Paradigmatic axis

For a fine-grained classification of the ACs, it is profitable to examine the ques-tion of which elements can appear as primaries and as secondaries apart from nouns. The classification of these elements is a necessary methodological choice, and does not reflect any cross-linguistic claims regarding the universality of the proposed categories.

My classification is based on the traditional distinction between the Parts-of-Speech (Nouns, Pronouns, Adjectives, Participles, Infinitives, Adverbs). Addition-ally, I make a distinction between one-word elements and phrasal, multi-word, constituents.⁴⁶ I distinguish CP nouns [=Complex Predicate Nouns] as a special functional sub-category of nouns which participate, together with a light verb, in complex predication structures. Complex predication is quite common in Iranic languages such as Persian (see for instance Samvelian 2012), and has been bor-rowed to some extent into some NENA dialects. On the other hand, I conflate into one category of adverbials all elements which head phrases of adverbial func-tion, be they prepositions, conjunctions or adverbs, following Cohen (2010).⁴⁷In the case of the analytic linker construction, where no explicit primary appears besides the pronominal linker, I shall treat this absence as a zero (∅) primary.

In the secondary position I observe two further categories: ordinal numerals (‘first’, ‘second’, etc.) and clauses. Thus, as possible primaries or secondaries I distinguish between the following categories:

1. Noun {Phrase}

2. Pronoun 3. CP Noun

4. Infinitive {Phrase}

5. Participle {Phrase}

6. Adjective {Phrase}

46This distinction permits us to distinguish between constructions which are morphological in nature and require a single-word host, from those which are syntactic. It should not be under-stood as implying that single-word constituents can not act as phrasal constituents.

47The rationale for this choice is that often one and the same element can take all three func-tions, depending on its complements, such as the English word ‘before’. In the example titles, however, I shall give more precise labels (Preposition, Conjunction, Adverb), unless I wish to emphasize the general adverbial nature of the element in question.

7. Ordinal 8. Clause 9. Adverbial 10. Zero (∅) 2.4.3 Synopsis

Table 2.4: Parameters of an AC structure, disregarding order variation

Primary (X) cst [± poss] lnk gen Secondary (Y) Noun

Pronoun CP Noun Infinitive Participle Adjective Adverbial Zero (∅)

Ap. [± poss]

-əd -ez

∅

+

∅ +

∅

Noun Pronoun CP Noun Infinitive Participle

Adjective [± agr]

Ordinal [± agr]

Adverbial [± rel] Clause

The different syntagmatic and paradigmatic possibilities for ACs in NENA, as analysed in the current work, are summarised in Table 2.4. Each column shows the variation available at each morphemic slot. To this one should add the two ordering possibilities: typically the primary precedes the secondary (X Y), but also the inverse order can be found.

The primary may be marked by construct state morphemes of various types:

apocope (=Ap.), the native suffix -əd, or Ezafe marking, or it may stay unmarked (∅). Following the apocopate construct state (or a variant thereof) one may find a possessive suffix, which functions as a pronominal secondary.

As for the secondary marking, there are two main markers: a pronominal linker and/or a genitive case. These may independently be present (+) or absent (∅). Adjectives and ordinals may show additionally agreement features (agr), while a relativizer may precede a clausal secondary.

3.1 Introduction

The point of departure of this study is Syriac, taken to be an approximation of the precursor(s) of the NENA dialects of the Classical Aramaic period. While it is sometimes assumed that all NENA dialects developed from a unique undocu-mented Proto-NENA dialect (cf. Hoberman 1988), such an assumption is uncer-tain at the current state of our knowledge. A plausible alternative assumption is that the dialectal continuum observed in NENA existed also in the Classical Ara-maic period (cf. Kim 2008: 512). Be that as it may, only a few Eastern dialects of that period left traces as literary languages. Arguably, among these Syriac is the best documented. Thus, in the absence of contrary evidence, I assume that any constructions extant in Syriac existed as well in the pre-NENA dialects. This as-sumption is supported by the fact that the constructions surveyed in this chapter are by and large extant also in two other documented Eastern Classical Aramaic languages, namely Jewish Babylonian Aramaic and Classical Mandaic. Where relevant, some comparative notes regarding these two languages are given as well.

The research into ACs in Syriac, often termed “genitive” in the literature, is of course old and vast, and in the following I cannot expect to innovate much.

Rather, the aim of the current section is to position the data about the Syriac attributive system in the framework described in §2.4, to facilitate comparison with the NENA dialects and contact languages.

My point of departure is the seminal article of Goldenberg (1995), “Attribution in Semitic Languages”, in which he masterfully analyses the basic constructions available in Syriac. A further extension of these ideas is given in Goldenberg (2013a: Ch. 14), particularly in pp. 236ff. regarding Syriac.

The data in this survey are drawn from two types of sources: On the one hand, I have consulted Syriac grammars, notably the classical grammars of Nöldeke (1898), Duval (1881) and the pedagogical grammars of Muraoka (1997; 2013). On the other hand, I have drawn extensively on textual studies of various Syriac texts of the Peshiṭta – The book of 1 Kings (Williams 2001), The Gospel of Matthew

(Joosten 1996), Sirach (The Wisdom of Ben-Sira) (Van Peursen 2007) and The Prayer of Manasseh (Gutman & Van Peursen 2011) – as well as The Book of the Laws of the Countries of Bardaisan (Bakker 2011). In all cited examples I have indicated both the primary source (if given) and the secondary source in which I have found the example. Whenever possible, I have tried to verify the correctness of the example in the primary source.¹To round off the picture, I have also gathered numerous examples directly from the first part of the Acts of Thomas published by Wright (1871: ܒ –ܕ )², as well as some examples from the Syriac dictionary of Payne Smith (1903).³Some further examples were taken from specialized articles cited below.

The chapter is organised as follows: The next section gives a brief reminder regarding the three morphological states present in Syriac. Section §3.3 discusses the use of possessive pronominal suffixes, while the three subsequent sections deal with the three main attributive constructions of Syriac, namely the construct state construction (§3.4), the analytic linker construction (§3.5), and the double annexation construction (§3.6). Section §3.7 deals with the marginal dative linker construction, while §3.8 presents the juxtaposition-cum-agreement construction used by adjectival secondaries. Section §3.9 concludes this chapter with some general remarks.