests that such an analysis is implausible: "In this position, there is no motivation for the pronoun d- to occur, since there is no sense in pronominally representing the preposition (as there is, e.g. between two nouns, where d- perfectly represents the first noun)."

Indeed, Mengozzi's position is somewhat contradictory: A pronoun cannot become a "pro-preposition" without losing its pronominal status. Thus, his analysis in fact implies that the d- morpheme in this position is no more pronominal, but rather serves as a pure linker connecting the preposition to its complement. An alternative solution reveals itself if we observe carefully the linguistic facts: In Syriac, a d+Noun combination never occurs directly after a bare preposition, but only after a preposition followed by a proleptic pronoun.40 Thus, it seems reasonable to postulate that the d- represents not the proposition but rather the referent introduced by the proleptic pronoun. As for the secondary, it could be analysed as a reduced equational relative clause, specifying the referent of these

40This is also true of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic (Bar-Asher Siegal 2013b: 95).

pronouns, somewhat similarly to example (48) on page 64.41 Thus, example (96) on the previous page should be literally translated as 'with him, who is the king', but, of course, the heavy pragmatic markedness that is associated with such an English translation is not present in the Syriac original (except for the marking of the secondary as definite).42

As the d- linker is co-referential both with the possessive suffix and the secondary, we get schematically a skewed picture of the grammatical relations in this construction, as compared to Table 3.3 on page 76:

Table 3.4: Relations within a DAC headed by a preposition

#### 3.6.2 Variants of the double annexation construction (X-{y.poss} lnk-y.poss lnk Y)

A variant of the DAC is a construction in which the possessive suffix is not attached to the primary noun, but rather to the linker dil-, yielding a quite elaborate structure:

(97) Syriac: Noun–Noun

ܐ ܵ ܸ ܗ ܕܡ ݂ܠÿ ܵ ܼܐ ܕܝܠ ̈ ܹܢ ܵ ܡý ܿ ܼܡý mšamsānē ministers dil-āh lnk-poss.3fs d= lnk= meltā word(fs) 'ministers of the word' (Peshiṭta, Luke 1:2; Muraoka 1997: 88, §112h)

As the linker is syntactically independent it can precede, together with the secondary, the primary (compare with example (52) on page 65):

41But note that in this example the secondary specifies the nominal primary, and not the possessive suffix.

42This analysis is in some respects similar to the analysis of Bar-Asher Siegal (2013a) of d- followed by nouns (see footnote 16 on page 58), in that both assume that d+Noun can be interpreted as a clause. However, the type of clause involved, and the scope of this analysis (which is in our case quite limited) marks a clear difference between the two approaches.

(98) Syriac: Noun–Noun Phrase ܹܗܐ ܡܵ ̈ ܼܠܝ ܹܚܐ ü ̈ ü û ܿ éîܼ ̈ ݂ܬܸܖ ܿ ܼܢ ܕ ܼܕܝܠܗ ܿ [dil-hon lnk-poss.3m.pl da= lnk= treʿsar twelve šliḥē] apostles šmāhē names 'the names of the twelve apostles' (Peshiṭta, Matthew 10:2; Muraoka 1997: 88, §112h)

This construction can even appear without a primary (i.e. with a ∅ primary) in predicative position. This is the case in the following example, in which the inflected dil- linker is separated from the d- linker by an enclitic personal pronoun, which serves to mark the AC as being predicative:43

(99) Syriac: ∅–Noun

ܘāø ܗܢܐ ܕܚܕܘܬܐ ܕܝܠܗ ̇ ܗܘ ܕܡÿìܘܬܐ (w= and= qālā sound hānā dem.ms d= lnk= ḥadutā) joy ∅ ∅ dil-āh lnk-poss.3fs = hu =3ms d= lnk= meštutā feast(fs) 'and this sound of rejoicing is that of the wedding-feast' (Acts of Thomas, ed. Wright 1871: ܕïø)

A highly elaborate variant of this construction occurs when the possessive suffix is attached both to the primary noun and to a linker. If not for its rareness, one might term this a triple annexation construction:

(100) Syriac: Noun–Noun

ܝܡܢܝܗ ̇ ܕܝܠܗ ̇ ܕܐÿèܝû ܡܗ̈ mhaymanay-āh eunuchs-poss.3fs dil-āh lnk-poss.3fs d= lnk= Estēr E. 'the eunuchs of Esther' (Peshiṭta, Esther 4:4; Williams 2001: 8)

At the other extreme, a variant of the DAC in which the linker is completely lacking does not exist in Syriac as such, although it is attested in the contemporary Galilean Aramaic, a western Classical Aramaic language (Hopkins 1997: 25). Only the word ܟܘܠ kul 'all', which could be analysed as standing in attributive relation to its complement, shows this syntax regularly:44

43Cf. Muraoka (1997: 33\*, fn. 24).

44It is interesting to note that this peculiar syntax of the word kul is conserved in many NENA dialects. A survey of different Syriac constructions involving kul can be found in Williams (2001: Ch. 3).

(101) Syriac: All–Noun ܒܟܠܗܝܢ ܒăܝÿܟ b= in= kul-hin all-poss.3f.pl beryāt-āk creature.f.pl-poss.2ms 'in all Your creatures' (Acts of Thomas, ed. Wright 1871: óø)

#### 3.7 The dative linker construction (X-{y.poss} dat Y)

As an alternative to the usage of the d- pronominal linker, one finds cases where the dative/allative preposition ܠ l- 'to' (glossed here dat) is used (Duval 1881: §362).45

(102) Syriac: Noun–Noun Phrase ܐ ܶ̈ ܝ ܳ ܘܢ ܳܐ ܕܗܽ ܶ̈ܐ ܠܡܰ ܠܟ ý ܶ ܒܢ b= in= nešē women l= dat= [malkā king d= lnk= hunāyē] Huns 'amongst the women of the king of Huns' (Chronique de Josué le Stylite ed. Martin 1876: 18, 1; Duval 1881: 342, §362)

Such cases are, however, quite rare, and often it is difficult to say whether the preposition is a pure marker of the AC, or rather contributes some semantic content.46

The above construction can be seen as a parallel of the ALC, but with a dative linker instead of a pronominal one. Similarly, a rare alternative to the DAC exists as well. In this construction the secondary is indexed by a possessive pronoun on the primary, followed by the preposition l-:

45As for the usage of prepositional linkers, Williams (2001: 8) lists also the "the partitive construction with ܡܢ=] men 'from']" as a "genitive construction". In this case, however, the preposition contributes semantically to the partitive reading, and should therefore be analysed as a contentful head of a PP, rather than an AC marker. See Joosten (1996: 56) for more examples of the partitive construction.

46Thus, in the second example cited by Duval (1881: 342, §362), ܝܟ ܰ ܶ̈ܓܠ ܳ ܐ ܠܖ ܘܒý ܽ ø qubšā l-reglayk 'a footstool for your feet' (Peshiṭta, Acts 2:35), the l- seems to fulfil its ordinary function as a contentful preposition rather than a marker of an AC. This phrase, moreover, is a literal translation of the Biblical Hebrew ךָי ֶל ְג ַר ְל םֹד ֲה hădom lə-raglɛkā̄ (Psalms 110:1). One may speculate that such Biblical Hebrew constructions may indeed be the source for the Syriac construction. The Biblical Hebrew construction is said to be used especially when a definite secondary follows an indefinite primary (Waltke & O'Connor 1990: 157; Jenni 2003: 63). Given the rarity of the Syriac construction, it is difficult to tell whether this is true in Syriac as well. As for the colloquial Arabic usage of a similar construction, see below.

#### (103) Syriac: Noun–Noun

üܡܗ Āܡܗ šm-āh name-poss.3fs l= dat= emm-ēh mother-poss.3ms 'the name of his mother' (Matthew 13:55, Curetonian (ed. Burkitt 1904) and Sinaitic (ed. A. S. Lewis 1910) manuscripts apud Joosten 1996: 56)

(104) Syriac: Noun–Noun ܐܡܗ ̇ ܠܟܠÿܐ ʾemm-āh mother-poss.3fs l= dat= kaltā bride 'the mother of the bride' (Acts of Thomas, ed. Wright 1871: ܒòø)

This construction is discussed in length by Hopkins (1997), who gives credit to Goldenberg (1979: 324) for being the first to note it, as only three examples of it are attested in the standard version of the Peshiṭta (Ruth 1:2; 2:19; Luke 1:27). In all of these cases, as in example (103) on the current page, the primary is the noun ܡܐü šmā 'name'.

The prepositional linker l- differs from the pronominal linker d-, in that it does not represent a noun. In this sense, it is a truly a pure marker of the AC. In this respect one can cite Polotsky (1961: 254), who writes regarding a similar construction in Ge'ez:

The complement introduced by la- therefore lacks the ability, which an apposition ought to possess, of leading a separate syntactic existence; and this accounts for the fact the analytical construction really makes the impression of a unified whole, rather than of two separable elements in apposition.

Hopkins (1997: 30ff.) suggests that the origin of this construction belongs to a colloquial register of Aramaic, and for this reason it is nearly absent from literary sources. He attributes the existence of a similar construction in the vernacular Eastern Arabic dialects to an Aramaic substratum.47 Moreover, he shows that this

(i) Iraqi Arabic: Noun–Noun ṣadīq-a friend-poss.3ms l= dat= ʿali A. 'Ali's friend' (Erwin 2004 [1963]: 380)

47Erwin (2004 [1963]: 380) notes that in Iraqi Arabic this construction (with the possessive suffix) has always a definite secondary. See for instance the following example:

construction gave rise to the "normal possessive construction" of Western Neo-Aramaic, in which the l- preposition has been encliticized to the head, yielding an -il suffix functioning as a construct state marker (see example (23) on page 320), parallel to the NENA -əd suffix (see §4.4).

### 3.8 Adjectival attribution by apposition (X Y.agr)

#### 3.8.1 The juxtaposition-cum-agreement construction

Goldenberg (1995: 8) qualifies adjectives as follows:

If we admit that adjectives have to do both with the carrier of the quality etc. and with the attributed quality itself, then the form "adjective" is recognized as an attributive complex with pronominal reference and attribute as distinguishable components, the former represented by the inflectional markers and the latter given in the lexeme involved. The implied attributive relation marks the adjective as the morphological exponent of that relation, and consequently as the morphological correlate of the genitive complex.

Goldenberg's "pronominal reference" is our pronominal linker, while his "attribute" is our secondary. Thus, using the current terminology, he equates an adjective to a lnk+secondary phrase. Indeed, just as the linker stands in apposition with the primary to be qualified, the adjective stands in apposition with the noun it qualifies, giving raise effectively to a juxtaposition-cum-agreement construction. Nonetheless, for simplicity I shall refer to adjectives as being simple secondaries.48

The equivalence between the adjective and the linker phrase is especially clear in the case of ordinal secondaries. These can be realised using the linker construc-

48While Goldenberg's conception of the adjective is appealing in its structural elegance, it does not provide us with any operational criterion to distinguish between adjectives and inflecting nouns (e.g. those which designate animate beings). The key difficulty lies in the fact that are no clear criteria to demarcate words which designate a "carrier of quality" (=adjectives) from those which designate directly a "substance" or "entity" (=nouns). For example, if the Hebrew adjective ב ָשׂ śāb 'aged man' can be analysed as ה ָיב ֵשׂ ישׁ ִא ʾīš śebā 'a man of old age' (Goldenberg 1995: 9), shouldn't also the noun ד ֶל ֶי yeled 'child' be analysable along similar lines as דוּת ְל ַי ישׁ ִא ʾīš yaldūt 'a man of childhood'? Note also that yeled, denoting an animate noun, can inflect for gender and number just as the adjective śāb. Indeed, the apparent difference between the two lies not in their structure but rather in their distribution, as yeled is rarely used as a modifier of another noun.

tion (see §3.5.5 and especially example (75) on page 73), or by adjectival derivation of the ordinal:

(105) Syriac: Noun–Ordinal ܐ ܳ ܢ ܳ ܱ ܝܘܡܐ ܬܪܝ yawmā day(ms) trayānā second.ms 'the second day' (Nöldeke 1898: 178, §239)

The equivalence is schematized in Table 3.5, to be contrasted with Table 3.2 on page 59 (cf. Goldenberg 2013a: 236).

> Table 3.5: Adjectival attribution according to Goldenberg, contrasted with the terminology used in this study

Notwithstanding the constitutional equivalence between adjectives and the linker phrase, in Syriac, as in other Semitic languages, there is a morphological difference between the two: while the d- linker is an uninflecting particle, the "pronominal reference" within the adjective is made overt by the very inflecting character of the adjective, which agrees with its primary in gender, number and determination.49

(106) Syriac: Noun–Adjective ܐ ܵ ÿ݂ ݂ܒܵ ܵ ܵ ܐ ܛ ÿ݂ ܟ ܵ݁ ̈ ܠ ܼ ܐ ܇ ܡ ܿ ݂ܒܵ ܵ ܼܡ ܿ ܠܟ ܵ݁ܐ ܛ

malk-ā monarch-ms.emph ṭāb-ā good-ms.emph malk-ātā monarch-f.pl.emph ṭāb-ātā good-f.pl.emph 'a good king / good queens' (Muraoka 1997: 72, §92.1)

On the other hand, adjectives and linker phrases show many similar syntactic properties. Just as the linker phrase can stand alone without any explicit primary,

49In Syriac, the agreement in determination is apparent by the agreement in state (absolute or emphatic). This is also true in principal in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic, although some examples seem to indicate that attributive adjectives are always in emphatic state, irrespective of the state of the primary (Bar-Asher Siegal 2013b: 64).

#### 3 Attributive constructions in Syriac

so too can an adjective be used independently without any antecedent, as in the following example (the adjectives are marked as bold):

(107) Syriac: ∅–Adjective ܐ ̈ ܼ ܠ ܒܝܹý ܼ ܐ ܘîܿ ܹ݂ܒ̈ ܵ ܸܚ ü ܹܡý ܼܗ îܿ ܠ ܛ ܿ ݂ܕܼܢ ܼ ܘ ܕܡ ܿ ܼܗ ܿ haw dem.ms d= lnk= madnaḥ rise.caus.ptcp.ms šemš-ēh sun-poss.3ms ʿal on ṭāb-ē good-m.pl.emph w= and= ʿal on biš-ē bad.m.pl.emph 'He who makes his sun rise above the good ones and the evil ones' (Peshiṭta, Matthew 5:45; Muraoka 1997: 76, §96d)

Similarly, the adjective can sometimes precede its primary, just as the linker can (see example (98) on page 81):

(108) Syriac: Noun–Adjective

ܐ ܵ ÿèܐ݂ ÿܸ ü ܐܸ ݂ܕܡܵ ܝÿ ܵ݁ ܿ øܼ qadmāytā first.fs šetestā foundation(fs) 'the first foundation' (Muraoka 1997: 69, §91a)

Finally, in parallel to cases where the ALC has a demonstrative preceding the linker phrase, thus rendering it definite (see §3.5.6), the same pattern occurs with adjectival secondaries, as Pat-El (2010: 66–67) notes.

(109) Syriac: Noun–Conjoined adjectives ܠ÷ܒܝܢܐ ܓܝû ܗ ̇ ܘ ܪܒܐ ܘøܕܝýܐ l= to= ṣebyānā will(ms) =gēr =indeed haw dem.ms [rabbā big.ms w= and= qaddišā] holy.ms 'to that great and holy will' (Bardaisan, Book of the Laws of the Countries ed. Drijvers 1965: 62:2–3 apud Bakker 2011: 137; Pat-El 2010: 67)

In spite of all these similarities, it is worth noting that the adjective itself can appear as part of a linker phrase, i.e. as the secondary of the ALC. The conditions governing this usage are briefly discussed in the next section.

#### 3.8.2 Juxtaposition vs. the analytic linker construction

The usage of the juxtaposition-cum-agreement construction (in either order), as well as the independent usage of adjectives, should be regarded as the default AC for adjectival secondaries. But, as we saw in §3.5.3, adjectives can also appear as secondaries of the ALC, with or without overt primaries. For example, Van Peursen (2007: 211) states that ܚܟܝܡܐ hakkimā 'wise.emph' alternates freely with ܕܚܟܝܡ d=hakkim 'lnk=wise.abs', both corresponding to Hebrew חכם ḥaḵam 'a wise person'.

Van Peursen (2007: 212) also notes that it is difficult to establish a "functional difference" between the two constructions, but rather the linker construction is more frequent in certain contexts. In my interpretation, these contexts are (a) the occurrence of a (multi-word) AdjP as secondary or (b) the occurrence of a pronominal primary, ∅ included.50

The usage of the linker construction in cases like (a) may be motivated by the speaker's desire to delineate the phrasal nature of the secondary, and thus avoid any ambiguity as for the scope of modifiers of the adjective. The motivation for (b) may lie in her desire to clearly express the pronominal head extant in the adjective. This is achieved by attaching to the adjective an explicit pronominal head, namely the linker.51

#### 3.9 Conclusions

This chapter gave a survey of the various ACs of Syriac. Three main construction are used in this domain: the construct state construction, the analytic linker construction and the double annexation construction. The former is the least productive of the three, being used mostly with fixed expressions or specific primaries, while the latter two are used more frequently. The alternation between these two seems to be chiefly related to questions of determination. The latter two constitute the source for the Neo-CSC present in NENA dialects, as is discussed in §10.4.1.

Some marginal attributive constructions of Syriac are variants of the DAC as well as the dative linker construction. The latter may be the source of Neo-CSC in Western Neo-Aramaic.

Beyond these constructions one finds the juxtaposition-cum-agreement construction used with attributive adjectives, a construction which is extant in all strata of Aramaic.

50If no explicitly primary appears, the linker fully assumes its pronominal role.

51One may tentatively analyse an adjective appearing in absolute state as expressing the adjectival lexeme alone without a pronominal head, in contrast to the emphatic state of the adjective, which is "the formal expression of its structure as a nomen adiectivum, which includes an inherent pronominal reference to the qualified substantival entity" (Goldenberg 1991: 718). If this is true, the linker is effectively an extraction of the pronominal head from the adjective.

## 4 The D-markers in NENA dialects

#### 4.1 Introduction

In all NENA dialects one finds AC markers which are cognate with the Syriac linker d(a)- (discussed in §3.5), which must have existed also in the NENA precursors of the Classical Aramaic period. These are easily identifiable by virtue of containing a segment /d/ or /t/, accompanied optionally by a schwa before or after it. The probable unified historical origin of these markers has led many scholars to analyse them synchronically as variants of one and the same particle, termed in general "the annexation/genitive particle d".  This particle is assumed to have different allomorphs, varying both regarding its voice feature (/d/ vs. /t/), and – more importantly – regarding its attachment as an enclitic to the primary or as a proclitic to the secondary.1 This is most clearly stated by Fassberg (2010: 44): "The Cl[assical] Aram[aic] relative pronoun ְדּ/י ִדּ=] di-/d-] has allomorphs in J[ewish] Challa: -əd, -d, d-, ʾəd-." Other scholars use in general the same practice, including Khan in his detailed descriptions of various NENA dialects.

While I agree that these elements must all be ultimately derived from a common ancestor morpheme d- (see the diachronic treatment in Chapter 10), one of the claims advanced in this study is that these forms, which I subsume under the name D-markers, represent in fact different morphemes, differing in their morpho-syntactic distribution and, to a finer degree, in their pragmatic implication. More precisely, I distinguish between 1) a head-marking (phrasal) suffix -əd, equivalent functionally to construct state marking, 2) a dependent-marking pronominal proclitic d-, 2 and 3) a dependent-marking genitive (phrasal) prefix

1The phonological attachment is not always clearly stated in the descriptions, as sometimes one finds the d written as a separate word standing between the two. This is the usual practice in Jastrow's description cited above.

2Note that the =symbol, marking clitic boundaries, is only used in glossed examples. For aesthetic and typographic reasons, in the running text I use the hyphen as marking a general morpheme boundary.

d-. In this I follow Cohen (2010; 2012) in his description of JZakho, although his terminology is somewhat different. In the view advocated here, the separate existence of these morphemes can be observed in most NENA dialects, albeit with differing levels of clarity.

As distinct morphemes, one would expect their semantic-pragmatic (their signifié or meaning in a broad sense) to differ as well. This is indeed the case, but as this difference is very fine, I shall not use it as a decisive criteria. Instead, I shall establish their separate linguistic existence relying chiefly on their distributional properties. Accordingly, as written above, two shall be characterized as affixes and one as a clitic.

Needless to say, these terms are hotly debated in recent linguistic literature, and their relevance to typology, or linguistics in general, has been cast in doubt (cf. most recently Haspelmath 2015). Therefore, in the first section of this chapter, I discuss my understanding of these terms, and why they should be relevant for this study. In the second section, I present the usage of these terms in a similar and highly relevant linguistic debate, namely the analysis of a Persian AC marker, the so-called Ezafe. This debate is interesting not only due to the similar analytical and methodological problems posed by this marker, but also due to the similar properties shared by the Ezafe and the NENA AC markers, bearing in mind the contact situation between the Iranic languages using the Ezafe (chiefly Kurdish and Persian) and NENA dialects. Finally, in the last two sections, I use the concepts discussed in the former sections to affirm the distinction between the three above-mentioned NENA morphemes.

The claims put forward in this chapter bear a general character, claiming validity for all NENA dialects. Yet, as these dialects are quite different (some could be considered to be different languages), it is clear that not all the details of my claims would be true for each and every dialect. Some dialects, moreover, are not well enough documented at this stage in order to test these claims. To overcome this methodological difficulty, I establish the claims with examples of Barwar, possibly the best documented dialect so far (Khan 2008c), with sporadic examples from other dialects. Given that Cohen (2010) has put forward a similar analysis for JZakho, I hope in this way to show that the three morphemes are differentiable at least in principle across NENA, opening the way for further research on this question. Moreover, as I posit a clitic-affix continuum, I have a certain methodological leeway: The three morphemes may be diverging to different degrees in each dialect, yet still show the same general pattern. While in this chapter I take a bird's-eye view perspective, recall that in the subsequent chapters four dialects (JZakho, Qaraqosh, JSanandaj and JUrmi) are examined in further detail.

### 4.2 Clitics, affixes, and phrasal affixes

In this study, I use the notions clitics and affixes to designate different types of bound morphemes, i.e. morphemes which cannot stand by themselves, but have to attach to other morphemes in order to form a self-standing phonological word, i.e. a stress-unit.3 While these terms are commonplace in current linguistic analysis, they are not always used alike by different linguists, and thus I find it necessary to clarify my understanding of these terms in the context of this study.4

In current linguistic thinking, the most common distinction between the two types is related to their syntactic status: While affixes are considered to be building blocks of words, clitics have the syntactic and distributional properties of full-fledged words, but happen to be phonologically deficient in that they are typically devoid of stress. Thus, in a recent characterisation of clitics the framework of Canonical Typology, Spencer & Luís (2013: 140) write: "the canonical clitic is an element which has the form of a canonical affix [i.e. it is phonologically bound] and the distribution of a canonical function word".

Indeed, the distinction between affixes and clitics lies to a large extent on a modular view of language, differentiating two sub-systems: One, morphology, has to do with the make-up of words, while the second, syntax, has to do with arrangement of words in discourse. In the last century, this distinction has received various formalisations (and at times denied altogether), but the core insight justifying this distinction remained the same: While words can combine together to form sentences in a seemingly limitless fashion, the building blocks of words combine in a much more limited and regular fashion. In this view, affixes fall under the domain of morphology while clitics are treated syntactically. Thus, the bond between a host and an affix is stronger than the one holding with a clitic.5 A corollary of this is that clitics can attach phonologically to a certain word while forming a syntactic constituent with another word (cf. Klavans 1985).

Yet the keystone of this partition, the notion of the word, or more precisely the morpho-syntactic word, has remained an elusive concept and defied any attempt

3 In the scope of this research, dealing exclusively with stress-accent languages, I equate the notion of phonological word with the notion of stress unit: a sequence of morphemes carrying exactly one stress-accent. Cf. Garbell (1965b: 39): "A minimal free form constituting a stress unit is a word."

4Needless to say, I use the terms suffixes and enclitics to denote those bound morphemes which attach backwards, and prefixes respectively proclitics to denote those which attach forwards.

5This notion can be formalised as a transition probability: The probability of an affix following a prosodic (and syntactic) host should be higher than the probability of a clitic following its prosodic host. In the scope of this study I leave this notion at an intuitive level.

to define it cross-linguistically. This has recently led Haspelmath (2011) to reject the validity of this notion and subsequently the dichotomy between morphology and syntax (see more references there). In a follow-up article, Haspelmath (2015) claims that the notion of clitic cannot be defined consistently cross-linguistically, and therefore he suggests to dispense with it altogether.

While Haspelmath's argumentation is compelling, his suggestion to abolish this terminology is not helpful. He suggests to replace these terms with the terms plenimorph and minimorph. Not only would this add to the terminological inflation in linguistics, but these terms do not address the issue at hand: Plenimorphs are simply lexical bases, while minimorphs are functional morphemes, covering both affixes and clitics. Indeed, it may be that the notion of clitic is not useful in a large scale typological survey where clearly defined comparative concepts are needed. However, in a smaller study, covering typologically or genealogically related languages, these notions can be proven useful, as they permit to discern between different levels of attachment of morphemes to their hosts, on the one hand, and distinguish distributional classes on the other hand. Moreover, in the field of language change and grammaticalisation, it is a well known fact that independent morphemes can become more and more bound to their hosts, finally becoming grammatical affixes. As this is a gradual process, it is convenient to use the label clitic to designate intermediate stages of such processes.6

Thus, my suggestion is to understand the notions of affix and clitic not as absolute terms, but rather as relative terms, which can be fully appreciated only in the context of a study of a specific language, or a group of related languages. Hence, one can use different criteria proposed in the literature, such as those famously proposed by Zwicky & Pullum (1983), to gauge the proximity of a morpheme to its host, and not as categorical distinctions. Needless to say, morphology and syntax are not considered in such a view as distinct modules of language, but rather as end points on a continuum which permit us to classify different types of linguistic signs.7

Of special importance for us is the selectivity criterion proposed by Zwicky & Pullum (1983). Since inflection is normally associated with a specific word-class (nominal inflection, verbal inflection, etc.), morphemes which attach only to a specific word-class are typically affixes, especially if they stand in grammatical opposition with other such morphemes, encoding different values of a specific

6A neat analysis of such a process, showing that the same source morpheme may be grammaticalised differently as a clitic and as an affix, is given by Lahiri (2003) treating the TAM system of Bengali.

7 In this respect, my approach is similar to that of Canonical Typology, which defines grammatical notions in terms of "ideals" with possible deviations; see Brown & Chumakina (2013).

grammatical feature associated with the stem.8 From a cognitive point of view, this probably means that these morphemes are associated mentally with this word-class. From a language change perspective, if they originated in free forms, it means that their usage has been maximally restricted to a sub-part of the lexicon, reaching the endpoint of a grammaticalisation process. Bound morphemes which have a freer distribution, on the other hand, are typically clitics, as they conserve better the distributional freedom associated with phonologically independent forms, i.e. words.

Of course, in the process of becoming an affix, an element may become more selective but still keep some features of free forms. In this study, one such important feature is phrasal scope. An affix, attaching to a single base, has typically scope only over that base. Conversely, a free word, or a clitic, can have scope over a syntactic phrase. To designate the intermediate state of affairs, I shall use the term phrasal affix for bound morphemes which are selective with respect to their hosts, but exhibit phrasal scope. This term can be conveniently contrasted with the term word-level affixes, to denote the typical affixes.

To conclude, in the realm of phonologically bound morphemes, I shall distinguish three types of morphemes, on the basis of the above criteria:9

This is schematically presented in Table 4.1 on the next page.

8 In this respect, note that while Zwicky & Pullum (1983: 511) observe that "special cliticization and inflection can look much alike", they still keep the two notions strictly apart. In applying this logic they show that the English ending n't (as in can't, won't etc.), which seemingly is a reduced clitic form of the English negator not, is in fact not a clitic but rather an inflectional affix of certain English verbs. Thus, inflection in my terminology should be understood as word-internal (morphological) marking, which is typically realised by means of affixes, and is opposed to marking by clitics.

9While these criteria are sufficient for concise definitory purposes, more criteria will be examined in the following discussions.

Table 4.1: The Affix–Clitic Continuum

### 4.3 The Persian Ezafe: Clitic or phrasal affix?

In several Iranic languages, ACs are marked by a morpheme known as Ezafe (the Persian adaptation of the Arabic term ةَضافَ ِٕ ا iḍāfa 'annexation'), which is typically attached phonologically to the primary. A detailed description of the usage patterns of the Ezafe in Kurdish dialects is given in Chapter 9. Here, I shall consider the case of the Persian Ezafe, and briefly survey the controversy accompanying its grammatical analysis. A more detailed discussion can be found in Haig (2011: §3.1), as well as in the papers cited below.

In Persian, the Ezafe is a -(y)e morpheme attaching to the primary of an AC, whether the primary is phrasal or not, as in the following illustrative example of Samvelian (2007a):

(1) Persian: Noun Phrase–Noun اين ک ِ تاب که ِ نه ی ِ بى ارزش مريم in dem [[ketâb-e book-ez kohne]-ye ancient-ez bi without arzeš]-e value-ez maryam M. 'This ancient worthless book of Maryam.' (Samvelian 2007a: 606)

Analyses of the Ezafe provide two competing accounts of the syntactic status of the Ezafe. The basic question is whether the Ezafe forms a morpho-syntactic constituent with the primary (to which it attaches phonologically) or with the secondary. In the latter case, it must be a clitic, since there is a mismatch between its phonological attachment and syntactical attachment, while in the former case it could be seen as an inflectional affix, encoding construct state.10 The earliest

10Of course, in contrast to the Semitic construct state the Ezafe must mark nouns modified by adjectives as well. This difference has to do with the nature of adjectives in Persian. In contrast to Semitic adjectives which denote bearers of qualities and thus embody within them an attributive relation (see §2.3.5), the Persian adjectives denote qualities alone and thus must stand in explicit attributive relation with the noun referring to the bearer of the quality.

formulation of this debate, which I am aware of, is given by Fairbanks (1979: 41), who treats the Ezafe as a preposition associated syntactically with the secondary, but gives the following remark in an endnote:

In conversation with Charles A. Ferguson he has pointed out to me that the izafe may be considered an inflection of the preceding noun, an inflection that would mark the noun as one that is determined. This is another indication of the tenuousness of the distinction between inflections and prepositions or postpositions. I would prefer to consider the immediate constituents of kitab e buzurg [book ez big] 'the big book' as kitab / e buzurg, although e is enclitic to kitab. This is the equivalent to considering I'll go to have the immediate constituents I / ll go although ll is enclitic to I. (Fairbanks 1979: 43, note 1)

These two competing analyses may affect our understanding of the Ezafe as head-marking or dependent-marking (see §2.2.1), if these concepts are understood as indicating syntactic association. Indeed, some authors associate the Ezafe with the notion of case, which is typically understood as a dependent-marking device. Samiian (1994), working within X-bar theory, sees the Ezafe as a "dummy case assigner", while Larson & Yamakido (2006) treat it as a genitive case-marker. In both accounts, the Ezafe is syntactically associated with the secondary.11 A similar position, in the framework of LFG, is advocated by Bögel & Butt (2013); Bögel et al. (2008), who analyse the Urdu Ezafe (which is borrowed from Persian) as forming a constituent with the secondary, notwithstanding its phonological attachment with the primary.12

It is not my intention to discuss these proposals in detail, but they raise an interesting methodological question: given that the Ezafe in Persian is always phonologically attached to the primary, why do these authors prefer to analyse it as a clitic syntactically attached to the secondary, thus implying a phonologysyntax mismatch?13

One answer is that the Ezafe is marked not on the head of the phrase it modifies, but rather phrase-finally. For example, in case of a conjoined phrase acting as a primary, the Ezafe appears only once phrase-finally:

11Larson & Yamakido (2006) discuss mostly data from Kurdish Zazaki, but they apply their analysis to Persian as well.

12To be exact, they allow for two possible analyses: X [ez Y] or [X ez Y] but they rule out the structure [X ez] Y.

13In Kurmanji Kurdish such an analysis may be more plausible, as an independent Ezafe can appear without an overt primary, thus forming a constituent with the secondary. The situation in Kurdish is discussed in more detail in Chapter 9.

(2) Persian: Cojoined NPs–Noun الكهِ سفيد و ل ِ باس زردِ مريم [kolâh-e hat-ez sefid white va and [lebâs-e dress-ez zard]]-e yellow-ez maryam M. 'Maryam's white hat and yellow dress' (Samvelian 2007a: 630)

Yet, as Samvelian (2007a: 624) notes, wide scope over coordination does not necessarily entail clitic status. Indeed, the unique marking of conjoined nouns by one affix is a phenomenon known in the literature by the name of suspended affixation, coined by G. L. Lewis (1967) in the context of Turkish (for more recent studies, see Kabak 2007 or Broadwell 2008). The similar phenomenon where a suffix belonging to a head is marked phrase-finally on a complement is known in the literature under the name Suffixhäufung (Plank 1995: 50).

Another, meta-linguistic reason may lie in the fact that the architecture of formal grammars have been geared toward the syntax of major European languages, which are mostly dependent-marking. Therefore, they do not provide easy provisions for head-marking morphemes. Thus Haig (2011) comments: "all the proposals […] are faced with the same dilemma: how to fit the Ezafe particle into a theoretical framework which provides no category that readily accommodates it."14

If, on the other hand, the notion of construct state is seen as part of the state grammatical category, as advocated in §2.3.1, then the phonological attachment of the Ezafe to the primary can be easily accounted to in terms of head-marking state inflection. Such an approach (using different terminology) is advanced by Samvelian (2007a; 2008), who treats the Ezafe as a "head-marking inflectional affix".15

In her view, the Ezafe can be seen as part of nominal morphology in Persian. With the exception of some lexically determined prepositions (which may be of nominal origin), it can only follow nominal elements, and it is barred from

14The difficulty to admit an analysis in which the Ezafe is head-marking is explicitly stated by Bögel & Butt (2013: 317): "This is problematic because the head is difficult to access for agreement purposes and it is also difficult to state a constraint that just when the XP+ezafe is initial, the XP is restricted to be nominal (or a PP). The licensing of the modifying XP also becomes a matter of stating a long distance dependency between the ezafe and the modifying constituent that must be propagated up and down through various levels of the tree." Note that these are technical difficulties related to the grammatical framework, rather than conceptual difficulties.

15See also Thackston (2006a: 11–17) who treats the Kurmanji Ezafe as "construct case". The term "construct" is appropriate, but not so the term "case", which should be reserved for dependentmarking morphology.

appearing after finite verbs. Moreover, as a nominal inflectional affix, it stands in opposition with other similar affixes, namely the indefinite marker -i and the so-called pronominal enclitics (which are in fact affixes, according to this view), i.e. they are in paradigmatic complementary distribution.16 All these affixes are special in that they do not attach to the head-noun of the phrase they modify, but rather phrase-finally, though always after a nominal element.17 Similarly, they all have wide scope over coordination.

Such an approach is preferable in my opinion, as it does not stipulate a mismatch between phonology and syntax, which, by the principle of scientific simplicity (Ockham's razor) should only be called upon as a last resort.

### 4.4 The d- proclitic vs. the -əd suffix

#### 4.4.1 Introduction

Cohen (2010) is the first to clearly state the different syntactic status of the dproclitic and the -əd suffix. Cohen's analysis relies on the assumption that the proclitic d- retains the pronominal function of the Syriac pronominal linker d-, in that it can head an NP.18 This possibility is clearly illustrated in the following poetic Qaraqosh example (=example (84) on page 174):19

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

In Barwar d- headed NPs are found in predicative positions:20

16A similar conclusion is reached by Kahnemuyipour (2003: 338f.), working within the Phrasal Phonology framework, who sees the Ezafe as well as the other post-nominal morphemes discussed above as inflectional in nature, and thus prefers to call them "suffixes".

17The pronominal enclitics can also occur after finite verbs to designate their complements, but in this position they exhibit different paradigmatic oppositions, and should arguably be treated differently. This is somewhat reminiscent of the situation in Semitic languages, where the pronominal suffixes can appear as complements both after verbs and nouns.

18Recall that unlike most pronouns which replace an entire NP, the pronominal linker heads a complex NP. This is due to the fact that it replaces a construct state noun, which must be followed by a complement. See also §2.3.4.

19In JZakho the regular form of the linker is in fact dīd. The form d- is almost exclusively restricted to clausal secondaries, except in the context of possessive pronominal suffixes, where the two forms are allomorphs. See §5.4.

20This example is complicated by the fact that one would expect here a genitive marking of the demonstrative pronoun as well. See footnote 46 on page 110 for a possible solution.

(4) Barwar: dlnk–Determined Noun lɛ́wət neg.cop-2ms d= lnk= áwwa dem.prox.ms ʾàθṛaˈ country 'You are not one of this country.' (Khan 2008c: 112 [A25:82])

Cohen argues that if the -əd form is equivalent to the d- proclitic, it must also be a pronominal linker (a pronominal nucleus in his terminology), representing pronominally the primary to which it is attached. He notes, however, that the suffixed form -əd attaches not only to nominal primaries but also to prepositional primaries, as in the examples below. Since a preposition is not a noun, it cannot be said to be represented pronominally by a pronominal element, and thus one must conclude that the -əd form is not a pronominal element, but rather a pure primary marker (nucleus marker in his terminology), different from the pronominal proclitic d-. 21

Cohen's argument is convincing but it may be undermined by inverting it, claiming that a possible conclusion is rather that the d- proclitic is a pure relational marker rather than a pronominal one (explaining away the cases where it heads an NP as a kind of primary ellipsis). Alternatively, one may claim that the -əd attaching to some prepositions is a lexicalised element, which should be kept apart from the -əd suffix following a nominal primary. Instead of trying to refute such attacks, I shall substantiate Cohen's claim on different grounds, showing that the distribution of the d- morph is different from the -əd morph. In essence, I shall argue that while the d- morph is indeed a proclitic, the -əd morph is better seen as a nominal suffix, since it stands in paradigmatic opposition to other nominal suffixes. In this claim, I reproduce the line of argumentation of Samvelian (2008; 2007a), who argues that the Persian and Kurmanji Ezafe morphemes should be analysed as inflectional affixes.

21See also the discussion following the Syriac examples (95)–(96) on page 79.

It is important to stress that -əd and d- cannot be considered allomorphs: Their presence is normally not conditioned by any grammatical or phonological factors, but is rather a deliberate choice of the speaker (reflecting some stylistic or pragmatic choice; see below §<IP_ADDRESS>). For example, given the Barwar primary kθawa 'book' and secondary qaša 'priest', both kθaw-ət qaša and kθawa t-qaša are grammatical expressions meaning 'the book of the priest' (Khan 2008c: 488). On the other hand, the two morphs cannot be considered as free variants either (disregarding for the sake of argument the fine difference in function), as in some grammatical environments, detailed below, their distribution is different.

Let us first consider the forms attaching to the secondary, namely d- and its variant forms də- ~ʾəd- ~t-. 22 These elements are phonologically bound forms, as they normally lack stress, forming instead a stress-unit together with the first word of the secondary. In doing so, they show very low selectivity of their host (if any at all), and can attach to nouns, adjectives, verbs (being part of an attributive clause), the negator la and various adverbs.23 In this respect, it seems reasonable to treat them as proclitics.

Similarly, these elements show no sensitivity to the morpho-syntactic structure of the primary, as long as it is nominal in nature (i.e. it has a nominal head). They can, moreover, be separated from the primary by intervening material, and stand in a separate intonation group. This is expected under the analysis of d- as a pronominal head, separate from its antecedent (the primary), and forming an NP together with the secondary. Given that a syntactic head is typically conceived of as a syntactic word (i.e., not an inflectional element) this fact too establishes it as a proclitic.

What about the form -əd? At first sight, in accordance with the quotes given at the beginning of the chapter, one may consider -əd to be an enclitic version of the same morpheme. Evidence for this includes the fact that -əd can appear phrase-finally, having wide scope over the entire phrase, such as in the following examples:24

22The exact form depends on the dialect as well as some syllabic constraints, which are immaterial to the current discussion. For Barwar, Khan (2008c: 396) claims the unvoiced t- form to be the basic one.

23Note this is true only of dialects which make use of d- as a general linker. Some dialects, such as JZakho, use it principally before clausal secondaries, in which case it attaches normally to verbs. See Table 10.1 on page 297.

24The dialects of Arbel, Sulemaniyya and Qaraqosh exhibit also examples of phrase-final -əd marking, but only after NPs consisting of conjoined nouns (see §<IP_ADDRESS>).

A closer look, however, reveals some differences that distinguish it from the d- proclitic, rendering it rather a phrasal suffix. Following Samvelian (2007a), I apply some of the different criteria of Zwicky & Pullum (1983) to show that the -əd morph is rather inflectional in nature, while the d- morph is (as anticipated) a clitic.

#### 4.4.2 Distinguishing factors

#### <IP_ADDRESS> Selectivity with respect to the host

As stated above, the d- proclitic is not selective at all. The -əd morph, on the other hand, is rather selective: With the exception of some lexically determined adverbials (mostly prepositions but also some conjunctions; see examples (5)– (6) on page 98), it can only occur directly after nominals (nouns, pronouns and adjectives). Indeed, NP-finally, it can only attach to nominals.25

#### <IP_ADDRESS> Arbitrary gaps

The d- proclitic does not show any arbitrary gaps in its distribution. The -əd morph, on the other hand, shows idiosyncratic gaps in its attachment to prepositions. While some prepositions require the -əd suffix before full nominal complements, other prepositions cannot occur with it. Yet another class of prepositions can co-occur optionally with the -əd suffix. Before pronominal complements, realized as possessive suffixes, the -əd suffix is typically absent.

The exact distribution of the -əd suffix with different prepositions is different from dialect to dialect. As an example, the distribution of -əd with Barwar prepo-

25Note that in principle an NP containing a relative clause may end in a verb or an adverb, but the -əd morph does not attach to such NPs.

sitions is given in Table 4.2 (Khan 2008c: 432–445).26 Note that the forms that do not take an -əd suffix generally lack stress, and pro-cliticize to their complement, while those that take the -əd suffix are phonologically independent.

Table 4.2: Distribution of -əd suffix with Barwar prepositions before a full nominal

#### <IP_ADDRESS> Morpho-phonological idiosyncrasies

The d- proclitic does not show any major morpho-phonological idiosyncrasies, although it presents variant forms which may be motivated phonologically. The same is true in general for the -əd suffix as well. In Amədya, however, there is one exceptional form discussed by Greenblatt (2011: 71, fn. 27): the Arabic loanword jamaʿa 'community' takes the construct state form jamaʿa-t rather than the expected \*jamaʿ-əd. Whether this is a true morphological idiosyncrasy replicating the Arabic construct state morphology or a phonetic artefact related to the presence of the pharyngeal /ʿ/ is hard to tell without further investigation.

26I disregard cases of /d/ segments appearing before demonstrative pronouns following prepositions, as this is considered to be the genitive d- discussed in §4.5.

#### <IP_ADDRESS> Morphological paradigm

The most important criterion according to Samvelian (2007a: 627) to distinguish an affix from a clitic is the criterion of haplology, devised by Miller (1992) following Zwicky (1987). In fact, this criterion boils down to showing that a morpheme stands paradigmatically in opposition (i.e., in a paradigmatic complementary distribution) with other morphemes, forming in essence a morphological paradigm, and thus revealing its affixal nature (see also §2.1). Indeed, this is spelt out in greater clarity, from a structural perspective, in Samvelian (2008). These arguments are in essence repeated here for the case of NENA dialects.

The -əd morpheme does not simply attach to its host, but rather stands in opposition with a set of other nominal-final morphemes, most conspicuously the Aramaic nominal inflectional endings -a~-e, but also the possessive pronominal suffixes.27 Indeed, one never finds an -əd morph attaching to a noun or a preposition ending in a possessive suffix, even if their scope is different. In such cases the d- proclitic must be used, as stated explicitly by Khan (2008c: 490), who gives the following example:

(9) Barwar: Noun–Noun jull-éy clothes-poss.3pl t= lnk= yáwne doves 'their clothes of doves' (Khan 2008c: 490 [A14:80] )

The nominal endings -a~-e are clearly inflectional suffixes as they have singleword scope, as is the case with the possessive pronominal suffixes in most dialects.28 Since the -əd morph stands in opposition to these suffixes, it forms part of the same inflectional system. Thus, most naturally it should also be treated as an inflectional suffix.29

27The -əd morpheme stands also in opposition with definite suffix -ake, borrowed from Sorani, in the dialects which have it, such as Koy Sanjaq or Sulemaniyya (Mutzafi 2004a: 62; Khan 2004: 232).

28Quite exceptional are the dialects of JSanandaj and Sulemaniyya, in which the possessive pronominal suffixes may be phrase-final, such as in the example [ʾaxon-a ruw]-i 'my elder brother' (brother-free big-poss.1sg) (Khan 2009b: 251; 2004: 262). This may very well be under influence of Sorani, which allows similar constructions, such as [bira gewr]-ek-em 'brother big-def-poss.1sg' (Wârmâwa, MacKenzie 1961: 81).

29One may argue that there is no principal restriction disallowing a clitic to stand in opposition with an affix. I'm unaware of such analyses in the literature, but in any case, such an analysis goes against the very spirit of the notion of paradigmatic opposition. In the structuralist tradition, which I follow here, the fact that two elements stand in opposition is an evidence that they share the same privilege of occurrence and thus the same grammatical status, for instance

It should be noted, that even if one maintains the enclitic status of -əd, the fact that it cannot follow these suffixes differentiates it from the proclitic d-, which has no such restriction. Formally, I oppose the licit construction [X-poss dlnk=Y] to the illicit combination \*[X-poss-əd Y]. This alone should suffice in showing that these are two different linguistic units, which cannot merely by analysed as phonological variants of one and the same entity.30 Since the functional load of the two elements is different (as shall be examined below), I take this difference to be morphemic.

As a suffix, the -əd morph marks construct state, while the -a~-e ending marks free state combined with number. This permits us to recognize three potential morphemic slots following the NENA nominal stem (with optional marking of pronominal secondaries): Gender + Number + State. The actual realisation of these slots, however, is subject to much fusion and idiosyncrasy (especially regarding the marking of gender), so that very often only one or two distinct suffixes are discernible on top of the stem. Some typical examples, reoccurring in many dialects, are given in Table 4.3 on the following page.31

#### <IP_ADDRESS> The conjunction criterion

Samvelian (2007a: 630) shows that the Ezafe has wide scope over a conjoint NP (see example (2) on page 96). This is true also for the -əd suffix, as in the following examples:

(10) Barwar: Conjoined Nouns–Noun

[bab-a father-free =w =and yəmm]-ət mother-cst yala child 'the father and the mother of the boy' (Khan 2008c: 488 [A15:9])

part-of-speech category. Thus, unless other reasons are invoked, one would naturally assume that affixes and clitics should appear in different paradigmatic slots.

30A similar claim is made by Samvelian (2008: 357) to distinguish the Kurmanji suffixed Ezafe from the independent ("demonstrative") Ezafe (see her examples (47) and (48)). In NENA the situation is clearer than in Kurmanji, since the suffix -əd is typically added to a nominal stem, and not to a fully fledged noun.

31Note that the table is not meant to be exhaustive, given the richness of morphological patterns of NENA nouns.

#### 4 The D-markers in NENA dialects

Table 4.3: Some typical NENA nominals suffixes (nil=neutralised feature)

#### (11) 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])

As noted in the discussion of the Persian example, such examples are characteristic of clitic status. For example, Spencer & Luís (2013: 134) state that a "clitic canonically takes wide scope over a coordinated phrase". Yet, such cases are also accommodated by the analysis of -əd as a phrasal affix.32 Moreover, one may analyse such examples as cases of suspended affixation. If such an analysis is accepted, then suspended affixation manifests itself as an areal phenomenon, as it encompasses NENA, Iranic languages, and Turkish (for which the term was coined). In another respect, the single construct state marking conserves the logic of classical Semitic languages, in which it is generally not possible to conjoin directly two nouns marked for construct state, and instead alternative formulations are used.33 Indeed, in such a view, the first noun baba 'father' is in fact not under

32Under this analysis, the free state suffix -a in example (10) on the preceding page is analysed as a default nominal suffix, compatible with the phrase-final construct state suffix.

33Recall that in Modern Hebrew such constructions are not found; see example (3) on page 33. See also the highly unusual Syriac example (11) on page 52.

the morphological scope of the -əd suffix, but rather its relationship with yala 'child' is inferred pragmatically.

Yet, in contrast to the Persian Ezafe, the analysis of -əd as a suffix becomes truly clear in those dialects, Barwar and JUrmi, which show an alternative construction in which both conjoined nouns are marked by the -əd suffix, though no explicit conjunction appears:34

The possibility of repeating the -əd suffix on both nouns indicates that in these dialects the -əd marker has shifted, at least partially, from being a phrasal suffix to a word-level suffix.35 This corroborates the idea that in all dialects -əd has acquired some affixal features, albeit in different degrees. Moreover, these dialects provide the clearest evidence for a distributional differentiation between the dproclitic and the -əd suffix, as there is no motivation for the d- proclitic to be doubled in this environment.

#### <IP_ADDRESS> Prosodic autonomy

The syntactic autonomy of the linker d- is corroborated by the prosodic structure, as it may stand at the beginning of a prosodic phrase, separate from the primary. This fact can be observed in the grammatical descriptions of G. Khan, who indicates prosodic phrase boundaries by a small vertical line ˈ.

34Example (12) on the current page from Barwar is given by Khan as ʾaqlət iðə d-ay-baxta, but the attachment of the d segment to the following demonstrative can be seen as a product of syllabification of fast speech, since clearly the head noun has a construct state ending.

35In JUrmi, in fact, one hardly finds any evidence of -əd being phrasal at all. Note, moreover, that the repetition of the -əd suffix on each conjoint is coupled, both in Barwar and in JUrmi, with the lack of an over coordination conjunction. The occurrence of this construction may very well be related to Turkish influence, which allows the asyndetic conjunction of possessed and non-possessed alliterative nouns. See the discussion in §7.2 regarding examples (8)–(9) on page 190.

(14) Barwar: Noun–Noun rìxaˈ smell t= lnk= xa= indf= kàlləšˈ carrion 'the scent of a carrion' (Khan 2008c: 399 [C8:5])

The -əd suffix, on the hand cannot induce a prosodic break: It is bound to the primary serving as its host, and in general is followed immediately by the secondary in the same prosodic phrase (just as d- is followed immediately by the secondary). Thus, aside from some exceptional cases, the -əd suffix stands always in the middle of a prosodic phrase.

The difference in prosodic autonomy has implications for the semantics of the different forms (see next section), but bears also on their syntactic status, as mediated by language acquisition. According to recent language acquisition theories, functional elements standing at the edges of prosodic phrases play a special role in acquiring syntactic structure, as they serve to tag the prosodic phrase with a syntactic label (Christophe et al. 2008; Gutman et al. 2015). Note that the dlinker can serve in such a function, effectively becoming a functional head of its NP, while -əd cannot. This may explain the mechanism of language change as well: The encliticization of d- as -əd leads to the loss of its role as tagging the category of its phrase in the process of language acquisition. It thereby loses its status as a syntactic head and is consequently reanalysed as an inflectional suffix.

#### <IP_ADDRESS> Semantic differentiation

The above criteria show that on distributional grounds the d- proclitic and the -əd suffix should be treated as two separate morphemes. As such, one would expect each to have a different semantic load. The exact semantic difference between the two constructions, however, is difficult to pinpoint and is outside the scope of this work.36 In this respect, the comments of Khan (2008c: 489ff.), the most detailed study of a NENA dialect, may be illuminating (the emphasis is mine):

The structural difference between the kθawət qaša construction [=CSC] and the kθawa t-qaša construction [=ALC] reflects different degrees of prosodic bonding between the nouns. The first noun in the kθawa t-qaša construction is prosodically more independent than the first noun in the kθawət qaša construction. […] The kθawa t-qaša construction is a "heavier" form of

36A similar question arises in the field of Syriac, where the exact usage conditions of the CSC, the ALC and the DAC are compared. See for example Meyer (2012); Williams (2001: Ch. 2); Joosten (1996: Ch. 4).

coding than the more compact kθawət qaša construction. This heavy coding is sometimes used to give particular salience to a newly introduced referent that plays an important role in the discourse […] When these referents are mentioned subsequently in the discourse, they are typically present with the lighter coding of the kθawət qaša construction […] The heavy coding of the kθawa t-qaša construction may be used to give prominence to the clause as a whole. […] The looser prosodic connection between the two components in the kθawa t-qaša construction is sometimes used as a device to give prominence to the dependent noun rather than to the phrase as a whole.

In essence, the -əd suffix creates a prosodically and pragmatically tighter bond between the primary and the secondary, presenting them as one NP, while the dproclitic presents the two elements as two separate NPs mediated by the pronominal linker d-, which stands in apposition with the first NP.37 Formally, one can contrast [X-əd Y]NP with XNP1 ↔ [dlnk=Y]NP2 . This, in turn, permits the speaker to assign some sort of pragmatic emphasis to one of the component NPs, both of them, or the clause as a whole.

#### 4.5 The d- proclitic vs. the d- genitive prefix

#### 4.5.1 Introduction

An important analytic discovery made by Cohen (2010) is the distinction between two separate d- shaped morphemes: One is the proclitic linker (pronominal nucleus in Cohen's terms) and the other is a d- prefix marking genitive case on a handful of morphemes, mostly definite determiners and demonstrative pronouns38 which begin with a glottal stop (sometimes left untranscribed or unpronounced39) in the non-genitive (or unmarked) case, which is replaced40 by the d-

37A similar view is advanced by Hans J. Polotsky in his yet unpublished grammatical notes about JZakho (Eran Cohen, p.c.).

38This includes also the interrogative determiner ēma 'which'. See discussion in footnote 46 on page 320.

39Thus, these words can also be considered to be vowel-initial. I leave open the question whether the initial glottal stop is merely a phonetic artefact.

40Note that in the description of Diyana-Zariwaw by Napiorkowska (2015: 93) the d- prefix precedes a glottal stop in the genitive pronouns, rather than replacing it (e.g. d-ʾawwa [gendem.3ms]). The initial glottal stop is in fact not a strict requirement: In JZakho Cohen (2012: 109) lists also the distal demonstratives/determiners wā(ha) (ms) and yā(ha) (fs) as having genitive forms dwā(ha) and dyā(ha) respectively. In other dialects the distal forms are ʾawāha and ʾayāha, which may be the ancestral forms of the forms in JZakho.

#### 4 The D-markers in NENA dialects

in the genitive case (attributive marking in Cohen's terms41). In other words, these morphemes (all of pronominal origin) inflect for case, as is illustrated in Table 4.4 for the definite determiners.

Table 4.4: Case-inflected definite determiners in JZakho (Cohen 2010: 88)

The main reason for establishing this category is that the d- prefix appears where a linker is not expected, namely after primaries already marked for construct state (by the -əd suffix or by apocope), after prepositions (whether they are marked by -əd or not) and after the linker itself.42

These possibilities are illustrated in the following JZakho and Barwar examples:

(15) JZakho: Noun–Noun

brāt daughter.cst d-ay gen-def.fs baxta woman 'the daughter of the woman' (Cohen 2012: 110)

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

41Cohen (2010: 90) identifies the same prefix also before the subordinated present copula, to which the term genitive seems inappropriate, yet the term attributive may fit. For other dialects, however, the establishment of subordinate form of the copula could not be made with certainty. On the other hand, the d- prefix is found sporadically before the deictic adverb axxa 'here' in other dialects, maybe since it contains an implicit demonstrative 'in this place'.

42Interestingly, also in Neo-Mandaic possessive pronominal suffixes attach to a d- base after certain prepositions and construct state loan-nouns. Häberl (2007) claims that this modern d- is not related to the Classical Mandaic linker but arose rather from the metathesis of the final two root consonants of Classical Mandaic qadmia 'to, for'. Yet, if the analysis of the NENA dgenitive prefix advocated here is correct, it may be tentatively suggested that the Neo-Mandaic d- is the very same genitive marker (with a more limited distribution), reflecting an areal phenomenon preceding the emergence of the modern Aramaic dialects.

Analysing the apparently spurious d- prefixes as genitive case markers provides a clear justification for their appearance. Formally, we can distinguish between the patterns [X.cst dgen-Y]NP and XNP1 ↔ [dlnk= Y]NP2 , treating prepositions and the linker itself as being functionally in construct state.

It is worthwhile noting, that such an analysis implies a revolution in Aramaic grammar: while Proto-Semitic is supposed to have case markers (on the evidence of Akkadian and Classical Arabic), Aramaic had lost all case marking by its earliest attestations (beginning of the first millennium BCE).43 Thus, the genitive drepresents a structural innovation in Aramaic.44 Note that the d- segment acting as a genitive prefix is highly selective, since it attaches virtually only to demonstratives and definite determiners (but see footnote 41 on the preceding page).

A similar distinction between the two d- morphemes is made in the native grammar of Marogulov (1976: 41f.) treating CUrmi. He distinguishes between a pronominal d- (which he writes as a separate particle) and a prefix d- attached to demonstrative pronouns after prepositions, which in his terms has no function ("le son d n'ayant aucune fonction spéciale"):

(19) CUrmi: Preposition–Noun qə to d-o gen-dem.ms nəşə man 'to this man' (Marogulov 1976: 41)

43A notable exception is found in some Aramaic inscriptions from Sam'al dating from the 8th century BCE, where m.pl nouns conserve an archaic distinction between nominative and oblique cases (Dion 1978: 117).

44Traditionally, the linker d- itself is sometimes called nota genitivi, but due to its pronominal status, it should not be assimilated with a genitive case marker; see Goldenberg (2013a: 253, fn. 27).

Note that in the genitive function, the d- element cannot stand at the beginning of a prosodic phrase, unlike the linker d- (see discussion in §<IP_ADDRESS> about the importance of the prosodic autonomy).

Taking into account more dialectal data, further justification for their differentiation can be found, as presented below.

#### 4.5.2 Distinguishing factors

#### <IP_ADDRESS> Phonological shape

In Barwar, the d- linker is normally realised as t- (Khan 2008c: 396). If it attaches to a word beginning with a glottal stop, it is normally realised as an unaspirated ṱ-, which is phonetically expected.45

(20) Barwar: Noun–Noun

tre= two= pə́nxe grinding\_stones ṱ= lnk= ə́rxe watermill 'two stones of a watermill' (Khan 2008c: 399 [A24:13])

Appearing, however, before the demonstrative pronouns, normally beginning with a glottal stop, it takes rather the voiced form d-, as in examples (17)–(18) on the preceding page. This is expected, if the d- morph does not attach before the glottal stop, but rather replaces it, as in Table 4.4 on page 108.46

#### <IP_ADDRESS> Dialectal distribution

Also in dialects where the d- linker has disappeared as such one finds the d- prefix before determiners. This is the case in JSanandaj, where one can find the d- prefix even after the Ezafe suffix:47

45This is also the case before the indicative copula appearing in subordinate clauses.

46In other respects, the data from Barwar sometimes obscures the presence of a genitive prefix as it marks the appearance of only one d segment. Thus, one finds čádra d-ò-malka 'the tent of that king' instead of the expected čádra d=d-ò-malka and ríxə d-o-xámra 'the smell of that wine' instead of ríxət d-o-xámra. Especially in the second case, it seems plausible to assume that the actual forms are subject to a process of phonetic de-gemination (cf. Cohen 2012: 122 who speaks of "phonetic simplification" in similar cases).

47In contrast to JZakho, however, the usage of the d- genitive prefix is optional in JSanandaj.

(21) JSanandaj: Noun–Noun fešár-e pressure-ez d-o gen-dem.ms màe water 'the pressure of the water' (Khan 2009b: 200 [A:59])

The fact that the d- prefix is retained in such environments while the d- linker in general has disappeared is easily explained if one considers the two to be separate morphemes, subject to different language change processes.

#### <IP_ADDRESS> Phrase-internal marking

Similarly to the construct state suffix -əd, which in most dialects is a phrasal suffix (see example (10) on page 103), the genitive d- prefix in JZakho must be analysed as phrasal prefix, judging by examples such as the following:

(22) JZakho: Noun–Conjoined nouns ʾuz-lu made-3pl xıṭbe wedding dīd lnk d-áw gen-def.ms jwanqa youngster ū= and= ʾáy def.fs xamsa maiden 'they made the wedding of that youngster and that maiden' (Cohen 2012: 304 (205))

The analysis of d- as a genitive prefix is justified by the fact that it follows linker dīd, and cannot therefore assume a pronominal role. However, it marks only the initial determiner aw, and not the subsequent determiner ay. Thus, when d- is used as a genitive inflectional morpheme of determiners, it appears only as a phrase-initial marker, or, in other words, as a phrasal prefix.48

In Barwar, on the other hand, one finds cases where the genitive d- occurs phrase-internally. This happens in cases where a secondary noun is further modified by an adjective which is preceded by a determiner. In such cases, the internal determiner is marked as genitive.

(23) Barwar: Noun–Noun Phrase gnáy-ət fault-cst [táwra ox d-o= gen-def.ms= gòṛa] big.ms 'the fault of the big ox' (Khan 2008c: 517 [D2:19])

48Cohen (2012) brings a case of phrase-internal d- marker attaching to the copula (example (86) on page 139). This d- is arguably different from the genitive one, as it attaches to a quasi-verbal form, although Cohen subsumes both as markers of the attributive function (see footnote 41 on page 108).

Adjectives in Barwar stand in apposition to their head-noun. Therefore, the dmarker is not marking a dependency relationship between the adjective goṛa and the noun it modifies (tawra 'ox'). Rather, it is induced in virtue of the entire NP being in genitive case due to its attributive relation with the primary noun gnaya 'fault'. Similarly to the -əd suffix in Barwar, it seems that also the d- prefix has undergone a further development to become a word-level marker, permitting it to appear phrase-internally.49 Note that there is no motivation for a linker d- to appear in this position.

A similar example is found in CAradhin, where the genitive marking is induced by a prepositional head:

(24) CAradhin: Preposition–Noun Phrase tla for [ōǰax clan(fs) d-ay gen-def.fs xēta] other.fs 'for the other clan' (Krotkoff 1982: 49 [113])

#### 4.6 Conclusions

In this chapter, I have shown that on various synchronic distributional grounds, one can distinguish between three different morphemes in NENA related to the Classical Aramaic proclitic linker d-. One of them is simply a retention of this morpheme in NENA, conserving in essence its pronominal nature, while the two other morphemes are pure relational markers: the head-marking construct state suffix -əd and the dependent-marking genitive case marker d-.

The distinction between the three morphemes is primarily based on distributional reasons. The different environments where they can be found are summarised in Table 4.5 on the next page.

I have conceptualised this distinction in terms of the strength of the bond between these morphemes and their hosts, calling the two latter morphemes affixes, while maintaining the clitic nature of the original linker. Their affixal nature stems from the high selectivity of the hosts: the -əd suffix appears almost exclusively on nominal hosts, while the d- prefix is restricted to determiners and demonstratives (which are related historically). On the other hand, their clitic

49Unfortunately I could not come across any examples of conjoint genitives mirroring exactly the JZakho example.

50Recall that in this context the notation .cst marks any type of construct state marking, be it an -əd suffix, apocope or an Ezafe morpheme; see footnote 43 on page 42. Note also that prepositions need not be explicitly marked as construct state in order to induce genitive case.

Table 4.5: Distribution of D-markers: a) construct state suffix -əd; b) linker d-; c) genitive prefix d- (X and Y indicate any phrasal primary or secondary).

origin is apparent in the fact that both these morphemes show phrasal placement: in general they appear either phrase-finally (-əd) or phrase-initially (d-), yet some dialects show a further development in that they allow these markers to appear phrase-internally, as word-level inflectional suffixes.

## 5 Attributive constructions in the Jewish dialect of Zakho

#### 5.1 Introduction

The study of the AC system of JZakho1 is made easy due to the fact that the main source on which I rely, Cohen (2012), uses a conceptual framework similar to ours. A more exact formulation would be that Cohen's framework inspired ours. Indeed, chapters 2 and 4 of his work, "The attributive relationship" and "Apposition" respectively, address directly the issues at hand. A similar and concise analysis is also presented in Cohen (2010). The present survey, therefore, repeats to some extent the claims presented in these sources. Nevertheless, the current treatment is innovative in the classification of the construction according to the typology discussed in §2.4. This permits, moreover, a transparent comparison of this dialect's system to the other dialects discussed in the following chapters.

As noted in §1.3, Cohen (2012: 20–27) identifies a system of definite and indefinite determiners in the grammar of JZakho, an analysis which I adopt here.

Cohen's examples are based mainly on Polotsky's unpublished transcribed Zakho texts, as well as some published sources (see Cohen 2012: 5–8 for details).2 Two other sources used in this chapter are Avinery (1988), a collection of texts of JZakho, and Sabar (2002). The latter is a dictionary devoted to the Cis-Zab Jewish dialects of north-west Iraq (see §1.2.2), of which JZakho constitutes an important part. I only use examples which are clearly identifiable as JZakho examples (by virtue of their source, or being explicitly marked as such).

Cohen (2012); Sabar (2002) use the sign  to denote the phonemic schwa ([ə]~[ɪ]), while Avinery (1988) uses the sign . For consistency with other dialects, I use instead the <ə> symbol (see 17).

1 I maintain the J. (=Jewish) abbreviation in the dialect name, since there exists also a Christian (Chaldean) dialect of Zakho, as reported by Hoberman (1993). Due the scarcity of information on this dialect, it is not included in the current survey.

2Cohen's examples refer to the page number of Polotsky's transcribed texts. As these texts are as yet unpublished, I have not reproduced this number in the citations, but rather referred to Cohen's page and example numbers.

This chapter is organised as follows: In §5.2 I discuss the usage of the possessive pronominal suffixes. Subsequently, the two main ACs of JZakho are discussed: the construct state construction is treated in §5.3 and the analytic linker construction in §5.4, the latter being the richest one in terms of paradigmatic variation. The marking of secondaries by genitive case, which is compatible with both these constructions, is treated in §5.5. A rare case of the double annexation construction is discussed in §5.6, while the juxtaposition construction is handled in §5.7. §5.8 gives some general conclusions and comparative remarks.

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

A pronominal secondary can be realised as a possessive pronominal suffix (=poss), which attaches directly to the stem of the primary noun.

(1) JZakho: Noun–Pronoun ēha dem.fs brāt-i daugther-poss.1sg 'this daughter of mine' (Cohen 2012: 98 (28))

If there are any further secondaries, they follow the inflected noun:

(2) JZakho: Noun–Pronoun ʾaw def.3ms brōn-e son-poss.3ms rūwa big.ms 'this older son of his' (Cohen 2012: 98 (29))

As noted in §2.4.1, the term possessive suffix is traditional; its usage is in fact wider than denoting solely possession, similarly to other ACs. For instance, it can attach to an infinitive to denote one of its arguments (here its subject):

(3) JZakho: Infinitive–Pronoun (subject) u= and= zaʿ-li be\_lost-1sg b-əd in-cst ʾīzāl-i go.inf-1sg əl to knəšta synagogue 'And I got lost while going to the synagogue.' (Cohen 2012: 99 (34))

Moreover, it can attach to a preposition to denote its complement:

(4) JZakho: Preposition–Pronoun əmm-i with-poss.1sg 'with me' (Cohen 2012: 451)

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

JZakho has two construct state markers: the suffix -əd~-ət and apocope (phonological reduction).3 Cohen (2012: 97) states: "the functional distinction between them is not clear, and for now it must be regarded as mere [free] variation". He gives the following two examples, in which the noun xabra 'word' (pl xabre) is put in construct state. Note that in this case, both markings neutralize the number distinction.

(5) JZakho: Noun–Noun xabr-ət word-cst xōr-e friend-poss.3ms 'the words of his friend' (Cohen 2012: 97 (2))

(6) JZakho: Noun–Noun

(p=) in= xabər word.cst xōr-e friend-poss.3ms '(by) the words of his friend' (Cohen 2012: 97 (21))

The apocopated form is constructed by removing the free state-cum-number suffixes -a 'free.sg' or -e 'free.pl'. Due to the resulting consonant cluster at the end of \*xabr, an epenthetic ə is inserted.

Nouns (including infinitives, see §5.3.5) as well as adjectives can appear with both construct state markers, while pronouns as well as adverbials appear only with the -əd suffix.4 Primary pronouns typically appear with clausal secondaries (see §5.3.2).

Rarely, the construct state suffix appears NP finally, but only when the NP ends with an adjective, as in the following example (=example (8) on page 100):

(7) JZakho: Noun Phrase–Noun [gōra man qamāy]-ət first.ms-cst [d-anya gen-dem.pl baxt-āsa] woman-pl 'The first husband of these women' (Cohen 2012: 101 (49))

3Cohen (2012: 92) relates the apocopate form to the ancient absolute state, i.e. the Early Aramaic free indefinite form. It seems more appropriate to relate it directly to the Classical Aramaic construct state. In any case, for singular nouns the two forms were mostly identical. Some apocopate construct state forms can not be easily traced to ancient Aramaic construct state forms, and must be considered innovated, such as the form bax, apocopate form of baxta 'woman, wife' (Cohen 2010). See the discussion in §11.1.

4As adverbials do not have a full free form one cannot postulate an apocopate form for them, making the above statement trivial for this category.

As discussed in §4.4, such examples are accommodated under the analysis of the -əd suffix as a phrasal suffix.

#### 5.3.1 Pronominal, ordinal and adverbial secondaries

There is a variety of categories which can occupy the secondary position: pronouns, ordinal or PPs (adverbial phrases). The primary in each case can be marked by both construct state markings:

#### 5.3.2 Clausal and infinitival secondaries

Clausal secondaries, whether full clauses or infinitival phrases, can appear regularly in the CSC.

(16) JZakho: Noun–Infinitival Phrase (mṭē-le) came-3ms waʿəd time.cst [ʾīsāy-ət come.inf-cst d-anya gen-dem.pl ṭḷāha friend-pl xūr-āsa] 'The time arrived for the three friends' coming' (Cohen 2012: 98 (32))

The following example is especially interesting, since the secondary consists of two conjoined infinitives. Moreover, it is split by the occurrence of the copula la, marking the entire CSC as a predicate. In JZakho (as in many other NENA dialects), the copula is a second-position clitic with respect to the predicate phrase.5 Yet as this example clearly shows, the copula cannot split the construct state primary from its secondary and thus appears instead after the first conjoined secondary.6

(17) JZakho: Noun–Conjoined infinitives urx-ət way-cst [īzāla] go.inf =la =cop.3fs [ū= and= la neg dʾāra] return.inf 'It is a road of going and not returning.' (Cohen 2012: 111 (87))

As stated, full clauses can appear as well in the secondary position. The primary noun can have various functions in the relative clause (subject, object, etc.)

5 In other words, the copula typically appears after the first minimal unit of the predicate, be it a free noun or a CSC. A similar behaviour is exhibited by the Syriac enclitic personal pronouns, which can be seen as precursors of the copula; see Gutman & Van Peursen (2011: 121ff.) for a discussion and examples.

6 Such cases should be clearly differentiated from cases where the copula itself is part of the secondary, in which case it can appear directly after the primary in a special attributive form (see §5.5.2).

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

Interrogative pronouns can head the CSC with clausal secondaries. In such cases they act as a head of a free relative, loosely speaking. In this construction, they are always marked by the construct state suffix.7

7As Cohen (2012: 96) notes, the free forms of the interrogative pronouns are used as markers of either direct or indirect questions. No apocopate forms of the interrogative pronouns are found in JZakho.

To this group one may tentatively add the pronoun/quantifier kud 'each':

(24) JZakho: Pronoun–Clause ku-d each-cst [ʾāwəz-lox sbjv.do.3ms-dat.2ms hawūsa] favor 'anyone who does you a favor' (Cohen 2012: 94 (1))

In the above example I analyse kud as having a base-form ku augmented by a construct state suffix. However, a free form of kud is not attested (Cohen 2012: 94, fn. 5), though historically it is very probably derived from \*kull + d (Sabar 2002: 181b).8 Moreover, as Cohen (2018: 3) notes, disregarding its construct state marking, it can be equated with a determiner of the JZakho system. Thus, one may reasonably question whether this should be seen as a genuine instance of construct state marking, or rather a fossilized remnant of it. Interestingly, instances of ku are found in Nerwa (Sabar 2002: 181b), but these may be cases of back-formation.

Finally, note that the interrogative ēma 'which' can be complemented directly by a noun-phrase, which embeds in it a clause. In this case too, the construct state-marked interrogative pronoun functions rather as a determiner:

(25) JZakho: Pronoun–Noun Phrase ēm-ət which-cst [julle clothes d= lnk= [ʾājəb-le please-3ms ləbb-ox]] heart-poss.2ms (ṭḷōb take.imp mən from d-e gen-def kwīna) tent 'Ask for whatever clothes which please you from that tent' (Cohen 2012: 96 (16))

#### 5.3.3 Adverbial primaries

Many adverbials are in fact nouns used adverbially, such as the noun waʿda 'time' (thus example (15) on page 119 can be understood adverbially: 'when he comes'). These behave as nouns, having potentially two construct state forms: one suffixed and one apocopate, besides their free forms.

In contrast to these, there are true prepositions or conjunctions (often monosyllabic, or shorter). Some of these take a construct state suffix obligatorily when

8The form kull, meaning 'all', is used in JZakho only together with possessive pronominal suffixes. Compare this with example (43) on page 163 of Qaraqosh and see further Khan (2002a: 282f.).

complemented by a syntactic word, be it a noun or a pronoun. Such is the case of ʾəmm-əd [with-cst] (example (5)=example (26) on this page):

One can nevertheless identify the base form, as it appears together with the possessive pronominal suffixes (see example (4) on page 116). Moreover, it is clear that it stems etymologically from classical Aramaic ם ִע ʿĭm (Sabar 2002: 97a).

Some prepositions allow for two forms to appear before syntactic words: one with the suffix -əd and one without it. The shorter form should not be seen as an apocopate form, as it is not derived from a full free form (except for those prepositions derived from nouns), but should rather be seen as the simple form of the preposition (see also the system of Barwar in Table 4.2 on page 101). Functionally, the simple form is equivalent to a construct state marked form, yet from the point of view of the classification system used here it represents an unmarked primary. In this vein, contrast the following construct state marked example with example (102) on page 144, representing an unmarked juxtaposition construction.9

(28) JZakho: Preposition–Noun b-əd in-cst bəllūre flute 'with a flute' (Cohen 2010: 85 (16))

The construct state marked form can precede phrasal and clausal secondaries:

(29) JZakho: Preposition–Infinitival Phrase ʾəmm-ət with-cst [maʾōre transfer.inf dīd-a] lnk-3fs 'while transferring her' (Cohen 2012: 111 (87))

9The preposition b- 'in' should be kept apart from its homonym particle b-, which joins the infinitive to form a gerund (Cohen 2012: 99, fn. 9; Sabar 2002: 103a). Note, moreover, that the preposition b-əd can precede an infinitive (without forming a gerund), as in example (3) on page 116.

#### 5.3.4 Adjectival primaries

Adjectives heading the CSC typically yield a superlative reading, whenever the secondary is a plural noun or pronoun:

(32) JZakho: Adjective–Noun rūw-ət big.ms-cst ganāw-e thief-pl 'the biggest/head thief' (Cohen 2012: 100 (41))

(33) JZakho: Adjective–Pronoun ʾaw def.ms zōr small.cst kull-u all-3pl 'the smallest of them all' (Cohen 2012: 100 (42))

Note that the primary adjective exhibits the gender and number features of the referent, while the secondary has plural marking.10

A formally related construction, though functionally different, is the emotive genitive.11 In this construction, loaded with some emotional emphasis, the se-

10The superlative preceding the qualified noun is clearly an areal phenomenon: It is present in Arabic, Sorani (MacKenzie 1961: 68; Thackston 2006b: 19), and Kurmanji (Thackston 2006a: 28). In the latter, the superlative adjective is sometimes marked as construct state. Compare also to the Syriac example (19) on page 55 as well as example (108) on page 86. One reviewer suggested this is semantically motivated, as superlatives establish a unique reference similarly to determiners which are typically pre-nominal.

11This term was coined by Hopkins (2009), who identifies the characteristic syntactic and semantic features of the construction and exemplifies it from various Semitic languages, including NENA. Gai (2013) attempts to trace this construction back to Akkadian.

mantic head of the construction is expressed as a secondary, while the adjectival primary agrees with it:

(34) JZakho: Adjective–Noun pappūk-ət pitiful.ms-cst xmāra donkey 'the poor donkey, that poor of a donkey' (Cohen 2012: 100 (46))