http://www.jstor.org

Arabic Dialect History and Historical Linguistic MythologyAuthor(s): Jonathan OwensSource:

Journal of the American Oriental Society,

Vol. 123, No. 4, (Oct. - Dec., 2003), pp. 715-740Published by: American Oriental SocietyStable URL:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3589965

Accessed: 10/04/2008 21:45

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aos.Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We enable thescholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform thatpromotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Arabic DialectHistoryandHistoricalLinguistic Mythology

JONATHANOWENSBAYREUTHUNIVERSITYINTRODUCTION

StudiesofspokenArabichave beendominatedbydescriptionsof individualdialects,dialectatlasesandcorpus-basedociolinguisticstudies. There have beenfewattemptsoapply prin-ciplesof historicallinguistics systematicallyto thisrelativelyrich data base.1EarlierstudiessuchasCowan(1960)orKaye(1972)stand out astheexception.2Since these two studiesappearedgreatdealofprogresshasbeenmadein Arabicdialectology(e.g.,Behnstedt1985,1997,Behnstedt andWoidich1985,manystudiesof individualdialects).However,the de-scriptiveadvances remainbasicallyunintegratednto alarger studyofArabiclinguistics.3Therearetwoprominentpitfallsinrelatingdialects to thehistoryof the Arabiclanguage.First,toreturnoKaye'sstudycitedabove,reconstructionsbased on dialectal forms even-tuallyhavetobe meldedinto the totalobject,Arabic,and for this theircompatibilitywith theoldest citations of Arabicneed tobechecked.Withregardo'jiim',alreadynthe lateeighthcenturyvariouspronunciationsareattestedin thephoneticdescriptionofArabic(SibawaihII:452).Sibawaihgivestwo"acceptable"variantsof'jiim'and two variants that are notgood(laatustahsanu)eitherinkoranic recitationorinpoetry.4Anydiscussion ofasingleproto-formhasto considerthis situation.Itmaybeasked,forinstance,whetherKaye's pro-posedchangeof*3>d3inAleppoArabic(1972:54),doesn'tin fact reflecttheuse of avariantalready existingbefore Arabicspeakersarrived nAleppo.Ingeneraltheproblemof Arabic reconstructionmustalwaysconfront thequestionof whether dialect forms ofthediasporaareduetopost-diasporannovation,orare reflectiveofpre-existingdiversityontheArabianpeninsula.A secondprobleminmanydialect studiesrevolvesaroundinguistic

Iwould liketo thankAlanKayeandIgnacioFerrandoor valuablecommentson anearlierversion of thispaper,as well as the detailed andvaluable criticismsofananonymousreviewer.1.Itis,onthe otherhand,quite typicalto findinadescriptionofaparticulardialectanhistoricalexplanationforwhat is deemed an oddhistoricaldevelopment, presumablyoddin relationtoClassicalorStandardArabic.2. Cowan(1960),Ibelieve,issubjectto the same criticismthatIdevelopin thispaper, namelythatheattemptsto createanall-encompassingobject,proto-Arabic,withoutgivingdueconcernto theproblemof firstadequatelyjustifyingindividualreconstructedlements.Kaye's approach estrictingeconstructionofew(inhiscase,asingle)features,ssounderin thisrespect,and isfollowedhere asageneralorientation.3.Whytherehavebeenso fewhistoricallyoriented studiesis aninterestingquestioninthehistoryof Westernorientalstudies,a vasttopicnot to begoneintohere.To list but afewfactors: hesimple assumptionhat Arabicdia-lectsderive from or even areacorruptionofClassicalArabic,the refusal toaccord thesociolinguisticallylesspres-tigiousvarietythedignityofsystematichistoricalinvestigation,adecreaseof interest n historicallinguisticsinthewake of therisefirstoftheoretical,and morerecentlyofcognitivelinguistics.Furthermore,withnotableexceptions,Semiticstudies,ofwhich Arabicstraditionallyapart,have notengagedin serious theoreticalinguisticreflection.Brockelmann1908:4-5)setsthetone,sayingthatthereconstructionof a SemiticUrsprachesachimera,recon-structed ormsbeingmereformulasreflectingourtemporary ummaryof thevariouslanguages.In oneparagraphBrockelmannsteersclear ofanytheoreticalorconceptualdifficulties entailedin the historicalstudyoflanguages.4.The details are notessential here. Sibawaih's "standard"jiim'appearsto be either ad3or aj.Kaye'sre-constructed*3isapparentlyncludedamongthe forms notappropriateor Koranrecitation,if itcanbeidentifiedwith Sibawaihi's'jiim'which is likea'shiin'.Sibawaihi's socio-aestheticjudgments,ofcourse,are nottobecon-fused withaprotoform.JournaloftheAmerican OrientalSociety123.4(2003)715

JournaloftheAmerican OrientalSociety123.4(2003)featuresthatareattributedaspecifichistoricalorigin.Closerinspectionof thesefeatures,however,shows that historicalattributionsare often madeonthe basis ofcontemporarydi-alectaldistributionsratherhan onsystematichistoricalreconstruction.InthispaperI will concentrateexclusivelyon thissecondproblem,andthereforehavechosena feature whichindubitablyis ofpost-diasporaprovenance.I examine thewell-knownfirstpersonimperfect(1SG)verbaffix,n-,n-.. .-u,commonlyidentifiedas ofNorth African(maghrebin)origin,andattemptaplausiblehistoricallinguisticaccount ofitsplaceand,morespeculatively,dateoforigin.

1.BACKGROUND SUMMARY

Inthis first sectionIpresentthe basicproblemand thetools with which itcan be tackled.1.1BasicLinguisticProblemIn Arabic firstpersonsingularandplural mperfectverbsfallintoone of threeparadigms.Iwrite we write

(1)b-a-ktob,m-n-aktob(2)a-ktib,n-ikitb-u(3)n-iktib,n-ikitb-u

In(1)1SGisrepresentedbya vowel(aora),1PLbyn-. Itis foundineasternArabicdialects,thepresent examplefromDamasceneArabic,most ofEgypt,the SudanandNigeria,andinClassicalArabic as well.In(3)1SGisrepresentedbyn-,1PLbyn-... -u.Alternatively,onecouldsaythatn-hasbecomea markerof firstperson,-u ofplural.Thisvariants foundthroughoutNorth Africa fromMoroccotoAlexandria,aswell asinChadand,accordingtoHillelson(1925),in Darfur andsomepartsof Korodofann the Sudan. There are norecentstudiesgivingaprecisedemarcation,and it can benotedthat in theSudanformslike(1)haveover thepast150yearstendedtomigrateeast sothattheyhavealso become apartoftheurbansociolectologyin Khartoumandother Nile cities.Atthewesternedgeof the west-ern Sudanic dialectregion(see4.1for thisterminology)theboundarybetween(1)and(3)lies,accordingtoOwens(1998:114),in the smallnortherly stripofnorthernCameroonwhereArabicis thedominantlanguage.NigerianArabic isbasicallycharacterizedby(1),Chadianby(3).Inthispaper,(3)will thusbe termed"ChadianArabic"when referenceismade to the dialects ofthe western Sudanicregion.(3)isfurthermore haracteristicofsomeEgyptiandialects.It isfound inthenorthwesternDeltaarea,the so-calledbiheera(alsobu-hayra),and itisfoundin the areasouth ofAsyut,upto Aswan.At thenorthernand south-ernendofthis latterregionit isinterspersedwithvillagesandcitiesusing(2) (BehnstedtandWoidich 1985:210-12). (2),a combinationofmorphemesmidwaybetween(1)and(3)is ofmore limitedgeographicaldistribution,beingrestrictedtoEgypt.5It isfoundinthe westdeltaarea,formingabufferzonebetween(1)and(3),andnUpper Egyptoccursinterspersedwith(1) (seeMap1).I will comeback to these forms in section7below,inthe meantimeconcentratingon themorewidespread(1)and(3).(3),n-... -u isfrequentlyreferredtoas "NorthAfrican"(seesection 7below for refer-ences).As a shorthanderm this isunobjectionable.It isunwieldytoqualifyitas "North

5.Strictly speaking,thereisoneverysmallgroupoutside ofEgyptwhere(2)isthe dominantpattern.As re-portedn Owens(1998:284),ahouseholdof seventeenindividualsnMaiduguriessentiallyhas(2).Theinterestingaspectis that this isafamilythat came toMaiduguriromNdjamenan Chad.While inthe literatureonly(3)is re-portedforNdjamena,t cannotberuled outthatapatternike(2)is alsofound there.

716