You are on page 1of 19

THE ORIGINS OF KURDISH By D. N.

MACKENZIE

IN a paper presented at the 20th International Congress of Orientalists, in Brussels, 1938, Professor V. Minorsky
reviewed all the available historical evidence, and some linguistic, relevant to the origins of the Kurdish people. The subject is germane to the present study, for if the origins of the Kurds were known with any certainty the history of their language might be easier to follow. It may be as well first to dispose of some of the more farfetched theories in this connexion, for despite Professor Minorsky‘s paper many of them live on. A number were listed by the late Basile Nikitine in the f i s t chapter of his comprehensive study on the Kurds.2 Xenophon’s KapSoCxoc have always been the favourite choice of those seeking the progenitors of the Kurds,S but we find attempts to link them with the Xalde of Urartu, the Sagu&, or Zikirtu, and even the Guti peoples, always on the strength of ‘ m e consonance plus ou moins Bvidente avec le nom actuel de ce peuple ’. Xaldi, happily, has been removed from the field, as it is known to be the name of a god and not a nation.4 The other connexions all seem to suffer from inherent impossibility. In fact the only evident references to the Kurds in the classical authors before our era would seem to be those of or Cyrtii? respecPolybius, Livy, and Strabo to the K~PTLOL, tively. The two historians mention them only as contingents of slingers in the armies of Media and Asia Minor, while Strabo, more explicitly, names them as wild mountaineers
‘Lee origines des Kurdes,’ Actee du XX* Congrh Internoltiond dee Orientaliatee, Louvain, 1940, 143. h . 8 Kurdee, dtude eociobgique et histopique, Parirr, 1956, 2-16. * See, for example, G. R. Driver, ‘ The Name Kurd and its Philological connexione,’ JRAS, 1923, 393, and most recently I. M. Oranskij, Vvedenie w iramkuju jblogiju, Moscow, 1960, 316. See A. Goetze, Kkinasien, Munich, 1957, 191, n. 6. See Driver, ‘ The Name Kurd,’ 397.

for almost Bibliotheco geographorum. but also in Persia. My &st task then should be to define Kurdish (Kd.find that the name Kurd has taken on a new meaning. Among Iranian peoples this includes the Lurs and the various Goran tribes. J. N. 4. with the growth of Kurdish nationalism. With this solitary exception. by establishing the features which distinguish it from other Ir(anian) dialects. group of the Japhetic branch of languages. the date of the conquest of Nineveh by the Medes. and finding the imperial Medes so to speak unemployed. Marr once hoped to see in the modern Kurdish vocabulary survivals of a ‘ primitive Kurdish ’ which would be of the Kart‘. all the positive evidence points to the Kurds being a Median people-a view which Professor Minorsky strongly endorses. they make no bones about casting them in the r81e.). like the Kurds ’. Meanwhile we are a t liberty to consider Kurdish as a normal Iranian language. if nothing more pejorative. obtained by adding to our date the figure 612. Tome VII. 128.I Today. or Georgian. Even here the field is by no means clear. Professor Minorsky quotes. who described the Lombards as ‘ living in the deserts in tents. MACKENZIE-THE ORIGINS OF KURDISH 69 living in Media and Armenia. If we take a leap forward to the Arab conquest we . Arabimum. Unfortunately I have to admit a t the outset that my findings are largely negative. The modern Kurds’ approach to history is also refreshingly simple. it is now fashionable among them to use a so-called Median era. a . Quoted by Nikitine. Indeed. Feeling a need for heroic ancestors. I n the face of this blend of little fact and much fiction the linguistic evidence gains in importance. for example.D. becoming practically synonymous with ‘nomad’.2 All that need be said of such a theory is that it still awaits the ‘ faits reels ’ to corroborate it that time was to bring to light. for the celebrated Professor N. the ninth century geographer Ibn Rusta. the name is used to embrace almost all the peoples and tribes living between the Turks and Arabs on the west and the Persians proper on the east. Kurdes.

XV. Munioh.for the loss of the first consonant of these groups is quite common. Bawa ' candle ' Jam' In Bal(ochi) it is restricted to the Northern dialect.s But there can be no question of it being an inherited common feature of a11 these dialects. Kd. e. e. The most obvious feature is the development of postvocalic -m. and Vaf(si) it is found in an appreciable number of recent loanwords from Arabic. then in some dialects to -w. Examples from W. x6m nyciw6 : nya'rnii ' between ' TniYiM nawa : n u d 'prayer' Iza~-Z Where Kd.1 miv/w ' name ' < Av(estan) ruZmanhiminuhiv/wZn ' summer ' < dc(v) ' tail' < dumakav/wa'n ' bow ' : Pers(ian) hrniin There are a few examples of this development already in Manichaean Parthian. nasalization is often recorded in the preceding vowel. 1890.g. Pers. e m M. Mughaddam. In Kd. Etymdqie den Bd@. dialect.' hrin K&hz 11.g. 208. Bal. as was shown by Paul Tedesco in his article ' Dialektologie der Urestiranischen Turfantexte '. and to intervocalic -m-. QiiyiBh6-yi Vafs va h t i y i n va TafriB. haw% ' dough ' Ar. Mode Orientale. and regularly in Vafsi.z A similar development also occurs sporadically in Balochi and Luri.g. examples are from pereonal notes. according to the dialect. a . Incidentally this serves to point the lateness of the chenge of -m to -v/w. All Kd. N. in the first place to -v. Vaf. hav/w%. has its counterpart in at least one other Ir.70 TRANSACTIONS OW THE PEILOLOGICAL SOCIETY 1081 every feature of Kd. mm% fivcit ' assembly ' farnii'at taW6W ' complete ' tam-m (Jam). or -w.Geiger. and -xm to -v. Bal. * A dialect from eaat of Hamadan. Moreover. e. does seem unique is in the development of the groups -3. the furthest developed of all. Teheran. 1949. luimag ' raw '. Kd. hiwag : S.

Kd.' bdm. *kh-. Copenhagen 1930.g. Av. kar. Berlin. is dashed by the verb ' to buy '. Gorani.. One feature distinguishing Kd. Sow. Pers. Skt.. from personal notes of the HawrBmi dialect (of Hawrim&n-iLuhBn). e. Av. The older form lived on. See my ' Bljalfmi '. Other examples. feature is the occurrence of initial k. kar ' donkey ' : Pers. IIFL. Kd. Christensen. are from 0.corresponding to common Ir. whereas in other West Ir. XVIII. khan-. is in Bal. x6nia. bearbeitet von Karl Hadunk. xuridan. tdv/w. ZIFL. dialects have E. however.' go '. xurakanin ' to laugh ' : mndidan. . Parachi khiir ' donkey ' kandag. What appears at first sight to be a uniquely Kd.. in East Ir. Ormuri &mi. for which Kd. *xri-. m n It is true that similar forms occur in the east. 37 .' laugh ' but in these dialects they are paralleled by a similar develop8-.in all the Kd.. 390. * G . But any hope that Kd. examples is developed from a common Ir. xur. 4 3 6 . Mann's material. i%m. kifin. N. It is safe to say that all Kd.. &Sm 'eye'. x-. tuxm ' seed '. I. 1930. h m . and IE *qurei. Kd. . 288. B8OA8. ' . sign in Kd. whenever possible. has somehow preserved a 'pre-Iranian' initial aspirate stop. Bal. Morgenstierne.D. Siim. Pers. This shows that the initial k. Gilaki clum. krG. f-. fricative. I. 467. from all its near neighbours is the preservation of an archaic form of the root Eyu. which is consistently the most archaic. of which there is no ment of the other initial fricatives. Wakhi hxind. MACKENElE-THE ORIGINS OF KURDISH 71 Pers. is in Bal. Sanskrit kh-. A.l Vaf. d m n d kZni ' spring' : Vaf. as the following forms testify : Gor(ani) examples are taken. &f.g. Gor. Pers. Ir. Kd. Contributiona d l a dialectologie iranienne. Mundarten der Gdrdn. iuxm ' first ploughing '. Sdv. is in Bal. e. 11. Vaf. Pashto tdma ' yeast '.6 S.in the stems formed from this root. ultimately derived from Ir. where the dialect is specified. dialects it had early developed into i-. Gar. has &v/w.

by Iranists. however. there is one major difference that suffices to distinguish Bal.. as Kurdish ’. language. In short. 1 1 . would seem to entail comparing it with a t least each West Ir. and the treatment of -Bm and -xm. 619. This last distinction is made in order to reca.l Wakhi @w-. Ir. from all other W. AO. Gv/w : Gor. listing the common and divergent features. therefore. Lorimer.S. with regard to intervocalic conaonants.~ Parachi 6h-. . Compare : -p. Phomlagy of the Bakhtkri Dialect.it is necessary to consider for comparison only its immediate neighbours.. 4 ibid. compared with the varying degrees of development elsewhere. EYP.s Ormuri caw-: Ossetic cam-. . apart from this 6-. * .6 4- Morgenetierne. a IIFL. languages. . listed by Tedesco. This consists in the almost complete conservatism of Bal. 288. although today spoken mainly in the extreme south-east of the Iranian area. For practical purposes.102-6. 391. 1922. including the Bakhtiari. past and present. 244. To isolate Kurdish convincingly. I can h d no feature which is both common to all the dialects of Kurdish and unmatched outside them. R. in which he has shown conclusively that Balochi.11 Tedesco’s article. dialect.. was originally a North-West Ir. including Kd. I. Btlkht(iari) examplee are taken from D. London. Beside the many features that they have in common. and a close neighbour of Kd. ‘ Ditllektologie. taking Kurdish as ‘ that which is generally recognized. Bal..72 TRANSACTIONS O F THE PHILOLOQICAL SOCIETY 1961 Pashto j-. IIFL. 6wi ‘ water ’ -t&tcc : & : dT ‘ seen ’ -6r2 : i6Z : i% ‘day’ -kzam% ‘ crops’ : zav/wi ‘ field ’ -aWczd : xw% ‘ salt ’ &if : airz ‘ long ’ -9rtigan : ++in : +%an ‘ fat’ The linguistic neighbours of Kurdish in the south at the present day are the Luri dialects.’ 262-3. I. 77 . Gp : Kd.

d corresponding to common Ir. / Z g ‘ bowstring ’ The last neighbours of Kd.. z. They are distinguished from Kd. e. fau. to be considered are the closest. One can quote the Pers..g. Bal. X W ~ Z . while it is preserved in Gor. zun. Gnin. fan ‘ woman ’ Pers.. aiv/wci. and the rest oppose s or z . Gs(i)k ‘ deer ’ Pers. zd. mcisi. Where Gorani shows Northern characteristics Kurdish often agrees with the Persian dialects. &nistan. Kd. 6 ‘ barley ’ < Av. Bakht.: Kd. dialects by a number of phonological developments well known to be specifically Persian.to f. Bakht. e.. zih : Kd. aiiM. has 6. ‘ Dialektologie..Ir. preserved in Bal. and Bal. yawa : Pers. 6hun Pers. 6in ‘ to live ’ Pers. awG Gor. diinistan Bal. z from older f . Gha. words may be borrowed from Pers.. f6r ‘ time ’ which can only be compared with Middle Persian f6r. Parthian y6war. to which Kd.1). Gnq Pers.. ‘fish’ Gor. for the Gorani dialects in question are now reduced t o a few speech islands in a sea of Kurdish. Chi : Kd.W. 2 2 . WGZand finally Pers. zw&. .g. farg ‘liver’ < @hrBoth these Kd.zZna : Kd..g. zawi Then there is Persian h. Kd. but this can hardly be true of Kd..in Pers.. Bal. Bakht.’ 183. Bakht.. and the other N. Pers.. e. Bal. Bal. Bal. N. : Kd. arising from older 8 (or s) and 6. m-s[GwS ‘ want ’ Pers. &in ‘ iron ’ Pers. : Kd. ‘ to know ’ Bakht.istan : Kd.. One such case is the development of initial y. tin. z. &mid. M h i : Kd. Gor. Pers. In fact ‘ neighbour ’ is not perhaps the best word. Bakht. yawaGor. ‘ bridegroom ’ Bakht.l Tedeaco. / yahar : !Gar. e. WCK’ENZIE-THE ORIQINS OF KURDISH 73 These are saciently like modern Persian for the two to be considered together. . : Kd. while Kd.g.

x%n-. Gor..2 although he was mainly concerned with the ‘ Nordwest-Dialekt ’ of the Turfan texts.3 It is now possible to amend Tedesco’s findings in a few details.to f This partial agreement with both camps gives some idea of the original position of the Kd. It has already been touched upon by Tedesco. ‘Peraica 11. seems to be marked off from Median.respectively (and here again Kd. the development of hw. wg-. and those with a stem from the root kar. wat. etc. and Pers. does not accord with one peculiarity which may be ascribable to Median.: Pers. Bal. ‘ viz. 73. . (2) that between dialects with forms of the past participle f come ’ derived from *&gab.‘ self ’ < Av. but the left-hand side represents the situation fairly. and this table I have converted into a diagram. i. Bal. the criteria for his grouping of the dialects. e.g. as far as the labels ‘ Caspian ’ and ‘ Central ’ are concerned.’ 252-4.. He made a table of his ‘ Hauptbeispiele ’. war: Pers. dialects. xV&- It is worth noting. kun-.74 TRANSACTIONS OF THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY 1961 In the development of original initial hw.to w. the outcome i xw-. xwZn.‘ read ’ < dhwan Gor. ibid. bur-. if we can judge from the name of the Median E. x%d.’ B8L.e.. in my opinion. which he showed to be a uniform but composite dialect. with Kurdish holding a position between protoBalochi and Persian. x6. but the subject needs to be pursued further. Manichaean Parthian. dialects-or rather of their supposed common ancestor-in relation to other W.Ir. Benvenista.Gorani agrees with Bal. in passing. The isoglosses concerned are : (1) that between dialects preserving a nasal present stem of the verb ‘ to do ’. ‘ Didektologie. x6. It is certainly over-simplified on the right-hand side.and *&gmab.. a 8 31. but his main conclusions still stand. while in both Kd.. that in this case Kd. 246. Kd. Kd. Kd. Bal.: Pers. .. w6n.‘ eat ’ < dhwar Gor.

respectively from original initial dw-. not found in Kd.respectively representing older initial y-. . even consideringonly these few isogloases. 'EKBchauu.) . the word for ' milk '. Any other arrangement of the dialects in question. from those without. represents only one possibility. and finally a double ieogloss lmfe (4) between dialects having d. and Old Persian Ra(fi)gmatha-. v i z . derived from the old relative pronoun.or b. The Greek forms 'AyPdTava. would Iead to a much more complicated picture. are generally taken to contain the same -gmtu-form. I- The diagram. and h a no geographical meaning. R. (3) that dividing dialects with an Izafe construction. naturally. and also or y. MACKENZIE-THE OHlffINB OF KUBDISH 76 capital. either 3% or hfl. however.D . These sound changes are supported by at least one item of vocabulary.

' Dialektologie. Andrem.. as its nearest traceable relative is found only in the Bashkardi dialect of Makran. must be a comparatively late developmentas it is lacking in precisely those Southern Kd. WE& :Bal. was the numeral ' 3 '. Kd.Ir. Contributions I I . e.' sift ' N.. 1964. *~5i- Pers. b&. Barr. Tcit-niJfnh4i-yi bulzik-i Zahr6. wirin : Bal. Thus the development of initial w . dialects w . or -xGwus. Copenhagen. The Kd. and Persian./C.76 TRANSACTIONS OF T H E PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY 1061 Of the other features considered by Tedesco few help to determine the relative positions of Kd. S. 144. appears to share the development of Old Ir.. bczd N.. S. as was kindly pointed out to 1 Iranieche Dklektaufxeichnungen. while in Bal. near TLkiatLn (v. wir :Bal. Professor K.' Bashkardi pd-xwaves. and in Zahrai one finds pG-xGrow8 and -xZrapd. Kd./C. in contrast. TPS. Kd. bir :Gor. to Gorani influence on the Southern dialects. &rdn Zahr. But to this one can add a word most unlikely to be borrowed.:Gor. 1958.Kd.. ' .l I think rightly.. Kd. * Christeneen. 179-97. Gor.~ justifiable caution. ' barefoot.g. Teheran. it has developed into g(w)-. 9% ' memory ' (Pers. bstS. dialects nearest to the Persian.' 199. 169). The only example Tedesco q ~ o t e dwith . Kd. dialects have in common with Pers. word is p&xwds. 1939. The Zahr(ai) dialects of two centres. Bakht. C.. Kd. has phwirwci.2 Zahrai3 vd : Gor.. vGrai N. gwcirii ' rain ' Pers.to b-. Bakht. * ZahrL in a district south of Qarvin. In most other W. All these forms can be traced back. 1. Berlin. g Z . vdrfin Semn. attributes this differencewithin Kd. S. N.Kd. O r to s with Persian. Henning. Kd.).is little modified in this position./C. Bermowa (IbrLhimLbLd) and Sezjowa (SageLbLd). Kd. azla dem NacMass von F. Bal.. h i :Gor. n./C. sb.are described by Jelal A1 Ahmed. gwEt ' wind ' Semnani. wci Again. which some Kd. : Bal.

(+@) (cf. pEkZy-. e. Gershevitch. dialects. strain ’. The outcome of the groups -rd. pusag ‘ son ’ < *puOra-ka-. also has s from Or.and -rz. yarB ‘ 3 ’ < *hrE < *Brayah-.to -1. N. The two verbs could. ‘ Dialektologie. Semn.is noteworthy. Gor.ao%ra> *xw6uga-> xw6s > *(x)wGu(h)ra> *wGwi7 > wirwG [in Gor.1 ) . wiG ‘ flower ’ < *war&Gor. There can be no doubt that the development of -rd. Henning.Kd. . xvVa’. I.’ 197.. wdwa-.g. from the rival root seen also in Gor. correspondingto Middle Pers.] (cf. 9.g.in the various non-Persian dialects is far from certain. biFw6 < &w’r ‘ belief ’) [in Zahr.2 N. ibid. 6s ‘ fire ’ < *GOTIn short. of course. Kd. Gor.took place in many of these dialects. 50s. which also gives Pers.. ul. * Tedeaco. from Av.having one’s own footwear ’. words having been borrowed in every direction. 66y-parzEn ‘ tea-strainer ’. with the same velar t phoneme we find in the verb pdfiwtin. thus : [in Kd. with w preserved at the expense of y as in Parthian. ‘ Das Verbum dea Mittelpersischen der Turfanfrag mente.] Av.. uaZ(a). If we derive this from *para-&waya-.’ ZZZ.] > *x(w)iiu(h)ra> *x&u. to Av. has the verb @rzinin.and the metathesis in C. B. 209. hat in the C.l we seem to have a true Kd. x%. e. without passing through the inter1 W. MACKENZIE-THE ORIGINS OF KURDISH 77 me by Dr. who discovered the Bashkardi word. also has the preverb hur ‘up’. equivalent is hi1 in the N. and borrowed in Armenian parzel ‘ filter. purify ’.‘ sleep ’ < xvafsa-) But it must be remembered that Bal. form. with the same meaning ‘ to strain ’. (Kandulai) zil ‘ heart ’ < *z$But Gor.ao%ra. we can add another to the isoglosses numbered (4) in the diagram. The Kd.lr. @t&. co-exist in Kd.‘ to filter. Tedesco considered that this group also became -1in a number of dialects. Zahr. 208. but the preservation of -rz.

' rub ' : dmrz CKd.Kd. * b a r d . ?era. C. I do not think it is possible to be certain which is the true Kurdish development.Kd. there are only the problematic words bczkid ' height '. but only in b a h i .) t corresponding to older rz than sure cases of the preservation of this group. appears to have kept both rd and rz.. bil/iid a ' high ' : Av. but also barz'i ' saddle-bag '. it may be the cam in Kd. 41. Morgenstierne. NTS. ') See above. Although at first sight this seems most unlikely.Kd. p.if < d g r z Gorani has only barz in the meaning 'high'. but aleo rruizi ' back. mil ' neck ' and &€' rub as in Kd. For rd it rests on the single form zir&. but also (Kandulai) &ki ' above ' . but whether we consider the many words with l/i as native or loan-words their preponderance is significant. gul ' flower '. quoted as a poetic word for ' heart '. b d @ . and the verb ilq. representing Ir. for while it has z unchanged in such words as &&n. and Bal. ' Notea on Balochi Etymlogy. such as ail ' heart '. barazant' leave ' : dhrz hi%tin. &wii 1 it has a larger number of words with (N. from dhrz. V. barazharzin ' millet ' < *h(a)rzuna-.?&?/I?mil (only) ' neck ' : wazuw d / h . spine ' from *marz-.Pers. Pers. bar% ' high ' < Av. Bal. gila against Kd. &liS gili ' complaint ' : d g r z . For rz there is burz ' high '. 8 ?nd/t.Kd.) 1 or (C. sipit ' spleen ' : sparazanN. ' pillow ' : barazd-... but on very slim evidence. 73. The difference between Kd. iita ' to leave '. aleo haa baki ' stature '.Kd. Thus : Kd .78 TRANSACTIONS OF TEE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY 1961 mediate stage 4 .'filter'. beside the more obvious loanwords from Pers.. &lv arzan and possibly N. 1 ' . @JGy..* Otherwise. q6zin(dcc) ' complaint '.l n i t d figure ' and btda-barz ' tall ' ! a Infinitive miitin or lruiStin in aome dielecte.

$38Vaf. rGKd. .or the like. therefore. d-. I will restrict myself for the most part t o the N. 1 In the phrase az bun. harm&na ‘ work ’ (cf. shows the same reduction of -ma. this ceases to be possible. I have described else~here.farmEn ‘ order ’) In view of these leanings towards Persian it seems to me necessary at least to qualify Professor Minorsky’s statement that ‘ le kurde proprement dit . MACKINZIE-TEE ORIGINS OF KUILDISH 79 in this respect.Kd. therefore. For the moment. London Oriental Series.Ir.4 + .’ 193.to -n. ‘ Verburn. dialects of Kd. ban.< *fra-wad. The morphological differences between the various N. dawadk. and C. 4 Henning. however.W. Pers. dialects is still incomplete. N.as Man. and probably N. him%&. We have seen h n k ‘ to laugh ’ < + m d . Mid.Kd.‘ to sell ’ Kd. hint%-. ‘ servant ’ < bandah-.furG. suggests that proto-Kd. is in the preservation of initial fr-.: Gor.s and also his further contention that ‘ l’unit6 du kurde doit s’expliquer par sa base mhdique ’. while in many N. han(n)&r‘ to direct (the eyes) ’ < ham l/dar. the same deduction is poasible from a number of words originally containing the group -nd-.Kd..$rmZn :Gor.: Bal. e.Kd. G r ‘ to send ’. Pers. To leave Tedesco. ‘Origines dee Kurdes. 1961. 162.’ 146. ibid. When we turn to morphology. which I compare with Man.Kd. Kd. N. C.~ Our knowledge of the S. . ganzn ‘ to rot ’ < l/gannd. (ha)?uirdin. dialects in seeking the reasons for their divergences. wurad.appartient sans aucun doute au groupe Nord-Ouest des langues iraniennes ’. and C. KUrdi8h Dialect Studies I .D. A last agreement between Kd. * * * So far we have been mainly concerned with the phonology of Kurdish.2 Kurdish. was in closer contact with the Persian south. ‘ 1 (am your) servant ’. regarding it as an almost uniform whole. Pers. and Pers. and in Bal. but it is sufficient to show that they differ almost as much one from the other as they do from their northern kin.g. and can add C. dialects it has become hr. Mid.

finZw. ) + }‘ h and ‘ are found in both N. while it has preserved a full oblique case system for both nouns and pronouns.Kd. has been fairly resistant to innovation and has even tended to discard some native constructions. e. ava-ya yE min kir (How far the C. N. which coincide in w in the other dialects. and even an ejective 8. it has alniost completely given up the pronominal suffixes. In morphology. . In the other dialects it is the oblique case which has gone to the wall. m&k At the same time the N. the past tenses of transitive verbs preserve their passive sense in its simplest form in the north.Kd.g. In phonology it is only by virtue of preserving both phonemes v and w. f i v k : C. dialects have been more receptive of foreign phonemes. on the other hand. Compare. _t. e. dialects have departed from this will be seen below. az darmin kirim and the construction rarely goes beyond what is found in Old Pers. the pronominal suffixes assuming many of its functions. e.what I did ’ cf. min-im bidars ‘ Give me bread ’ Again. b&Gr. aw iim. fon ‘ abuse’ < dulimim ‘ to sleep ’ < ni d p a d nitistin : ntistin Jav : Jaw ‘ night ’ < xJapbut N.&war(i) : C. N. For example. none of which is met in the other dialects.g. N. t. and C. including the Semitic emphatics g.g.Kd. G n . N. g. ‘ I was physicked ’ N.l the (Armenian2 ) unaspirated stops p . when we may assume it to have inherited alternatives. & ? W E ‘ belief’ < w6war ‘ raisin ’ < *mudw’&N. WE iinE nin p6t : C.80 TUANSACTIONS OF THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY leal Of the two groups the Northern shows itself to be the more archaic in a number of ways. and C.i k i d ‘ That woman baked (made) bread ’ mini bida min . maw%. ima tya m a w krtam This (is). k.

Berlin.g. or were until recently. PHILO. . e. Copenhagen. dialects recorded. . spoken at the extreme north-west of the Kd. One such is the extension of the ‘ transitive past ’ construction whereby the verb takes a personal ending representing what in English would be the Indirect object. but they are closely related to Gorani . found in Haur. .g. C. and S.81 For the expression of a passive in the present tenses no secondary conjugation has been evolved*in the north. let alone of Gorani. For many other features of C. 1961. the only means of defining a noun is by using the demonstrative adjectives. & Gt-a kdtin ‘ He will be killed (lit. Less.g. the u8e of this suffix is restricted to the C. dream-my about seenart) ’ The same development is found in the Haurami dialect of Gorani that I have recorded.I). perhaps. kiti?baka-m d6-n. we have to look no farther than Gorani for an explanation. TEANS. bearbeitet von Karl Hadank. and also in Zaza.dreammy seen-is) ’ but xuw-im pEwa diw-it ‘ I have seen a dream about thee (lit. Instead a simple periphrasis is employed. e. e. . xuw-im d‘iw-a ‘ I have seen a dream (lit. revus et p u b l i b . N. Mann’s Mundurten der Z M . MACKINZIE-THE ORIQINS OP KURDISH . Bee 0. . the book-my given-art to) ’ but as no examples are to be found in Benedictsen’s Hauranii material1 this cannot be taken as a feature common to all dialects of Haurami. par Arthur Chriatenaen.. as it has in other Kd. and the other major Gor. Some of them are of comparatively recent date. First there is the defining suffix -ak6. hta reeueillie par .2 I n Kd. come to killing) ’ Turning to C. -d. dialects.Kd. we find a number of morphological innovations. N. pana ‘ I have given the book to thee (lit. 1932. . Haur. H . as it is common to a large number La dialectes d’dwromcin et de Piwa.Kd. area. dialects. 1921. is to be learnt from the other defining suffix.Kd. The dialects of this group are. B. however. In N. .

are replaced by M. and the so-called ‘ Central (Ir. and S. in the Haw. dialects which preserve a distinction of gender.a. btib-E min ‘ my father ’ di-8 min/&yk-i min ‘ my mother ’ that person who comes first ’ aw kas-8 awwili bEt nw nzasalii kd az b6 htitim ‘ that matter (masala P.b. It is not. e. have an Izafe construction in common with Persian.Kd. $8 179. but its complete absence from N. unlikely that the reduction of the C.F. Kd. . 183. two forms of Izafe distinguished. -i. but this would have to be literary rather than * In the diagram. In Gorani we again find. dialects have an Izafe which is still recognizable and still used as a relative pronoun and. F.Ir. but there the similarity ends. p. the Izafe agrees in gender with its antecedent. I think. Izafe to the single form -5 is a result of the clash between the two systems. dialects. which are identical with the corresponding oblique case morphemes.82 TRANSACTIONS OW THE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY 1961 of W. N.6. 4. -C. as with all pronouns in these dialects. not by a difference of gender. -i. dialects have a simple and universal form of Izafe.) about which I have come ’ The first signs of decay in this system are seen in those C. kuf-Ew-i fw6n ‘ my son ’ kuf-8 min kinZGwa-y fw6na ‘ a young girl ’ a daughter of the Khan’ kiruiZwa-w xEn. 78 abom.Kd. both used for both genders.) dialects ’. of course.Kd.g. dialect. It is. We have already seen that Kd. -6. ‘ a young boy ’ Haur. is the more remarkable.2 Here the inherited forms of the Izafe. see K(urdi8k) D(bkct) S ( t d e s ) I . but of function. C. possible to think of Persian influence. Here there is what I call an epithetic Izafe -i and a genitive Izafe -4. including Gorani. 9 Partioularly Pizhderi and Mukri. The archaic N. M. from which they are probably borrowed. All the remaining Kd.

has 4.Kd. It may be inferred that the 1 9 KDS I . forms of the 1st and 2nd plural suffixes are preserved. N. is 237. and C. and there is no other sign of its having affected Kd. These suffixes play a similar and equally important part in the syntax of both Gor. dialects. e.D. viz. The main difference between them is one of form. -E) occurs in Balochi also and we may assume. -w6). but to a lesser extent than it does from N.Kd. from the traces left in the absolute prepositions common to N.. 5 197. All Gorani shares with C. the original Kd.Kd.Kd. For the other persons the forms are generally the same in both groups. differs from Gorani. -m-(n). has the same forms as Persian. 2nd -t. morphology. Av. kui-a fwZn-akd ' the handsome boy ' ' that handsome boy ' aw kui-a fwcin-ci ' the pretty girl ' kid-a fw6n-akd ' this pretty girl ' am ki6-a fwiin-4 There is no trace of this type of ' open compound ' in N.Krl.Kd. Av. ' the young boy ' Haur. which it shares with Zaza.302. This is a development in N. -k?(n). where pronominal suffixes as such have disappeared. This state of affairs must be compared with that obtaining in N.Kd. -in and -Q respectively (cf.Kd... and S. 4.g. ibid. kui-a fwck-akci d kui-a fw6n-ct ' that young boy ' k i d a fwcna-ke' ' the young girl (kin&%) ' T kin&a fwiine' ' this young girl ' Compare C. The mark of this construction is a compound vowel -a-.Kd. The Izafe is not the only means of connecting a noun with its epithet in these dialects. -tZ(n). -y&.a that it was once common to all Kurdish. MACKENZIE-THE OlLIQINS OF KEKDISH 83 colloquial. -nd. what I call an ' open compound ' construction. In the matter of personal pronoun suffixes C. See . The 3rd singular form -T (cf. In the more conservative C. For the 3rd person Gor.Kd. 1st -m. however. and C. which is employed whenever the noun phrase is definite.a. while Kd.

-6past. passive morphemes are -r& present.: X-re- + where X . The secondary passive conjugations of C.(< k. e. both N. minor example of Gor. Pers.present. Gor.ya-ih-): : X .Kd. and S. e. they are formed regularly with the morphemes -YE. preverb va (cf.represents any transitive present stem.past.g. A last. dialects. &frd-awa. thus : ’Transitive ‘ do ’ Passive ‘ be done ’ ka. and Zaza.Kd. The C. S8r8-wa ‘ hid ’ Gorani has not only the same suffix -awa in this function but two other ‘ postverb ’ suffixes. not matched in Kd. and the S.84 TRANSACTIONS OF TEE PHILOLOGICAL SOCIETY 1061 preservation of the pronominal s f i e s in C.Kd.) : kirE.Kd. 0 2xist wist-ara ‘ let down ’ and -am. forms. influence is to be seen in the replacement of the N. the strength of which is also shown by the partial assimilation of the Kd.Kd. C. vi) by a ‘ postverb ’ -awa in C. va kir : C. They are generally agreed to have been evolved on the analogy of the inherited forms of the verb ‘ to do ’. and C. N. is directly due to Gor. d4i n%t : Gor. This cannot be said of the C. In 8. for although it is identical in function it differs in form.passive’ is common to Gor. and Haurami have preserved a two-case system in the plural as well as the . conjugation. however.g. have already been mentioned. -ara.Kd. ?6 nidt . the impetus for its development would seem to have come from Gorani.Kd.Kd.Kd. If it is accepted that such a secondary conjugation was unknown to early Kd. form is probably a direct borrowing from Gorani. kard-awa ‘ opened ’ va girt : girt-awa ‘ caught ’ va d8rt . N. biz. kid-awa.Kd. influence. -y8. there is one feature of N. nidt-ara ‘ sat down ’ N. much as in classical Persian.. This type of ‘y. Whereas these have -8n as a general plural morpheme.( < h r . which is much closer to Haurami than to other Kd. To redress the balance a little..

ti kiEbi5 ' those books ' 6 lcitt?b& ZGra ' bring those b6oks ' Plainly the development in these two dialects has been parallel but independent.g. N.' postverb ' -awa.e.% dar hj&n ' the mice came out ' az & vst miikii dar Exim ' I shall drive these mice out ' Haurami has two plural morphemes. Mann. e.Kd. viz. i.Kd. for -En. and development of a common plural ending has been taken a step further by the substitution of the ' collective ' morpheme -gal. and two more cases where their difference from N. -the. the direct plural taking no ending.D. -the secondary paasive conjugation. Haur. appear to have borrowed directly from Gorani. in --the simplification of the Izafe system.Kd. -6(n) is specifically a plural oblique morpheme. 464.g. 311 and 322. . mi. can be attributed to Gorani influence.g. have undergone the same generalization of the plural morpheme -6n as C. dialects this comparatively recent In some S. even ignoring the more recent developments. and S.. there are four cases in which C. -6oblique. recorded by 0. Thus in N. -8 direct.Kd. a ibid. N. If we consider the present extent of C. and-the preservation of personal pronoun s d x e s . -the ' open compound ' replacing the Izafe. e.Kd. -the defining suffix -aM. and S. To summarize.Kd. UCKENZIE-THE ORIGINS OF IiUBDISE 86 singular. in comparison with the remaining islands of Gorani I think there is no avoiding the conclusion that these dialects of Kd. have 1 Mu&ten der W d n . Kandulai * dimkstn ram-y ' the thieves ran ' hrakstn-ii basytiwwa ' his donkeys were tied U P' Gahwarai B tdtiina kuEsin ' those dogs were killed ' Gor. or its derivatives. The other Gorani dialects.. e.

The former seems at least the more likely explanation. is quite undiluted. the occupation of the southern Zagros and the surrounding area by the Goran . if they may be so called. or traversed unscathed territory already occupied by Kurds. It is not difficult to translate these linguistic findings. .Ir. One important factor to be considered is the persistence as a relatively small and isolated unit of the Zaza people.86 TRANSACTIONS OF TEE PBILOLOQlCAL SOCIXTY 1961 overlaid a Gorani substratum. dialects have to a much greater extent preserved their purity. A glance at their present disposition suffices to show that both groups have undergone a considerable displacement. from the north. while the N. in contrast. Without more historical evidence it does not seem feasible to decide whether they were displaced further westward by an influx of . The north-western character of Qorani and Zaza.Kurds. who are known to have come originally from Dailam on the southern shore of the Caspian. but for a solution of this problem it is necessary to look outside the linguistic evidence. in more recent times.W. element in common Kurdish. secondly. therefore. a northward movement of the main body of the Kurds into Armenia. The difficulty arises in setting a date to these hypothetical movements. seems to entail. into geographical and historical terms. lastly. first. a secondary expansion of the Kurds. Earlier I was at some pains to stress the essentially S. A hypothesis in the broadest terms. which led to their overrunning and gradually absorbing all but the surviving Goran. perhaps expelling the Zaza .