Dialect differences in Uzbekistan Arabic and their historical implications [PDF]

Citation preview

DIALECT DIFFERENCES IN UZBEKISTAN ARABIC AND THEIR HISTORICAL IMPLICATIONS Otto Jastrow Tallinn University, Estonia Arabic language islands, or in German, “arabische Sprachinseln”, are isolated pockets of spoken Arabic in non-Arab countries. They are usually separated from the main Arabic language area by stretches of territory in which other languages are spoken. Classical Arabic and Modern Standard Arabic are usually not known in those language islands but in turn there is a strong influence of one or several regional languages, including the official language of the respective state. Language islands can be of different age and may have come about in different ways. They can be the remnants of a formerly larger language area, as in Uzbekistan, but also the first results of an ongoing expansion of Arabic, as in some places in Central Africa. Likewise, they can be of quite different age. Uzbekistan Arabic, as is agreed generally, must be of very ancient origin, going back to the Muslim conquests of Transoxania in the early 8th century.1 In two papers, published in 1997 and 1998 I have argued that although Uzbekistan Arabic shows a very strong influence of the two adstrate languages, the Iranian Tadjik language and the Turkic Uzbek language, it preserves at its core a very archaic type of Arabic which reflects the linguistic situation in 7th/8th century Iraq, thus long before the so-called “qəltu-gilit split” occurred which formed the linguistic landscape of Iraq as we know it in the 20th century. Clive Holes, in an as yet unpublished paper, is able to show that there are also some linguistic features of south-eastern Arabia, especially present-day Oman, which are reflected in Uzbekistan Arabic, and he supports these findings by historical details of the migration of Arab tribes from southern Arabia to the north during the early Islamic conquests. Uzbekistan Arabic has survived in two separate areas, one close to the city of Bukhara (“Bukhara dialect”), the other one in the Qashqa Darya region (“Qashqa Darya dialect”). Until today, Uzbekistan Arabic is mainly known through the publications of two Soviet scholars, Georgij Tsereteli and Isak Naumovitch Vinnikov.2 Both did extensive fieldwork in the area in the thirties and forties of the last century. As a result they published a considerable number of texts in transcription and with Russian translations. Most subsequent studies are based on the publications of these two authors. Unfortunately, the material provided by Tsereteli and Vinnikov is not divided equally between the two dialect groups – quite to the contrary, the bulk of the material comes from the Bukhara dialect area, mainly from two villages, Ǧōgari and ʿArabxōna. For the Qashqa Darya dialect we have only a single article by Vinnikov (1963) which contains 15 anecdotes of the Hoca Nasrettin type, some of them quite short, so that the whole corpus amounts only to five printed pages. The texts were told by a single informant from the village of Ǧeinau in the Qashqa Darya area. Despite this lack of balance in the documentation we can say that the two dialects differ considerably in phonology, morphology and lexicon. The present paper aims at examining these dialect differences and to draw some conclusions as to the ultimate origin of the two dialect groups. In order to provide a short impression of the Qashqa Darya dialect I present here one of the aforementioned anecdotes (nr. 5) in a slightly modified transcription and with both an interlinear and a free English translation. It is the well-known story of how Hoca Nasrettin (in these texts simply called afandi) found the moon lying at the bottom of the well and how he tried to pull it out from there.



1



Transoxania was conquered in 712 by Qutayba ibn Muslim. More recently, G.G. Chikovani has published two monographs on the Qashqa Darya dialect (2008) and the Bukhara dialect (2009). 2



I. Sample text: The moon in the well (Qashqa Darya dialect, Ǧeinau village) 1. afandi fad yūm i-ǧufur mūya ǧarrān ġadaw. Afandi one day to-the-well water drawing went (pl.) One day the afandi went to the well in order to draw water. 2. i-ǧufur ʿayyanaw kī: adrun ǧufur gamar hast. To-the-well he (pl.)-looked (that): Inside the-well the-moon is. He looked at the well and saw that the moon was lying inside the well. 3. gālaw ki: adrun ǧufur gamar wōgeʿ. He (pl.)-said (that): Inside the-well the-moon has-fallen. He said: The moon has fallen into the well. 4. ʿogub gālaw i-móratum: Afterwards he (pl.)-said to-his (pl.)-wife: Then he said to his wife: 5. xēṭ ǧibī, il-gamar min ǧufur inǧirra noxza. The-rope bring (f.)-it, the-moon (acc.) from the-well we-pull-it we-take-it. Bring the rope, we shall pull the moon out of the well and take it. 6. móratum fat xēṭ, fat čangča ǧābat anṭat. His (pl.)-wife one rope, one hook she-brought she-gave. His wife brought a rope and a hook and gave them to him. 7. afandi il-xēṭ il-rōsa čangča šaddūha, i-ǧufur gaddamū. Afandi the-rope-(acc.) to-its-head the-hook he (pl.)-tied-it, into-the-well he (pl.)-lowered-it. The afandi tied the rope to the head of the hook and lowered it into the well. 8. il-xēṭ ǧarrū – čangča i-fat ḥaǧara šabbasat. The-rope (acc.) he (pl.)-pulled-it, the-hook on-some stone it-got-stuck. When he pulled up the rope, the hook got stuck on a stone. 9. afandi kasīr ḥēl sawaw, ǧarrū – xēṭ min miyanta ingaṭaʿ madd, Afandi much strength he (pl.)-made, he (pl.)-pulled-it – the-rope from its-middle it-tore it-went, The afandi applied much strength, he pulled hard, until the rope was torn into two, 10. afandi i-ʿagobhum úgaʿaw. Afandi to-his (pl.) back he-fell (pl.) and the afandi fell on his back. 11. i-sama ʿayyanaw: gamar hast. To-the-sky he (pl.)-looked: the moon is there. When he looked up to the sky the moon was there. 12. i-gamar gālaw kī: To-the-moon he (pl.)-said: He told the moon: 13. mā keyn-agdur aṭallʿak-mi? Not I-was-able I-pull-you-out (quest.)? You thought I was not able to pull you out? 14. anā ṭallaḥtak! I I-pulled-you-out! But I did pull you out! Basing myself on this sample text – but adducing also additional examples from the other fourteen anecdotes – I shall try to contrast the Qashqa Darya (Ǧeinau) dialect with data from the Bukhara dialect culled from Vinnikov (1957). The examples will be labelled QD and B, respectively.



II. Phonology Old Arabic interdentals: In QD they are always represented by sibilants: šabbasat (< š-b-ṯ) “it got stuck”, xazīn “they take” (part.), noxza ( g > ǧ and old kāf > č. In vowel phonotactics we observe the preservation of short unstressed /a/ in the measure faʿīl in B, an extremely archaic feature; in QD /a/ has shifted to /i/, as shown in Table 1. Bukhara



Qashqa Darya



kabīr



big



kibīra (f.)



big



kasīr



much



kisīr



much



zaġīr



young



ziġīr



young



ǧadīd



new



ǧidīd



new



Table 1: *faʿīl > fiʿīl Another important phonotactic feature is the first stage of the so-called ‘gahawah syndrome’ which we can observe in QD. In the first stage the vowel /a/ is inserted between two consonants, if the first consonants is x, ġ, ḥ, ʕ or h, as shown in Table 2. Bukhara



Qashqa Darya



oġdi ( *naʕáǧa, and stage 3 the elision of /a/ in the first syllable: *naʿáǧa > *nʿaǧa > inʿáǧa. The complete ‘gahawah syndrome’ is common in the Bedouin dialects of the East. III. Morphology Turning to morphology we observe that both dialects have different forms of the pronominal suffixes 3. sg. m. and 3. sg. f., as shown in Table 3. Bukhara 3. sg. m.



3. sg. f.



Qashqa Darya



rāsu



his head



zeyla



his tail



ummu



his mother



beyta



his house



aǧību



I’ll bring him



abīʿa



I’ll sell him



ǧabítu



she brought him



ǧabáta



she brought him



zarabōʰ



they hit him



xazū



they took him



xadāʰ



he took it (m.)



xazā



he took it (m.)



ǧabíta



she brought her



ǧabáta



she brought her



ǧāba



he brought her



ašūfa



I’ll see her



xadūha



they took her



xazūha



they took her



xadāha



he took her



xazāha



he took her



Table 3 : Pronominal suffixes 3. sg. m./f. While the ending -u of the 3. sg. m. is typical for sedentary dialects, the ending –a is typical for Bedouin dialects or, in the Iraqi context, gələt dialects. In the feminine suffix, the initial consonant /h/ can be elided in the sedentary dialects without risking a merger of the two suffixes; in the gələt dialects the /h/ is as a rule preserved to prevent this merger. It is interesting to observe that in QD the /h/ is nevertheless elided which leads to a partial merger of the m. and f. suffixes; thus ǧabata can mean “she brought him” or “she brought her”. Next let’s examine the verbal inflectional ending 3. sg. f. perfect and the feminine construct ending of the noun; they usually show the same vowel (Table 4).



Bukhara 3. sg. f. perfect



fem. construct



Qashqa Darya



kōnet



she was



kānat



she was



qōlet



she said



gālat



she said



ǧabítu



she brought him



ǧabáta



she brought him



baʿasítum



she sent them (pl. m.)



raššáta



she threw it (f.)



xubzet márati



the bread of my wife



arizitkum



your (pl. m.) money



naʿaǧatkum



your (pl. m.) sheep



xúbzitu



his bread



lámzati



my word



Table 4: Verbal ending 3. sg. f. perfect and feminine construct ending Here again, -it (with a lowered variant -et in word final position) is typical for sedentary dialects, while the ending -at is typical for Bedouin dialects or, in the Iraqi context, gələt dialects. A somewhat more complex picture emerges when we examine the verbal ending of the 3. pl. m. perfect, word final and before pronominal suffixes (Table 5). Bukhara 3. pl. m.



Qashqa Darya



ġadu



they went



ġadaw



they went



ǧābu



they brought



ǧābaw



they brought



+ Suffix 3. sg. m.



ǧabōʰ



they brought him



ǧabū



they brought him



3. sg. f.



xadūha



they took her



xazūha



they took her



waddūha



they took her away



waddūha



they took her away



Table 5: Verbal ending 3. pl. m., word final and before pronominal suffixes QD has the word final ending -aw for all types of verbs, as is typical for Iraqi gələt dialects; however, before pronominal suffixes this ending does not change to -ō- but to -ū-. In B, on the other hand, the word final ending is -u for all types of verbs, and long -ū- before pronominal suffixes, except for the suffix 3. sg. m., preceding which appears an allomorph -ō-. IV. Syntax Finally, let’s examine two syntactic features, namely the expression of the general present and the progressive (actual) present. The progressive present describes an action as taking place in the immediate present time, while the general present covers a more extended present time which includes repeated and habitual actions, as well as potential or future actions. In QD, the general present is expressed by the old imperfect without any verb modifier, in B, on the other hand, it has a verb modifier (present tense marker) mī- ⁓ m- which supposedly is copied from Iranian; it is used, however, exactly like the bi- ⁓b- prefix in many Arabic dialects of the east. Examples in Table 6. Bukhara



Qashqa Darya



anā moġdi, ḥaǧara maǧība. I will go and bring the stone.



šiyātkum inzaʿūha, aġasíla! Take off your clothes, I’ll wash them.



ilayk mázbaḥak, i-wáladak-am mázbaḥu. I’ll slaughter you and your son as well.



xēṭ ǧibī, il-gamar min ǧufur inǧirra noxza. Bring the rope; we’ll pull the moon from the well.



Table 6: General present



The general present without verb modifier is typical for the Iraqi gələt dialects. The actual present in B is expressed by the imperfect + present tense marker mī-⁓ m-, followed by the participle form nāyim “sleeping”, here best translated as “lying”, more rarely by the participle form qōyem “standing”. In QD the imperfect without verb modifier is followed by the participle gāʿed “sitting” – Examples in Table 7.



Bukhara



Qashqa Darya



amīr meʿayyin nāyim. The emir is looking.



ǧuhūd kin-yiʿayyin-i gāʿed. The Jew was looking.



arīza meʿedd nāyim. He is counting the money.



anā kin-aʿayyin-i gāʿdinni. I was looking.



orz munqurūna woqfīn. They are digging up the ground.



mā-tugdur tild-i gāʿada. She is not able to give birth.3



Table 7. Actual present The two first QD examples show the actual past (with a preceding kin-) rather than the actual present because the texts did not yield any suitable examples. In studying the actual present marker we see that the three main positions of the human body, namely lying, sitting and standing, are used to convey the idea of an ongoing action (“I am lying/sitting/standing” + “I read” > “I am reading”). The use of “standing” and “lying” in this function is explained as interference of the adstrate languages; the use of gāʿed “sitting” for the actual present is, however, widespread in Iraqi Arabic. Note that in B and QD the grammaticalization of these morphemes is still in its first stage because they are inflected for gender and (presumably) number. In Iraqi Arabic the actual present markers derived from *qā‘id are invariable qad- ~ qa- in the qəltu dialects and invariable gā‘id ~ da- in the gələt dialects. V. Summary This paper focussed on the lesser known Uzbekistan Arabic dialect which is spoken in the Qashqa Darya region. A number of features were highlighted by which this dialect differs from the Bukhara dialect, in particular: 1. the shift of the nominal form *faʿīl > fiʿīl 2. the gahawah syndrome (first stage) 3. the pronominal suffixes 3. sg. m./f. -a/-ha 4. the verbal ending 3. sg. f. perfect and the feminine construct ending -at 5. the verbal ending 3. pl. m., word final and before pronominal suffixes, -aw/-ū 6. the formation of the general present 7. the formation of the actual present In all the points where the Qashqa Darya dialect differs from the Bukhara dialect it aligns itself with Iraqi Arabic, more precisely the gələt dialects. So even if it can be proven that Uzbekistan Arabic is based on a number of old Arabic dialects, besides Iraqi also dialects of the south-east of Arabia, the fact will remain that the Qashqa Darya dialect in particular shows the closest affinity with the gələt dialects of Iraqi Arabic.



3



The origin of the ‘parasitic’ –i preceding the actual present tense marker is not clear to me.



References Chikovani, G. G. 2008. Kaškadar’inskij arabskij dialect central’noj Azii. Tbilisi: Tbilisskij Institut Azii i Afriki. Chikovani, G. G. 2009. Bukharskij dialekt arabskogo jazyka (partly in Georgian). Tbilisi: Tbilisskij Institut Azii i Afriki. Fischer, Wolfdietrich. 1961. ‘Die Sprache der arabischen Sprachinsel in Uzbekistan’. Der Islam 46. 232-263 Jastrow, Otto. 1997. ‘Wie arabisch ist Uzbekistan-Arabisch?’ Elie Wardini (ed.), Built on Solid Rock. Studies in Honour of Professor Ebbe Egede Knudsen on his 65th Birthday April 11th 1977. Oslo: Novus. 141153 Jastrow, Otto. 1998. ‘Zur Position des Uzbekistan-Arabischen’. Holger Preissler u. Heidi Stein (eds.), Annäherung an das Fremde. XXVI. Deutscher Orientalistentag vom 25. bis 29.9.1995 in Leipzig. Stuttgart: Steiner. 173-184 Tsereteli, G. V. 1939. Materialy dl’a izučenija arabskikh dialektov Srednej Azii. Zapiski Instituta vostokovedov Akademii Nauk SSSR 7. 254-283 Tsereteli, G. V. 1956. Arabskije dialekty Srednej Azii. Tom I: Bukharskij arabskij dialect. Tbilisi. Vinnikov, I. N. 1949. ‘Materialy po jazyku i fol’kloru Bukharskikh arabov’. Sovetskoje Vostokovedenije 6. 120-145 Vinnikov, I. N. 1956. ‘Fol’klor Bukharskikh arabov’. Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarun Hungaricae 6. 181-206 Vinnikov, I. N. 1957. ‘Obrazcy fol’klora Bukharskikh arabov’. Archív Orientální 25. 173-189; 426-451 Vinnikov, I. N. 1962. Slovar’ dialekta Bukharskikh arabov. Moskva: Palestinskij sbornik 10 Vinnikov, I. N. 1963. ‘Obrazcy govora Kaškadar’inskikh arabov’. G. Š. Šarbatov (ed.), Semitskije Jazyki. Sbornik statej. Moskva. 176-185 Zaborski, Andrzej. 2008. ‘Árabe de Asia Central’. F. Corriente y Ángeles Vincente (eds.), Manual de dialectología neoárabe. Zaragoza: Instituto de Estudios Islámicos y del Oriente Próximo. 409-437