Linguistic and Cultural Studies in Aramaic and Arabic

Linguistic and Cultural Studies in Aramaic and
Arabic
Gorgias Précis Portfolios
Gorgias Précis Portfolios gather the collected essays of established scholars into an easily accessible and
durable format. Also included in this series are collections of essays in conference or Festschrift format
from different scholars but united around a common theme.
Linguistic and Cultural Studies in Aramaic and
Arabic
Edward Y Odisho
9
34 2009
Gorgias Press LLC, 180 Centennial Ave., Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA
www.gorgiaspress.com
Copyright © 2009 by Gorgias Press LLC
All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may
be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC.
2009 ‫ܝ‬
9
ISBN 978-1-60724-586-5 ISSN 1935-3871
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Odisho, Edward Y.
Linguistic and cultural studies in Aramaic and Arabic / by Edward Odisho.
p. cm. -- (Gorgias précis portfolios ; 5)
Some text translated into modern Syriac or Arabic.
1. Syriac language, Modern--Phonology. 2. Syriac language,
Modern--Phonetics. 3. Syriac language, Modern--Social aspects. 4. Arabic
language--Phonology. 5. Arabic language--Phonetics. 6. Arabic
language--Social aspects. I. Title.
PJ5802.O33 2009
492'.315--dc22
2009036907
Printed in the United States of America

Linguistic & Cultural Studies
in Aramaic and Arabic
ΔϴϓΎϘΛϭ ΔϳϮϐϟ ΕΎγ΍έΩ
ΔϴΑήόϟ΍ ϭ Δϴϣ΍έϻ΍ ϲϓ
Edward Y. Odisho
This book is dedicated to the memory of the
distinguished Beth Nahrainian (Mesopotamian) Suryaya
physician, scholar and legendary translator,
unayn ibn IsƗq
809-873 A.D.
ϯήϛάϟ αήϜϣ ΏΎΘϜϟ΍ ΍άϫ

Ζϴμϟ΍ ϊ΋΍άϟ΍ ϲϧΎϳήδϟ΍ ϲϨϳΪϓ΍ήϟ΍ ϢΟήΘϤϟ΍ϭ Δϣϼόϟ΍ϭ ΐϴΒτϟ΍
ϖΤγ΍ ϦΑ ϦϴϨΣ
¾åÍïß ¾ÁÿÜ ¿~ ÍØ ¾Áûùâ
¿Ìãýâ ¾ÙæØÌåÿÙÁ ¾ÙØÍè~ ¾æãÄÿâ ÀûÙòè ¾Ùè~
úÐéØ~ ûÁ çÙåÍÏ
Table of Contents
List of Symbols ..................................................................................................... xi
Foreword ............................................................................................................ xvii
Acknowledgements .......................................................................................... xxiii
Chapter 1 The Ethnic, Linguistic and Cultural Identity of Modern

Assyrians .....................................................................................................1
1.1 Introductory Remarks ............................................................................1
1.2 A Spectrum of Views Relevant to the Connection ................................2
1.2.1 Political View .................................................................................. 2
1.2.2 Nationalistic View ........................................................................... 3
1.2.3 Academic View................................................................................ 3
1.3 The Assumptions ...................................................................................4
1.3.1 Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Conversions .............................. 4
1.3.2 Political System Collapse!!! ............................................................ 4
1.3.3 Proof Always Needed for a Judgement ........................................... 5
1.4 The Approach to the Solution ................................................................5
1.4.1 The Political Reshuffle. ................................................................... 5
1.4.2 The Linguistic Shift. ........................................................................ 6
1.4.2.1 Overlapping Geographic Borders ................................................. 6
1.4.2.2 Aramaic as a Lingua Franca ......................................................... 6
1.4.2.3 Dominance of Aramaic Alphabet ................................................. 7
1.4.2.4 Linguistic Similarity across Semitic Languages ........................... 7
1.4.2.5 Common Etymology ..................................................................... 7
1.4.3 The Religious and Cultural Conversions. ........................................ 7
1.5 Present Status of the Assyrians ..............................................................9
1.5.1 Ethnic Status. ................................................................................... 9
1.5.2 Linguistic Status ............................................................................ 10
1.5.3 Cultural Status................................................................................ 11
1.6 Conclusions ..........................................................................................11
1.7 Bibliography ........................................................................................12
Chapter 2 Bilingualism: A Salient and Dynamic Feature of Ancient

Civilizations ..............................................................................................15
2.1 Introductory Remarks ..........................................................................15
2.2 Political, Physical and Cultural Constituents of an Entity ...................16
2.2.1 Political .......................................................................................... 16
2.2.2 Physical .......................................................................................... 16
2.2.3 Cultural .......................................................................................... 17
2.3 Panorama of Shift and Survival of Languages in Mesopotamia..........18
2.3.1 Succession of Languages ............................................................... 18
2.3.2 Duration of Language Shift Cycle ................................................. 20
2.3.3 Periods of Bilingualism ................................................................. 21
2.3.4 Periods of Biliteracy ...................................................................... 22
2.4 Discussion ............................................................................................23
vi
2.4.1 Highlights of Discussion ................................................................ 23

2.4.1.1. Pivotal Aspect of Discussion ..................................................... 24
2.4.1.2 Most Pivotal Aspect of Discussion ............................................. 25
2.4.2 Contribution of Bilingualism to Understanding of Human
Civilization ................................................................................ 27
2.4.2.1 Evidence on Dynamic Nature of Human Civilizational
Interaction .................................................................................. 27
2.4.2.2 Aid in Deciphering Ancient Languages ...................................... 27
2.4.2.3 Evidence on Dynamic Nature of Human Languages as Live
Entities ....................................................................................... 28
2.4.2.4 A Constant Component of Civilization....................................... 29
2.4.2.5 A Significant Tool of Identity Building and Changing............... 29
2.5 Conclusions ..........................................................................................32
2.6 Bibliography ........................................................................................34
Chapter 3 ‘Bi-’ and ‘Multi-’ Situations in Writing Systems, Writing

Mediums and Writing Implements ........................................................37
3.2 Needed Terminology ...........................................................................38
3.3 Historical Sketch of Bi/Multilingualism and Bi/Multiliteracy ............39
3.4 Scope of Writing Mediums and Underlying Causes of Change ..........41
3.4.1 Volume and Size of Writing .......................................................... 41
3.4.2 Texture and Surface of Mediums ................................................... 41
3.5 Economics of Writing ..........................................................................42
3.6 Preservability of Written Texts ............................................................42
3.7 Salient Features of Bimedium and Multimedium Periods ...................43
3.8 Bi-implement and Multi-implement ....................................................45
3.9 Interaction between Writing Medium and Writing Implement ...........45
3.10 Conclusions ........................................................................................46
3.10.1 Concreteness to Abstraction ........................................................ 47
3.10.2 Less Economic to More Economic .............................................. 47
3.10.3 Non-Generative to Generative ..................................................... 48
3.11 Bibliography ......................................................................................49
Chapter 4 Arab/Muslim Scientific Heritage: A Mono or Multi-

Ethnic/Religious Enterprise? ..................................................................51
4.2 Discussion ............................................................................................52
4.2.1 The Beginning of Greek Heritage Translation............................... 52
4.2.2 Performers or Sponsors? ................................................................ 53
4.2.3 Adeptness in Foreign Languages ................................................... 54
4.2.4 How was the National/Ethnic Identity of Translator/Scholars
Determined? ............................................................................... 58
4.2.4.1 Arabization through Linguistic Conversion................................ 59
4.2.4.2 Disregard to Basic Parameters of National/Ethnic Identity ........ 60
4.2.4.3. Involuntary Assignment of National/Ethnic Identity ................. 61
4.3 Conclusions ..........................................................................................62
4.4 Bibliography ........................................................................................64
vii
Chapter 5 A Comparative Study of Petnames in English and Assyrian ........67

5.2 Results ..................................................................................................74
5.3 Discussion ............................................................................................76
5.4 Conclusions and Implications for Future Research .............................77
5.5 Bibliography ........................................................................................78
Chapter 6 The Role of Aspiration in the Transliteration of Loanwords in

Aramaic and Arabic ................................................................................79
6.2 Historical Background .........................................................................79
6.3 Salient Sound Differences between Greek and Aramaic/Arabic .........80
6.4 Aspiration/Non-Aspiration in Greek, Aramaic and Arabic .................81
6.5 Orthographic Evidence ........................................................................83
6.6. Discussion ...........................................................................................85
6.7 Conclusions ..........................................................................................87
6.8 Bibliography ........................................................................................89
Chapter 7 Recent Demographic Changes in Aramaic-Speaking

Population of Iraq: Return of some Phonological Features of
Classical Aramaic.....................................................................................93
7.2 Historical Background of Events .........................................................93
7.3 Demographic Reshuffling of Aramaic-Speaking Population ..............94
7.3.1 Koiné #1......................................................................................... 96
7.3.2 Ashiret............................................................................................ 97
7.3.3 Plain ............................................................................................... 98
7.3.4 Koiné #2......................................................................................... 98
7.4 Linguistic Implications of the Demographic Changes.........................98
7.4.1 Linguistic Make-up of 1961-1991 Aramaic-speaking Migrants.... 99
7.4.2 Dominance of Ashiret and Plain Population in Kurdish Area ....... 99
7.4.3 Founding of Syriac-based Educational System ............................. 99
7.5 Conclusions ........................................................................................101
7.6 Bibliography ......................................................................................101
Chapter 8 Aspiration, Spirantization and Approximation in Neo-

Aramaic: a more Refined Identification ..............................................103
8.1 Introductory Remarks ........................................................................103
8.2 Aspiration ...........................................................................................105
8.3 Spirantization and Approximation .....................................................108
8.4 Linguistic and Instructional Conclusions...........................................110
8.5 Bibliography ......................................................................................111
Chapter 9 The Destiny of Modern Syriac ........................................................113

9.1 Introductory Remarks ........................................................................113
9.2 Historical Background: Syriac the Descendant of Aramaic ..............113
9.3 Causes of Deterioration of Syriac ......................................................115
viii
9.3.1 Absence of a Political Entity........................................................ 115

9.3.2 Gradual Erosion and Shift in Ethnic and National Identity ......... 115
9.3.3 Loss of Population ....................................................................... 116
9.3.4 Domination of Arabic Language and Islamic Rule ..................... 117
9.3.5 Schisms within Christianity ......................................................... 119
9.4 Patterns of Deterioration ....................................................................119
9.4.1 Loss of Literacy Skills among Populace Prior to Oracy Skills .... 120
9.4.2 Faster Loss of Syriac in Urban vs. Rural Areas ........................... 121
9.4.3 Faster Loss of Syriac in Direct Contact with other Languages.... 121
9.5 Outcomes of Deterioration .................................................................121
9.6 Endangered Status of Syriac ..............................................................122
9.6.1 The Shrinking Domain of Syriac Circulation .............................. 123
9.6.2 Mass Immigration of Syriac Speakers ......................................... 123
9.6.3 Accelerated Syriac Language Loss in Countries of Diaspora...... 124
9.6.4 Absence of Guarantees for Human Rights of Ethnic Minorities . 125
9.7 What to Do? .......................................................................................126
9.8 A Model Project for Syriac Language Maintenance..........................127
9.8.1 Structural Nature of the Project and its Scale .............................. 127
9.8.2 Effectiveness of the Project for Language Revitalization ............ 129
9.8.3 Future Prospects of Project for Language Revitalization ............ 131
9.9 Conclusions ........................................................................................131
9.10 Bibliography ....................................................................................133
Chapter 10 Arabic and Spanish: Linguistic and Cultural Interactions .......137

10.1. Introductory Remarks .....................................................................137
10.2. Arabic and Spanish Contact ............................................................137
10.3. Why was the Article <˰ϟ΃= !CN> Borrowed? .................................140
10.3.1. Size of ‘al’-Prefixed Loanwords in Arabic ............................... 141
10.3.2. Qamari-Initiated Loanwords ..................................................... 143
10.3.3. Shamsi-Initiated Loanwords ..................................................... 144
10.4. What Justified the Borrowing?! ......................................................144
10.5 From Arabic to Spanish to English ..................................................149
10.6 Conclusions ......................................................................................150
10.7 Bibliography ....................................................................................150
Chapter 11 Empowering Arabic Orthography for better Transliteration

of Foreign Languages ............................................................................153
11.1 Introductory Remarks ......................................................................153
11.2 Comprehensive Look at English-Arabic Transliteration .................154
11.3 Some Aspects of Inconsistency .......................................................155
11.4 Some Aspects of Incompatibility .....................................................156
11.5 Basic Matching and Mismatching between English and
Arabic ...........................................................................................156
11.5.1 Consonant Matching .................................................................. 157
11.5.2 Vowel Matching ........................................................................ 157
11.6. Familiarity with Rules and Dynamics of Pronunciation .................159
11.7 Enhancing Consistency and Compatibility of Transliteration .........159
11.8 Practical Implications of SAO and AAO .........................................161
ix
11.9 Conclusions ......................................................................................163

11.10 Bibliography ..................................................................................164
Chapter 12 Word Inflation vs. Word Deflation: A Major Source of

Mispronunciation among Arab Learners of English..........................167
12.2 Focus of this Study...........................................................................168
12.3 English and Arabic Vowel Systems .................................................168
12.3.1 English Vowel System ............................................................... 169
12.3.2 Arabic Vowel System ................................................................ 169
12.4 How Native Arab Learners of English Create Word Inflation ........170
12.4.1 Driving Forces behind Word Deflation in English .................... 170
12.4.2 Driving Forces behind Word Inflation in Arabic ....................... 171
12.4.2.1 The Arabic Vowel System ...................................................... 172
12.4.2.2 Stress Assignment Rules in Arabic ......................................... 172
12.4.2.3 Nature of Arabic Orthography ................................................ 173
12.5 Better Transliteration for better Pronunciation ................................175
12.6 Conclusions ......................................................................................178
12.7 Bibliography ....................................................................................179
Chapter 13 Formation of Sound Plurals and Duals in Arabic: A

Phonetic/Phonological Approach .........................................................181
13.2 Discussion ........................................................................................183
13.3 Theoretical and Pedagogical Conclusions and Implications ...........191
13.4 Bibliography ....................................................................................192
Chapter 14 An Aerodynamic, Proprioceptive and Perceptual

Interpretation of SƯbawayhi’s Misplacement of /ρ/ and /ϕ/ with
Majhǌra Consonants .............................................................................195
14.1 Introduction Remarks.......................................................................195
14.2 What is Aspiration?..........................................................................197
14.3 Why the Terms ‘Majhǌra’ and ‘Mahmǌsa’? ...................................201
14.4 Conclusions ......................................................................................203
14.5 Bibliography ....................................................................................204
Chapter 15 The Sun or Moon Status of Arabic <Ν>: A Descriptive

Perspective ..............................................................................................207
15.2 Corpus and Testing ..........................................................................208
15.3 Results ..............................................................................................208
15.4 Discussion ........................................................................................209
15.5 Conclusions ......................................................................................212
15.6 Bibliography ....................................................................................216
Chapter 16 Arabic /q ϕ/: A Voiceless Unaspirated Uvular Plosive ...............217

x
16.2 Discussion ........................................................................................217

16.3 Conclusions ......................................................................................219
16.4 Bibliography ....................................................................................220
Appendix .............................................................................................................221
Chapter 1: Aramaic Version ....................................................................221
Chapter 2: Aramaic Version ....................................................................239
Chapter 14: Arabic Version .....................................................................275
Glossary ..............................................................................................................295
Index ..................................................................................................................303
List of Symbols
The conventions and symbols of International Phonetic Association (IPA)
and their acceptable substitutes have been used throughout the book. Standard
Arabic alphabet letters and diacritics are included. Wherever necessary, some
modified Arabic symbols or additional symbols used in languages whose
orthography is based on Arabic are also included. Also, Aramaic and Greek
alphabets are matched in a table to portray the historical similarity in letter names,
their sounds and their order. The following is a list of the symbols and
conventions:
Vowels Phonetic Description
K Close front with spread lips

+ Close front (somewhat centralized) to close-mid with spread lips
G Close-mid front with unrounded lips
' Open-mid front with unrounded lips
« Open-mid central with unrounded lips
C Open front with unrounded lips
m Near-open central vowel
3 Near-open front with unrounded lips
# Open back with unrounded lips
b Open back with rounded lips
Q Close-mid back with rounded lips
n Open-mid back with rounded lips
W Close back with rounded lips
7 Near-close near-back with rounded lips
¡ Open-mid back with unrounded lips
Mid central (neutral) vowel (schwa)
Consonants Phonetic Description
D Voiced bilabial plosive

R Voiceless unaspirated bilabial plosive
R* Voiceless aspirated bilabial plosive
F Voiced alveolar plosive
V Voiceless unaspirated alveolar plosive
V* Voiceless aspirated alveolar plosive
Ì Voiced palatal plosive
xii
E Voiceless unaspirated palatal plosive

E* Voiceless aspirated palatal plosive
I Voiced velar plosive
M Voiceless unaspirated velar plosive
M* Voiceless aspirated velar plosive
S Voiceless (unaspirated) uvular plosive
! Glottal stop
Voiced postalveolar affricate
Voiceless postalveolar affricate
X Voiced labiodental fricative
H Voiceless labiodental fricative
& Voiced interdental fricative
6 Voiceless interdental fricative
\ Voiced alveolar fricative
U Voiceless alveolar fricative
< Voiced postalveolar fricative
5 Voiceless postalveolar fricative
¯ Voiced uvular fricative
: Voiceless uvular fricative
Voiced pharyngeal fricative
Í Voiceless pharyngeal fricative
J Voiceless glottal fricative
8 Voiced labio-dental approximant
Voiced alveolar approximant
N Voiced alveolar lateral approximant
L Voiced palatal approximant
Y Voiced labio-velar approximant
O Voiced bilabial nasal (approximant)
P Voiced alveolar nasal (approximant)
0 Voiced velar nasal (approximant
4 Voiced dental/alveolar tap
T Voiced dental/alveolar trill
Diphthongs in RP English
CW as in <how, now>
CK as in <high, tie>
QK as in <boy, noise>
xiii
QW as in <go, know>
GK as in <bait, gate>
K as in <here, dear>
G as in <there, bear>
W as in <poor, tour>
Conventions
/ / Phonemic transcription
[] Phonetic transcription
Ö Vowel full length
Vowel half-length
_* Superscript indicating aspiration
_¥ Superscript indicating primary stress
–ҕ Subscript dot under /F,V,&, U/ indicates /ν, ρ , υ , ι / the
emphatic sounds of Arabic
C In syllable structure patterns, ‘C’ stands for a ‘Consonant’ and
V stands for a ‘Vowel’
Arabic Symbols:
Consonants IPA Phonetic Description
˯ [!] glottal stop

Ώ [D] voiced bilabial plosive
Ε [V] voiceless alveolar plosive
Ι [6] voiceless interdental fricative
Ν [] voiced postalveolar affricate
Ρ [Í] voiceless pharyngeal fricative
Υ [:] voiceless uvular fricative
Ω [d] voiced alveolar plosive
Ϋ [&] voiced interdental fricative
έ [T] alveolar trill
ί [\] voiced alveolar fricative
α [U] voiceless alveolar fricative
ε [5] voiceless postalveolar fricative
ι [Uҕ] voiceless alveolar emphatic fricative
ν [F]ҕ voiced alveolar emphatic plosive
ρ [Vҕ] voiceless (unaspirated) alveolar emphatic plosive
υ [&ҕ] voiced interdental emphatic fricative
xiv
ω [] voiced pharyngeal fricative

ύ [¯] voiced uvular fricative
ϑ [H] voiceless labio-dental fricative
ϕ [S] voiceless [unaspirated] uvular plosive
ϙ [M] voiceless velar plosive
ϝ [N] voiced alveolar lateral
ϡ [O] bilabial nasal
ϥ [P] alveolar nasal
˰ϫ [J] voiceless glottal fricative
ϭ [Y] central labio-velar approximant
ϱ [L] central palatal approximant
˰˰˷˰˰ Superscript on consonant indicating geminated (double) consonant.
Additional Farsi Symbols
̟ [p]
̧ []
̫ [<]
̱ [g]
‫׃‬ [v]
Vowels (Letters)
΍ [CÖ] long counterpart of [C]

ϱ [KÖ] long counterpart of [K]
ϭ [WÖ] long counterpart of [W]
Vowels (Diacritics)
˰˰˴˰˰ Superscript over consonant indicating short [C] vowel.

˰˰˶˰˰ Subscript over consonant indicating short [K] vowel.
˰˰˵˰˰ Superscript on consonant indicating absence of vowel.
˰˰˰˰˰˰ Haþek, superscript over <ϱ> and <ϭ> in Kurdish to transform [K, W]
vowels into [G, Q].
xv
Aramaic and Greek Alphabets
Aramaic Greek
~ Alep ǹ, Į Alpha
Beth Ǻ,ȕ Beta
Gamel ī, Ȗ Gamma
Daleth ǻ, į Delta
He Ǽ, İ Epsilon
dropped & reinstated as Omega
Zen ǽ, ȗ Zeta
eth Ǿ, Ș Eta
eth Ĭ, ș Theta
Yuth ǿ, Ț Iota
Kap Ȁ, ț Kappa
Lamad ȁ, Ȝ Lambda
Meem Ȃ, ȝ Mu
Noon ȃ, Ȟ Nu
Phonetically absent in Greek. Matched with
c
ayn ȅ, Ƞ Omicron
Pe Ȇ, ʌ Pi
Absent in Greek
Qop Q, Koppa
Resh ȇ, ȡ Rho
Sheen Ȉ, Ȣ Sigma1
Tau ȉ, Ĳ Tau

1
Due to the phonetic nature of Greek sigma, the Greeks have mistaken it for Aramaic ‘Sheen’.
Foreword
This book represents a collection of some of my major research works
during the last three decades. Most of them have been published in international
journals or have been chapters in special Festschrifts in honor of my colleagues.
However, several of them appear for the first time. The papers share three
characteristics that encouraged me to produce them together in a book. First, most
of the studies represent a combination of historical, cultural and linguistic
elements intertwined together to different extents in an attempt to solve a
language problem. Second, when linguistic problems are interlaced with history a
combination of diachronic and synchronic perspectives is inevitable. This usually
takes the form of synchronic tools used to probe problems along the diachronic
dimension. Several studies, in both Parts I and II, are of this nature. Third, except
for a few culture-oriented studies, the rest of the studies demonstrate the intricacy
of human speech beyond its articulatory aspect into its aerodynamic, acoustic,
proprioceptive and perceptual aspects all of which require thorough investigation
to arrive at a reasonable and viable solution for a problem. The first characteristic
is an inescapable fact since language functions in the context of culture both of
which evolve throughout their history. The second characteristic proves to be the
most effective and valid linguistic approach to identify, investigate and solve
linguistic and cultural problems that are deeply embedded in history. The best two
examples to demonstrate the effectiveness of synchronic probing of linguistic
‘riddles’ that are diachronically remote in the past are the ones relating to the
sound of the Arabic letter <Ν> and its placement within the Sun and Moon
categories of Arabic sounds and the status of the sounds of the letters <ρ> and
<ϕ> with regard to their membership within Sibawayhi dichotomy of Majhǌra
and Mahmǌsa. The synchronic judgment on the nature of <Ν> as a Sun or Moon
sound is very simple, straightforward and uncontroversial: if <Ν> represents a
sound whose place of articulation is within the interdental, alveolar and palato-
alveolar zone [postalveolar], it should be a Sun sound, otherwise it should be a
Moon sound. By a similar token, Sibawayhi, for lack of knowledge about the
virtual existence of the vocal folds and their very significant classificatory
functions, forced a dichotomy on the sounds of Arabic instead of a trichotomy as
we will see in due course. The Third characteristic highlights the fact that
although phonetics is an inseparable component of linguistics, it is its most
scientific aspect. Some linguistic problems can be so deeply embedded in
sophisticated phonetic mesh that goes far beyond the general articulatory and
auditory aspects into the specifics of the neurological, acoustic, aerodynamic and
proprioceptive aspects. This phonetic sophistication requires thorough familiarity
on the part of the investigator with all those aspects in order to arrive at a
convincing solution to a problem. Not every linguist may have had the
opportunity to be oriented extensively in all those fields. In case of lack of such
intimate familiarity with the scientific aspects of linguistics, linguists may be
vulnerable to making inaccurate judgments such as using the traditional term
‘aspiration’ to refer to ‘spirantization’ or restricting the function of the vocal fold
to the creation of the voiced vs. voiceless contrast only, when several other
xviii
contrasts may result from the different activities, modes and synchronizations of
the vocal folds with other supraglottal articulatory and aerodynamic gestures. For
instance, the lack of knowledge of the broad spectrum of vocal folds functions in
sound distinctions seems to be behind the placement by Sibawayhi of the Arabic
sound [ϕ ρ] in a category where they do not belong.
The book falls into two parts with an appendix. Part I consists primarily of
nine [9] chapters on Aramaic, while Part II consists of seven [7] chapters on
Arabic. The Appendix contains five [5] translated chapters. Chapters 1 and 2 of
Part I are translated into Modern Aramaic [Assyrian], while chapters 14, 15 and
16 from Part II are translated into Arabic. The translation is not 100% verbatim;
there are slight linguistic modifications in wording depending on the nature of the
text and the stylistics appropriate for each language. Thus, the texts of the book
come in three languages: English, Aramaic and Arabic.
Each part is initiated with a couple studies that are more historical and
cultural in focus than linguistic. As pointed out above, two chapters from Part 1
have been translated into Aramaic partly because the translators believed that
Modern Aramaic, blended with Classical Aramaic, especially in the area of
lexicon, would potentially be capable of handling any technical texts and partly
because the translated versions would add an additional linguistic flavor for those
who enjoy reading in more than one language. Additionally, I rendered three
chapters of Part II into Arabic to the best of my ability. Although Arabic is a very
rich language, it is, at times, a very challenging task to render technical texts into
it when the language has not yet developed the standard technical terminology
[jargon] in a certain field of knowledge. In this particular case, it was the acoustic,
aerodynamic and proprioceptive jargon that was resisting conversion to an Arabic
counterpart. However, I did my best, at times, in coining a term and, at others in
paraphrasing it.
Chapter 1 gives a brief historical, cultural and ethnic background of the
Aramaic-speaking ethnic group that identifies itself today as ‘Assyrians’.
Obviously, the Aramaic-speaking Assyrians are collectively the descendants of
the ancient Assyrians, Babylonian and Arameans; however, to pin them down to
one specific ancient people, is a very challenging task. In brief, the paper is a
rebuttal to those, especially in the Middle East, who categorically deny the
connection of the Assyrians to ancient Mesopotamia and its Peoples. To those
who deny the connection it becomes incumbent on them to prove the denial
otherwise the connection stands undisputed. Chapter 2 is a survey of the
Mesopotamian languages their emergence, coexistence, shift and death and the
resulting transitional periods of bilingualism/biculturalism and
multilingualism/multiculturalism among those languages and cultures. The
chapter captures the dynamics of language shift, periods of
bilingualism/biculturalism and the approximate time required for a language to
give in to another competing language. Two models emerge. For lack of better
terms, the first model is identified as ‘centennial’ implying that it takes centuries
for one language to dominate the other. This model applies when the two
languages have all the elements of competition and survival such as political
autonomy, population concentration, prosperous economy and linguistic and
xix
cultural integrity. The second model is identified as ‘generational’ implying that

the competition usually takes two to four generations for one language to
succumb to the other due to unbalanced competition of a minority language
thrown in the midst of a dominant majority language such as Aramaic [Assyrian]
in the United States. In other words, in the centennial model, it takes several
centuries for a language or culture to shift and disappear. Therefore, the
investigator should observe the fact that languages and cultures do not always
simply disappear by a political blow or stroke such as an invasion or coup d’état.
For instance, the sudden political collapse of the Assyrian empire should not
imply that the Assyrian language, culture and People completely disappeared with
the political collapse. The theme in Chapter 3 was inspired by the linguistic and
cultural observations, especially with regard to periods of bilingualism,
biculturalism and biliteracy in Chapter 2. In Chapter 3, further evidence is
produced to the effect that with periods of biliteracy and/or multiliteracy, there are
periods of bi-mediums and multi-mediums [designating the use of two or more
materials for writing such as rock, clay or papyrus etc…] as well as periods of bi-
implements and multi-implements [designating the use of two or more
implements or tools for writing such as chisel, stylus, pen etc…]. Chapter 4 is a
critique and reevaluation of the predominant view that the Arab civilization has
often been introduced in educational circles as if it is ethnically monolithic– as
Arabian– and religiously monolithic –as Muslim. Ample evidence has been
produced for a more realistic evaluation of the Arab civilization as a multiethnic
and multireligious achievement with Arabs and non-Arabs and Muslims and non-
Muslims actively contributing to it. Ethnically, linguistically as well as
religiously, the Aramaic-speakers, the indigenous People of Mesopotamia, had a
significant role in the creation of the Arab/Muslim civilization a fact that should
be portrayed for a more realistic assessment.
With Chapter 5, there is a shift in emphasis from culture-oriented studies
to more linguistic-oriented ones. This chapter is a comparative linguistic study of
nicknames [more formally known as petnames] and the underlying rules for their
formation in English and Modern Assyrian [Aramaic]. The study shows that the
formation of petnames, which is a very common practice by the populace in any
language and culture, is a process that is, in essence, governed by the underlying
basic rules of morphology or word formation in each language. The core of
Chapter 6 is a psycholinguistic interpretation of the shift in phonetic/phonemic, as
well as graphemic, values across the phonological and graphemic systems of
languages. As a consequence, when lexical borrowing takes place and the
transliterators attempt to naturalize the phonetic and orthographic forms of those
borrowings according to their native phonology and native orthography [writing
system] certain changes are inevitable. To demonstrate, the study attempts to
explain the reason behind the transliteration of Greek [Ĳ] and [ț] as Aramaic [ ]
and [ q], respectively, rather than as [ t*] and [ k*] the latter of which are their
most direct counterparts . Chapter 7 produces evidence to the effect that due to
linguistic reshuffling, as a consequence of demographic reshuffling, during the
last four decades among the speakers of Aramaic in Iraq, some of the archaic
phonological features are returning back into active formal and informal
xx
circulation. The simple reason behind this phonological return of archaic features
is attributed to the fact that the dialects of the remaining Aramaic-speaking
population, which are becoming the dominant dialects in school and community,
have retained those classical features throughout the history of Aramaic. Next, in
Chapter 8, a more refined assessment and description of the phonetic and
phonological phenomena of aspiration, spirantization and approximation are
made. The focus is on two points: first, the incorporation of the most recent
interpretation, description and nomenclature used in modern phonetic literature in
the description of linguistic processes in Aramaic; second, highlighting the fact
that when a writer is more versed in traditional language studies than modern
linguistics or when a linguist is not intimately familiar with the intricacy of
phonetic and phonological sciences the use of terminology may not accurately
describe, identify or label some phonetic phenomena. For instance, the traditional
scholars in Aramaic studies tend to use the term ‘aspiration’ to stand for
‘spirantization’, whereas in modern linguistics ‘aspiration’ is used to refer to the
‘puff of air’ or ‘voice onset time, VOT’ that usually follows plosive sounds. In
fact, even the VOT or aspiration is a general umbrella term for at least three [3]
acoustic phenomena, namely, the transient [spike], indicating the release of the
closure followed by the frication phase [which is more turbulent noise] that
gradually transitions into aspiration [which is less turbulent noise] (Fant, 1960,
18-19). This means that aspiration is not just an articulatory maneuver that
transforms sounds from one manner of articulation to another as spirantization
does in the transformation of the plosive [t*, d, b, p*, k*]into the fricatives [6, &, X,
H, :]; rather, aspiration is a combination of supraglottal gestures and aerodynamic
conditions synchronized with glottal gestures and aerodynamic conditions that
add refinement to the articulatory and phonatory patterns such as, for instance,
generating a voiced unaspirated [b], voiced aspirated [b*], voiceless aspirated [p*
] and voiceless unaspirated [p] versions of bilabial sounds.
Part I ends with a discussion of the destiny of modern Aramaic [Syriac]
since it is an extremely endangered language that is struggling for survival in the
face of fierce, ruthless and unbalanced competition with Arabic, Turkish, Farsi
and Kurdish in the Middle East and against English, German, French and
Scandinavian languages in diaspora. Presently, there is only one region in the
north of Iraq where Aramaic is still actively the language of home, community
and school. Even in this region, Aramaic is also in danger of deterioration due to
population attrition in the form of migration. If democracy does not prevail, if
economic situation does not improve, if the ethnic minorities are not
constitutionally protected in Iraq, in general, and in the Kurdish region, in
particular, the future of the survival of Aramaic is bleak at best.
Part II, which focuses on Arabic, is also initiated with two chapters which
are cross-cultural and cross-linguistic. Chapter 1 attempts a quick historical
survey of the cultural and linguistic influence of Arabic on Spanish especially in
the field of lexicon [vocabulary]. Since this is not an uncommon theme for many
scholars, both Spaniards and Arabs, the narrow focus has been on words which
have potentially retained their Arabic definite article <al = ϝ΃>. Two aspects of
this narrow theme have been tackled, namely the reasons behind borrowing those
xxi
words with their <al> intact and the changes that such words, especially their
<al>, have undergone. Chapter 2 summarizes the structure of a project to develop
a more accurate system for the transliteration of foreign languages in Arabic. The
project has been an ongoing one for the last three decades and it considerably
improves the potential of Arabic orthography for better accuracy in the
transliteration of other languages. The chapter outlines the major principles of the
system, affords specimens of transliterations and highlights its benefits. Chapter
2, in turn, gives birth to Chapter 3 which is an applied version of some of the
benefits of the transliteration system. The specific theme that is addressed is the
so-called ‘word inflation’ vs. ‘word deflation’. The terms have been specifically
coined and described to capture the two contrasting tendencies in the
pronunciation of Arabic and English. It is specifically the vowel systems in the
two languages and the dynamics that govern vowel quality and quantity changes
that result in word deflation in English vs. word inflation in Arabic. For each
learner of the other language if he/she is made aware of the word-inflation
tendency in Arabic or the word-deflation tendency in English and resists that
tendency, his/her pronunciation of the other language will avoid much distortion.
Chapters 13, 14, 15 and 16 handle some specific controversial linguistic
problems in the Arabic language. Each chapter attempts to probe one problem at a
time using strictly synchronic investigative tools to come up with a solution.
Chapter 13 rejects the formal explanation of the external formation of Sound
Plurals and Duals in Arabic in terms of omission and addition of affixes and
proposes internally governed dynamics of stress shift and vowel quantity [length]
change to bring about the formation of those plurals and duals. Chapter 14
extends a tribute to the most prominent Arab grammarian, Sibawayhi, while
trying to explain acoustically, perceptually, aerodynamically and proprioceptively
the reasons behind his misplacement, twelve centuries ago, of three [3], out of an
inventory of twenty-eight [28], sounds in a category to which they do not belong.
The controversial phonetic identity of the sound of the Arabic alphabet letter <Ν>
and its classificatory status within the so-called Sun and Moon categories of the
Arabic sounds is the focus of Chapter 15. Here also is an example of a synchronic
and scientific probing of the nature of the sound [or sounds] of letter <Ν> that is
presented in order to explain the Sun category membership of <Ν> in Iraqi
Arabic, both Standard and Colloquial as opposed to its Moon category status
claimed for Standard and Classical Arabic. Part II is concluded with a detailed
phonetic description of the sound of /q = ϕ/ in Arabic and the reasons why it is, at
times, confused with /k/. The chapter concludes with identifying the presence of
aspiration with /k/ and its absence with /q/ as a major phonetic difference between
the two sounds in addition to the conventional difference of their place of
articulation with the former being a velar sound and the latter a uvular one.
No doubt, readers may notice occasional limited repetitions of some facts
across certain chapters which are attributed to thematic connection; however,
those facts are perfectly relevant in the context of each chapter. Besides, for those
readers who read only selected chapters, they will not notice the repetition.
xxii
In conclusion, it is my sincere hope that the readers will enjoy browsing

through the chapters and, perhaps, benefiting from their contents for their own
knowledge and research.
Acknowledgements
First and foremost, I would like to express my deep appreciation to the
following institutions and publications for granting me the permission, either in
writing or by author privilege, to reproduce, revise and edit the earlier versions of
some of my papers which they initially published in their journals or books:
Lingua: International Review of General Linguistics; Otto Harrassowitz
Verlag (including Zeitschrift für arabische Linguistik, Mediterranean Language
Review, Festschrift für Otto Jastrow and Linguistic and Oriental Studies in
Honour of Fabrizio Pennacchietti) ; Eisenbrauns; Melammu; Journal of Assyrian
Academic Studies; Proceedings of the Linguistics and Arabic Language Seminar,
Tunis/ Tunisia, 1978; and Adaab Al-Rafidain: Journal of the University of Mosul,
Mosul/Iraq.
I also would like to acknowledge the time and knowledge of my friend
Professor Simo Parpola of Helsinki University/Finland for reviewing the contents
of Chapter 2 prior to its first appearance in Mediterranean Language Review
(2002) and making very constructive suggestions. Equally, I benefited from the
knowledge and expertise of my friend Professor Rifaat Y. Ebied of the University
of Sydney/Australia for the thorough review of the manuscript of Chapter 13 and
the feedback that I received to improve my presentation of the theme of Sound
Plurals and Duals in Arabic with a new linguistic perspective.
Sincere gratitude is due to my friend Mr. Youel Baaba, of California, for
his excellent rendition into Aramaic the paper which forms the content of Chapter
1. The first appearance of the Aramaic version of this paper was in Journal of
Assyrian Academic Studies, Vol. 17, 2003. Equal gratitude is extended to my
other friend, Mr. Philimon Darmo, of Sydney/Australia, for the valuable time and
effort he expended in translating into Aramaic the lengthy contents of Chapter 2.
He did an excellent job. In turn, both Baaba and Darmo acknowledge the help
they received from the Assyrian language editor, Journal of Assyrian Academic
Studies (JAAS), Mr. Daniel D. Benjamin, due to the technical and academic
nature of the texts they translated.
I very much appreciate the technical help that I have received from my son
Captain Fred F. Odisho in the formatting and production of the final text.
It goes without saying that I owe my wife (Wardia Shamiran) sincere
gratitude for her continuous support throughout my entire academic life.
Edward Odisho, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus
Northeastern Illinois University
Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.
Chapter 1
The Ethnic, Linguistic and Cultural Identity of

Modern Assyrians
To be the native of a land for more than three millennia and yet to have the authenticity of your
nativity questioned or even denied is the most flagrant violation of one’s human rights
1.1 Introductory Remarks

The historical and cultural connection between ancient Assyrians and
modern Assyrians [hereafter to be shortened as ‘connection’] has remained a
highly controversial problem because there are few, in fact, very few non-
Assyrian scholars around the world who believe in the connection and attempt to
substantiate it scholarly, objectively and scientifically. The most prominent
among those few is the Finnish scholar Simo Parpola who strongly advocates for
the connection. (Parpola, 2004)
The question of connection is truly academically challenging for those
who care about scholarship. The writer seriously experienced this challenge early
in 1984 when he embarked on writing his book, The Sound System of Modern
Assyrian (Neo-Aramaic). It took six months to write the nine linguistic chapters,
but approximately three years were needed to write the first chapter which was,
more or less, a history-based one. Not being a historian, it was so intimidating an
experience to risk writing a chapter on the history of the modern Assyrians and
trace it back to the ancient times of the Mesopotamian [hereafter, to be replaced
by Beth Nahrain for greater historical and linguistic affinity] civilizations, peoples
and nations. To make the writing of the chapter less daunting of an enterprise, he
had to conduct a quick but extensive survey of most of the major civilizations,
peoples and nations that either emerged on the greater Beth Nahrain Theater or
had an impact on it through invasions, occupations or mere adjacency. It was
immediately concluded that the problem encountered was not just a historical one,
but rather a complex civilizational one whose complexity was further
compounded by the number of the variables that had to be invoked and
considered in order to finalize a reasonable solution. Consequently, the need to
develop the sketch for an approach to solve the problem became inevitable.
Gradually and convincingly, it became clear to the writer that no feasible solution
to this problem can be envisaged without the involvement of as many aspects of
the problem as possible such as political, cultural, linguistic, religious and ethnic.
Any mono-dimensional and narrow perspective to the solution, such as the
exclusive dependence on the historical narration of political events, tends to
regurgitate those events again and again and end up with the same rhetorical
conclusion such as the one drawn by Will Durant and summarized here as
follows:
2 Linguistic & Cultural Studies in Aramaic and Arabic
“Nineveh was laid to waste...The population was slaughtered or enslaved...At one

blow Assyria disappeared from history. Nothing remained of her except certain
tactics and weapons of war… Not a stone remained visible of all the temples.”
(Durant, 1942:283-84)
Durant’s conclusion, among others, implies the total annihilation of the

ancient Assyrians, whereas other historians, such as Diakonoff who is more
intimately associated with the Middle Eastern civilizations, counter the
annihilation notion. He states:
“The Assyrian People was not annihilated; it merely merged with the mass of
Near eastern Arameans, for as a result of the numerous deportations carried out
by the Assyrian kings, Aramaic had long become the lingua franca of the
ordinary people all over the Assyrian empire.” (Diakonoff, 1985:124)
However, neither Diakonoff nor other historians who reject the notion of
the annihilation of the ancient Assyrians carried the issue further so as to establish
a connection between the ancient Assyrians and the modern Assyrians.
At the time, the focus on the connection problem and the multidimensional
approach to tackle it were aimed not at substantiating the connection as much as
at countering the views of those who without any valuable evidence bluntly
denied the connection. The study remained hidden in the book until recently when
Parpola’s views and writings beginning in mid 1990s were brought to my
attention. He, for instance, states, “Quite apart from the importance of this issue to
the identity of the modern Assyrians, the question is of scientific importance,
too.” Further on, he highlights his position in this regard saying “... the speakers
of Neo-Aramaic languages are the ethnic/cultural/linguistic descendants of
ancient Assyrians...This connection is supported [and can be proven] by a large
set of data attesting to the continuity of Assyrian culture and national identity in
upper Mesopotamia until the advent of Islam” (Parpola, 1999/a). In a more recent
presentation, Parpola, as an Assyriologist, brings forth very significant pieces of
evidence to reinforce and substantiate the connection (Parpola, 1999/b) This is
why Parpola’s academic stand in this regard is so significant. He is the only
Assyriologist that I know of, who is not only interested in rejecting the
annihilation notion, but is also ardently trying to objectively and scientifically
establish a connection.
1.2 A Spectrum of Views Relevant to the Connection

The views relevant to this connection fall into three primary categories:
political, nationalistic and academic.
1.2.1 Political View
This has been typically represented by Iraq since its inception as a political
entity after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the signing of the
international treaties of Sevres (1920) and Lausanne (1923) in which some rights
The Ethnic, Linguistic and Cultural Identity of Modern Assyrians 3
of the ethnic minorities including the Assyrians were recognized. The post-
Ottoman Empire monarchy in Iraq had always feverishly attempted to deny the
connection with the intention of denying the Assyrians a natural and legitimate
eligibility to citizenship with all the privileges that ensue. Once Iraq became
independent and the majority of the Assyrians ended up settling within its
political boundaries, the denial was systematically publicized. All the official
documents in the Iraqi governmental offices and textbooks in schools identified
the Assyrians, and some still do, as refugees who moved from Iran and Turkey
and settled in Iraq after the First World War. Most importantly, they stress the
claim that the modern Assyrians are not the descendants of the ancient Assyrians.
Such a total denial of the connection by the Iraqi government has been part of a
overt and covert political campaign of exclusion and distortion of the identity of
the ethnic minorities.
1.2.2 Nationalistic View
This is the view of virtually all of modern Assyrians both educated and
uneducated initiated and spearheaded by the traditional scholars- or Rabis for
more accuracy- of what is identified as the modern Assyrian Reawakening
extending from the mid of the nineteenth century up to 1960s. All modern
Assyrians emotionally espouse the connection as a pillar and extension of their
national and historical identity in the form of a nationalistic movement known
today as Aturayuta [Assyrianism]. Of the other Aramaic-speaking communities,
the older generations prefer to be known as Chaldeans and Syrians. Those of them
who have lost the Aramaic language and have been heavily acculturated by the
Arabic culture claim Arabic ethnicity. However, the middle and younger
generations of Syrians, and more recently of Chaldeans, manifest a deep passion
for the connection with the ancient Assyrians or, perhaps more accurately with a
blend of Assyrian/Babylonian/Aramean connection. In fact, the present leadership
and rank-and-file of the Assyrian Democratic Movement- the most popular, best
organized and politically mature organization ever among the modern Assyrians-
is the best example of such trend.
1.2.3 Academic View
This view is represented by a wide variety of individuals both Assyrian

and non-Assyrian. Among the Assyrians, including the leaders of the so-called
Assyrian Reawakening, there is hardly any scholarly investigation of the
connection. Most of the available literature is premised on the presumption that
the connection is undisputed. During the last few decades, a few works appeared
dealing with the connection, namely by Joseph (1961), Matveef (1990) and
Odisho (1988). These authors conducted extensive research to document and
support their views with regards to the connection. Joseph struggles to negate the
connection while Matveef and Odisho attempt to substantiate it.
As for the non-Assyrian writers, one has to distinguish between the
authors of general history textbooks and the authors of genuine research works.
The majority of the former, states that Assyria and the Assyrians disappeared with
the downfall of the Assyrian Empire in 612 B.C. or soon thereafter. Most of such
statements are not necessarily based on serious research and substantiation; they
are rather reproductions of some statements about Assyria and the Assyrians
available in the Biblical and classical literature such as the vision and prophesy of
Prophet Nahum. As for the focused researchers, there are very few who handled
the connection as a serious issue. Among such modern non-Assyrian scholars, I
know of only professors Parpola and Saggs who believe in the connection. Others
opt to gloss over the history of modern Assyrians and identify them as the
remnants of the ancient Aramaic/Syriac-speaking civilization with either averting
the Assyrian connection or denying it.
The personal interest in pursuing the connection has never been, never was
and will never be a nationalistic or a sentimental urge for a blood connection. As a
human being and an intellectual, I am proud to belong historically to the greater
Beth Nahrain land and to any of its ancient civilizations be that Sumerian,
Assyrian, Babylonian or Aramean. My interest in investigating this connection
has been threefold. Firstly, as part of my human rights, I am entitled to know who
I am and how to authenticate my historical lineage and identity. Secondly, I want
to convey a message to those who flatly deny the connection that their denial
requires proof. Thirdly, as a scholar I want to be as scientific and objective as
possible in passing my academic judgement regarding this issue.
Looking at myself as an individual with an Assyrian name, an Aramaic
language, a Christian religion and a Beth Nahrain culture, I began to contemplate
on my hybrid identity. My hybrid identity haunted me for a while until it evolved
into an academic challenge worthy of being researched and solved as objectively
as possible. There were several assumptions to be made to shape the approach.
1.3 The Assumptions
1.3.1 Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Conversions
That massive cultural, religious and linguistic shifts and conversions are
not unfamiliar in the history of peoples and nations. The fact that the majority of
the natives of Britain lost their Celtic languages and picked up a Germanic
language to be known later as English; the fact that the natives of Egypt lost their
ancient Egyptian language and gradually embraced Arabic; and the fact the
natives of Central and South America who were never Latinos in language,
Hispanics in culture and Catholic in religion are now predominantly Spanish-
speaking and overwhelmingly Roman Catholics all attest to such massive
conversions.
1.3.2 Political System Collapse!!!
The downfall of a political system, regardless of how extensive its

political domain had been, should never imply the sudden disappearance of its
people, language and culture. Political systems may be brought down by coup
d’états, emperors and kings may be assassinated or suddenly die with a heart
attack or stroke, but peoples, cultures and languages are not entities that disappear
suddenly and do not perish with the swiftness of human strokes or heart attacks.
1.3.3 Proof Always Needed for a Judgement
Any positive or negative judgement with regard to a controversial issue

requires substantiation and proof to be credible. Thus, any approval of the
connection requires substantiation; likewise, any denial requires substantiation
without which the approval or the denial is judged as subjective and/or bias. With
those three assumptions in mind, let us proceed to flesh out the approach to the
solution.
1.4 The Approach to the Solution

In light of the above three assumptions, the approach to the solution of the
connection controversy was developed in terms of three drastic changes in the life
and history of the ancient Assyrians and all the neighboring inhabitants of ancient
Beth Nahrain.
1.4.1 The Political Reshuffle.
The argument here is primarily premised on assumption # 2 in that the

downfall of Assyria in 612 B.C., or immediately thereafter, should never be
envisaged as the total destruction of the Assyrian People. It is unreasonable to
interpret the collapse of a political system in the sense of the instantaneous
disappearance of its citizenry. Nothing of this sort happened to the Peoples of the
Byzantine, Roman or Ottoman empires. In each case, it was the political machine
that collapsed and the territory under its jurisdiction split into smaller countries,
states or provinces that survived under the same or different names. This has to be
so, and cannot be otherwise, because those who perish with the collapse of the
political system represent the minority while the majority outlives the collapse
though frequently undergoes various political, religious and linguistic changes.
Based on common sense and the evidence from the political history of past
empires and nations, the sudden annihilation of a political system or empire
should not entail the annihilation of it peoples, languages and cultures. It is
appropriate here to draw an analogy with World War II. In the recorded history of
humanity, there has been no worse catastrophe than this War. Berlin was
destroyed, millions of soldiers and civilians did perish and the Nazi war machine
and regime did disintegrate, but the German people and Germany survived.
Incidentally, the most recent example to support the line of thinking espoused
here is the collapse of the Soviet Union. Nothing disappeared except the politico-
economic system, whereas the peoples not only regained their political freedom
but also embarked on reaffirming their ethnic, linguistic and cultural identity.
Therefore, there is no hesitation whatsoever on the part of this writer to adopt
Diakonoff’s view cited above and completely reject Durant’s description of the
total annihilation of the people of Nineveh and Assyria. It is true that Nineveh, as
a capital, fell. It is true that Assyria, as a political system, collapsed. It is quite
conceivable to talk of tens, or even hundreds of thousands of casualties. But none
of the above facts should be construed as the total annihilation of the Assyrians
(Odisho, 1988:8)
Perhaps of equal political significance is the appearance of an entity under
the name of Athura a short time after the downfall of Assyria which seems to
stand for a reduced form [or satrapy] of Assyria. The Athura satrapy is mentioned
in the Behistun royal inscriptions of King Darius, 558-486 B.C. (Rawlinson,
1859; Olmstead, 1948; Cook, 1983 & 1985). Later in history, the name Aturia
emerges as a reference to Assyria or Athura. (Jouguet, 1928:31; Herzfeld,
1968:305) There is certainly far more historical and political evidence to support
the continuation of an entity representing the ancient Assyria, its people and its
culture. (for more details see Odisho, 1988)
1.4.2 The Linguistic Shift.
In order to understand the nature of this shift and the manner in which it is
relevant, the following five points are worthy of consideration:
1.4.2.1 Overlapping Geographic Borders
Before and after the downfall of the Assyrian empire there were no clear-
cut political or geographic boundaries between the Assyrian and Aramean
provinces. There was always a great deal of territorial overlap between the two
entities. For instance, the cities of Nisibis, Orhai and Harran, which were centers
of Aramaic language, had been regions within the Assyrian empire (Rogers, 1915;
Oppenheim, 1967). In fact, those cities alternately belonged to the Assyrian
empire and the Aramean states.
1.4.2.2 Aramaic as a Lingua Franca
The Aramaic language became the lingua franca of the Middle East.
According to Rosenthal (1974:6),
“During the second millennium B.C. various Aramaic dialects are likely to have
been spoken at the borders and within Mesopotamia and the Fertile Crescent. But
it was the dialect used by the Arameans settled within the confines of Assyria
that from the eighth century B.C. on supplanted all other dialects.”
This is such a well-established fact that it hardly needs any further citations and
elaborations.
1.4.2.3 Dominance of Aramaic Alphabet
The dominance of Aramaic as a lingua franca was not confined to the oral
form; its literacy instrument in the form of the Aramaic alphabet system was
equally pervasive in replacing the logographic and syllabic systems of writing.
“From its inception, the Aramaic alphabet, in a sense, had to fight a duel with the
cuneiform system of writing. It was a long struggle- it lasted until the
commencement of the Christian era- between the complicated theocratic system
of writing accessible only to certain privileged classes and the simple democratic
system accessible to everybody; at the end of the seventh century B.C., all Syria
and the great part of Mesopotamia became thoroughly Aramaized.” (Diringer,
1968:200; cf., Toynbee, 1947:19).
1.4.2.4 Linguistic Similarity across Semitic Languages
The above conversion in both oral and literacy forms is not too surprising
to occur since both Assyrian and Aramaic are cognate Semitic languages whose
underlying linguistic systems should not be envisaged as drastically different. It is
not unreasonable to assume that most Semitic languages, especially those adjacent
to each other, developed some sort of a ‘common language’ and had at one time
maintained a reasonable degree of mutual intelligibility. For instance, “the late
Babylonian language is largely characterized by Aramaic syntax with Babylonian
words.” (Lambert, 1973:181) Besides, the knowledge of more than one language
would have been very likely in ancient Mesopotamia where speakers of different
languages came into extensive and extended authentic contact. Hence, it is quite
conceivable to think of Beth Nahrain as an extensive bilingual and even
multilingual community where people became vulnerable to language shift first
and language disappearance later. It is in those terms that the shift from Sumerian
to Akkadian and from Akkadian to Aramaic and later from Aramaic to Arabic had
taken place (for details see the next chapter).
1.4.2.5 Common Etymology
Etymologically and even onomastically, the jumble of names to identify

the modern Assyrians as Asuristanyi, Athuraye, Aturaye, Suraye, Suryaye,
Athuri, Ashuri, Asuri, among others, could all be traced back to the same root
taking into consideration some reasonable and legitimate phonetic and
morphological modifications according to language-specific rules (Odisho, 1988).
This trend of cross-language morphological change is also too common and too
well-established as a linguistic fact to be controversial.
1.4.3 The Religious and Cultural Conversions.
With the advent of Christianity, most of Beth Nahrain’s religious rituals,

traditions and practices started to disappear. Even though it is difficult to think of
the pre-Christianity Beth Nahrain as a strikingly heterogeneous religious entity, it
is yet easier to think that Christianity enhanced the religious homogeneity of the
whole region and helped to obliterate much of the religious inconsistency and
create religious and cultural uniformity in the region. In other words, when
Christianity became the dominant religion of the region, the early conversions
included Arameans, Assyrians and Babylonians, among others. Consequently,
Christianity ironed out many of the ethnic and nationalistic, linguistic and cultural
differences among those populations. A major corollary to the religious
conversions was the further spread and consolidation of Aramaic at the expense of
other languages especially Akkadian [Assyrian-Babylonian] since Aramaic, and
especially its Syriac version, became the language of eastern Christendom.
Gradually, all the religious, cultural and linguistic attributes among the Christians
of the Middle East were expressed in the form of Suryaya, Suryaye or Suraya,
Suraye. Another concomitant change related to religion and culture was the
change in the proper names which, in itself, is a significant ethnic and national
marker that can conceal the linkage between two eras in the history of an ethnic
group or nation. The Biblical and other Christian names swept the entire region
and erased almost all the ancient Assyrian-Babylonian names.
Beth Nahrain is one of the smallest regions in the world which has been
the cradle for so many successive civilizations; it is a region that has experienced
radical and massive ethnic, linguistic, religious and cultural changes and
conversions. The present dominance of Arabic where Aramaic had been
unrivalled and the spread of Islam where Christianity had its earliest citadels
clearly sums up the history of Beth Nahrain and the extent of the linguistic,
cultural, ethnic and cultural conversions in the region.
It is true that during the recent centuries, especially the 17th, 18th and 19th
centuries, the most common ethnic names for today’s Assyrians were Athuraye,
Athurnaye, Suraye and Suryaye. It is also true that their association with the
Anglicized appellation ‘Assyrian’ emerged towards the end of the nineteenth
century. It is also true that ‘Assyrian’ was firmly established afterwards as the
predominant appellation and accepted by the Assyrians as their indisputable
nationalistic name and their historical linkage to the ancient Assyrians. However,
this nineteenth century attachment of the Anglicized appellation ‘Assyrian’ to an
ethnic group formerly known as Athuraye or Suraye should, by no means, be
confused with Joseph’s statement that “while the name Chaldean was appointed
to the Uniats, the illustrious twin name Assyrian was in time applied to the
Nestorians and that they accepted and used it from the end of the nineteenth
century” (Joseph, 1961:13).
Joseph’s intention from his above statement was to prove that the so-
called ‘modern Assyrians’ have nothing to do with the ancient Assyrians both
historically and ethnically. This writer is totally opposed to Joseph’s views
inasmuch as the connection is concerned for several reasons. Firstly, names do
not always represent a reliable index to historical, ethnic or nationalistic origin.
Egypt is historically known to its natives as Masr not as Egypt which has been
popularized in the Western World through Greek. Secondly, the name ‘Assyria’
or ‘Assyrian’ is the English rendition of the Greek name based on ‘Ashshur’
where the double ‘sh’ was orthographically rendered by the Greeks as double ‘s’
[i.e. sigma] since the Greek alphabet does not have a symbol for ‘sh’. If the
Greeks had opted to base their coinage on the Aramaic equivalent of ‘Ashshur’
which is ‘Aththur’ then we would not have had the English coinage ‘Assyrian’;
instead, the coinage might have been ‘Aththurians’ or even ‘Aththurites’, an
appellation that is far more consistent with the modern Assyrians’ identification
of themselves as ‘Athuraye’ and bears a stronger sense of historical continuity. In
fact, in many Middle Eastern languages, it is the root ‘ATHR’ which is more
commonly used as the base for the coinage of the name for the Assyrians. In
languages whose phonological systems do not have the interdental fricatives [6]
and [&], the [6] of ‘Aththur’ has been replaced by a [s] as is the case in Turkish,
Kurdish and Armenian. Thirdly, Joseph accepts the connection of the modern
Assyrians to the Arameans or Syrians, but rejects their connection to the ancient
Assyrians although both the ancient Assyrians and Arameans were historically
affiliated with the same regions which the modern Assyrians have inhabited as far
as their history is traced back. Joseph’s repeated insistence on the lack of ethnic
and nationalistic connection between modern and ancient Assyrian is mainly
attributed to his exclusively historical approach to solving a problem that is too
broad and complex for a mono-dimensional perspective. It is unlikely for any
author to arrive at a reasonable solution to this problem of connection without a
serious consideration of the linguistic, cultural and religious conversions that had
swept the region.
1.5 Present Status of the Assyrians

1.5.1 Ethnic Status.
Today the Assyrians do not know themselves other than Assyrians and are
also so known by many others. They do not have a problem of self-identification;
in fact, any attempt at substantiating the connection is considered by most of them
as redundant and unwarranted. Their largest population concentrations were in
Iraq and Iran, but are now much smaller in size due to political turmoil and wars
in the Middle East leading to massive immigration and displacement. Presently,
the largest contingent of Assyrians is, ironically enough, in the United States and
Chicago is the city with the largest Assyrian population. Some unofficial figures
put the population at 80,000 which is not unreasonable. People are very aware of
their ethnic identity; however, they, at the same time, are extremely conscious of
the very speedy language and culture erosion as a serious threat to their ethnic and
historical identity.
Since their massive displacement after World War I, they have never had a
well-organized national or political movement with a long-term vision and
strategy. Only recently and as a reaction to the dictatorship of the BaɅth party, a
younger fairly educated generation of Assyrians launched the Assyrian
Democratic Movement with nationalistic and political goals. The movement has
gained momentum inside Iraq since its inception in late 1979. Outside Iraq, its
popular support is increasing rapidly to the extent that no previous Assyrian
organization has ever enjoyed.
1.5.2 Linguistic Status
Due to the status of the Assyrians as minorities in all the countries they
inhabit, it is very rare to find Assyrians who are monolinguals. Most of them are
bilinguals or multilinguals. Most of the Assyrians identify their language as
Assyrian not knowing the linguistic/historic difference between Assyrian and
Aramaic. Some ultra-Assyrianists are reluctant to accept ‘Aramaic’ or ‘Syriac’ as
a name for their language. Only very few Assyrians recognize the fact that they
are entitled to claim the Assyrian lineage and ethnicity, but the language is a
descendant of Aramaic rather than of ancient Assyrian. The variety of Aramaic
they speak is the major representative of the eastern modern Aramaic dialects.
Before the arrival of the Christian missionaries among the Assyrians
towards the beginning of the 19th century, the language of the Assyrians was in
the worst condition suffering from serious erosion and high level of mutual
unintelligibility. This was attributed partly to the high level of illiteracy and the
drift of spoken language from the literary language and partly to the drastic
divergence among regional and tribal dialects. After long years of work, the
missionaries and the few literate Assyrians succeeded in reducing the dialect of
Urmi to writing and later creating a modern Standard Written Language. In
simple words, this attempt represented a resurrection of the language in a modern
version. Since then this variety of modern Assyrian has been the tool of literacy
and linguistic leveling of dialects among the Assyrians. In other words, it has
created a form of Koiné dialect (Odisho, 1988) at both the literacy and oracy
levels. The more the Assyrians intermingle, the more uniform the Koiné and the
written modern Assyrian become. However, it is very unfortunate to point out that
almost two centuries after the resurrection of modern Assyrian, the language once
again faces its worst threat of erosion and disappearance due to three major
reasons: the rise of the BaɅth regime in Iraq, the Iran-Iraq War, the Gulf War and
the 2003 invasion of the country. All four jointly and severally have led to the
worst displacement and immigration movement among the Assyrians since their
displacement after the First World War. Their strong hinterland in the north of
Iraq and the communal enclaves in several cities of Iraq and Iran suffered severe
loss of population concentration. Most of those people moved to the European
and North American countries where they are even in greater danger of losing
their native language. In the United States in particular, the language is eroding
very severely. Without new waves of immigrants, the language can hardly survive
beyond three or four generations to come (Odisho, 1993; 1999). Other than a
miracle, the only hope for the maintenance of the language is the remaining
settlements of Assyrians in the north of Iraq led by the Assyrian Democratic
Movement and its serious initiative in Syrianizing the elementary and secondary
educational curricula. The local educational system is conducted primarily
through the medium of Syriac as the native language together with Arabic,
Kurdish and English as second and foreign languages. If the geopolitics of the
twenty-first century bestow on the Kurds the right of autonomy or independence,
and if the Kurds, in turn, bestow on other minorities in the region the privileges of
ethnic, linguistic and cultural identity, the Syriac language will have yet one more
opportunity for further survival. If, however, the Kurds were denied their
autonomy or failed to practice democracy towards others, then Syriac will highly
likely be doomed to extinction.
1.5.3 Cultural Status
Like any other minority in the Middle East, the Assyrian culture shares
much of the cultures of the majorities such as Arabs, Turks, Persians and Kurds.
Certainly, their bilingual or multilingual status naturally implies a bicultural and
multicultural status, too. However, there are still other aspects of culture which
distinguish them from other ethnic minorities or majorities. Foremost of those
aspects is their Christian religion most notably as followers of the Church of the
East. Another aspect is their Aramaic language which served as the first and
native language of Christianity and still serves until this very day as the medium
of their daily communication, literacy and Church services. Historically and
culturally, the Church of the East is the only church that began its services in
Aramaic and still maintains it.
With the modern Assyrian reawakening in the 19th century, a new and
important aspect of culture was resurrected to highlight the connection with the
ancient Assyrians and their culture. A pervasive wave of name-changing swept
the whole Assyrian community. Names such as Ashur, Sargon, Sennacherib,
Esarhaddon, Atur, Shammiram were used side by side with the post Christianity
names of Ishu, Abd-Ishu, Yuhannan etc. They also began to celebrate the ancient
Assyrian feasts and festivals together with the Christian ones. This reawakening
has been the cornerstone on which their modern spirit of Assyrianism is premised.
Today, although most of the Assyrians harbor an intense sentiment of
Assyrianism, the nationalistic sentiment is not matched with savvy long-term
political strategy, organizational sophistication and economic strength. In a world
in which they have hardly any geopolitical weight left, the realization of their
political ambitions in independence or even autonomy are only remotely likely
though nothing is impossible with the geopolitics of the new world order. Today’s
geopolitics is a large hat under which much magic is worked.
1.6 Conclusions
By any stretch of reality or imagination, the ancient history of Beth
Nahrain represents the best panorama of intense civilizational contacts where
languages, religions and cultures intermingled, co-existed, clashed, succumbed or
survived. These cross-civilizational contacts have obliterated many of the
distinctive ethnic, linguistic, religious and cultural boundaries and markers.
However, since this controversy of connection is heavily entangled in linguistic-
cultural webs, the use of synchronic probing techniques of the available
diachronic data is indispensable. The techniques become most effective when
consideration is given to the extent and intensity of the linguistic-cultural
contacts. It is this consideration that determines the dynamics of change, erosion,
survival and/or disappearance of languages and cultures. These dynamics should
be thoroughly understood and seriously differentiated from the dynamics of the

emergence and collapse of political systems. It is quite conceivable to accept the
sudden downfall and the disappearance of the Assyrian Empire as a political
system, but it is utterly inconceivable to apply the same principle of sudden
disappearance to a people in its entirety or to its language and culture. All those
non-political aspects take centuries to vanish. This trend is crystal-clear in the
number of centuries taken for the linguistic conversion from Sumerian to
Akkadian, from Akkadian to Aramaic, from Aramaic to Arabic. In the latter case,
Aramaic is still surviving in one form or another even after the total and pervasive
domination of Arabic as language and Islam as religion in the region for over one
millennium. If a language or culture is doomed to surrender to other languages
and cultures due to civilizational confrontation then the surrender tends to be
usually effected through a century(ies)-long transition in the form of bilingualism
and biculturalism. Thus, for any serious and comprehensive probing of any
controversies in the history of Beth Nahrain, the linguistic-cultural context of the
controversy is indispensable. In other words, those long transitional periods of
bilingualism and biculturalism should be an integral part of any research in the
history of any region that had experienced serious contacts between and among
languages and cultures [for more specifics see Chapter 2]. In fact, any long-term
project for a comprehensive survey of the cultures of Beth Nahrain has to grant
serious consideration to those lengthy transitions of bilingualism and
biculturalism and the dynamics that governed them. We should all remember that
it was through the help of bilingual and multilingual pieces of evidence such as
the Behistun Monument and the Rosetta Stone that archeologists and linguists
were able to decipher the codes of the ancient languages and illuminate their
civilizations.
Finally, this study was a practice in scientific research aimed at making
judgements that are fairer and more objective. Today, I am much happier because
further scientific substantiation is being produced by other scholars such as
professor Parpola who is more intimately associated with the ruins, civilizations
and historical sequences of Beth Nahrain– Mesopotamia.
1.7 Bibliography
Cook, J.M. (1983). The Persian Empire. New York: Schocken Book.
———. (1985). The Rise of the Achaemenids and Establishment of their Empire.
Cambridge History of Iran, 2:200-91. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Diakonoff, I.M. (1985). Media. The Cambridge History of Iran, 2:36-148.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Diringer, D. (1968). The Alphabet: A Key to the History of Mankind. New York:
Funk & Wagnalls.
Durant, W. (1942). The Story of Civilization: Our Oriental Heritage. New York:
Simon & Schuster.
Herzfeld, E. (1968). The Persian Empire. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag.
Joseph, J. (1961). The Nestorians and their Muslim Neighbors. Princeton:

Princeton University Press.
Jouguet, P. (1928). Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic World (repr. 1978).
Chicago: Ares Publishers.
Lambert, W.G. (1973). The Babylonians and Chaldeans. Peoples of Old
Testament Times (ed. Wiseman). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Odisho, Edward Y. (1988). The Sound System of Modern Assyrian (Neo-
Aramaic). Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
———. (1993). Bilingualism and Multilingualism among Assyrians: A case of
Language Erosion and Demise. Semitica: Serta Philologica Constantino
Tsereteli Dicata. (eds. R. Contini, F. Pennacchiette and M. Tosco).
Torino: Silvio Zamorani Editore.
———. (1999). Assyrian Language Maintenance and Erosion in U.S.: A World
War I Immigrant Family Case Study. Journal of Assyrian Academic
Studies, Vol. 13/2, pp. 3-14.
Olmstead, A.T.E. (1948). History of the Persian Empire. Chicago: Chicago
University Press.
Parpola, Simo (1997). Assyria 1995: Proceedings of the Tenth Anniversary
Symposium of the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project. Helsinki, Sept. 7-11,
1995.
———. (1999/a). Personal Communication.
———. (1999/b). Assyrians after Assyria. Paper presented at the Assyrian
National Convention, Los Angeles.
———. (2004). National and Ethnic Identity in the Neo-Assyrian Empire and
Assyrian Identity in Post-Empire Times. Journal of Assyrian Academic
Studies, Vol. 18/2, pp.5-49).
Oppenheim, A.L. (1967). Letters from Mesopotamia. Chicago: Chicago
University Press.
Rawlinson, G. (1859). The History of Herodotus. New York: Appleton & Co.
Rogers, R.W. (1915). A History of Babylon and Assyria. New York: Books for
Libraries Press.
Rosenthal, F. (1974). A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic. Wiesbaden: Otto
Harrassowitz.
Saggs, H.W.F. (1962). The Greatness that was Babylon. New York: Hawthorn
Books.
Toynbee, A.J. (1947). A Study of History (abr. D.C. Somervell). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Chapter 2
Bilingualism: A Salient and Dynamic Feature

of Ancient Civilizations
The theme of this study gradually developed as a reaction to the rhetorical,
albeit difficult to rationalize, statements about the fate of the Assyrians after the
downfall of Nineveh in 612 B.C. or thereafter. Below is one such statement made
by the distinguished historian Will Durant and summarized here as follows:
“Nineveh was laid to waste...The population was slaughtered or enslaved...At one

blow Assyria disappeared from history… Nothing remained of her except certain
tactics and weapons of war... Not a stone remained visible of all the temples...”
(1942:283-84)
Such a statement about an event that took place some twenty-six centuries ago is
too absolute and categorical to be realistic because it amounts not only to the total
annihilation of Assyria as a geographic entity and political system but also to the
annihilation of its population as a people with a language and culture. Obviously,
there are other historians, who seem to accept the annihilation of Assyria
geographically and politically, but not the people and its language and culture. For
instance, Diakonoff, who is more intimately associated with the Middle Eastern
civilizations, states:
“The Assyrian People was not annihilated; it merely merged with the masses of
Near eastern Arameans, for as a result of the numerous deportations carried out
by the Assyrian kings, Aramaic had long become the lingua franca of the
ordinary people all over the Assyrian empire.” (1985:124)
In fact, Parpola is far more specific in assessing the political and physical events
that followed the downfall of Assyria. He states:
“It is clear that no such thing as a wholesale massacre of all Assyrians ever
happened. It is true that some of the great cities of Assyria were utterly destroyed
and looted, some deportations were certainly carried out, and a good part of the
Assyrian aristocracy was probably massacred by the conquerors. However,
Assyria was a vast and densely populated country and outside the few destroyed
urban centers life went on as usual.” (Parpola, 1999: 1)
However, this disparity between Durant, on one side, and Diakonoff and
Parpola, on the other side, which represents two radically contrasting views, has
much broader implication in a dialectic interpretation of many events in human
history at large than just with relevance to the fate of the ancient Assyrian people.
Its relevance involves, most certainly, all the constituents that determine whether
a certain people or ethnic entity is vulnerable to sudden and instantaneous

extinction or not. In determining the destiny of Assyria after its downfall one has
to take into consideration all the constituents that made Assyria an Empire
including the land, the king and his operatives, the political system, the
population, the language (both spoken and written), the religion and all other
aspects of culture in its broadest sense. All such constituents react differently to
the physical and social laws of survival and demise. It is the reaction to those laws
that will determine the suddenness and gradualness of the demise of certain
constituents and the long survivability of others. It is these different extents of
susceptibility of the various constituents to survival that will be the primary focus
of this study. Subsequently, once the extents are determined, any investigator will
be in a much better position to make far more accurate and objective judgements
as to the fate of the Assyrian Empire. A practical way of organizing all the
constituents involved into some major categories is to identify them as: a)
political; b) physical; and c) cultural.
2.2 Political, Physical and Cultural Constituents of an Entity

The political constituent essentially stands for the king, the political
system [government] and all the formal institutions that support it foremost of
which being the army. The territories governed by the political system and the
population that resides in those territories, especially the ones that made up
Assyria proper, represent different elements of the physical constituent. As for the
cultural constituent, it encompasses any cultural aspects of the society at large
with specific emphasis on language, religion and other traditions and daily
practices.
2.2.1 Political
Although, generally speaking, scholars agree on the year 612 B.C. as the
date of the downfall of the Assyrian Empire, this date, in fact, signals the fall of
the Eastern capital Nineveh. More specifically, the final demise of the Assyrian
political system came about a few years later, circa 609 B.C. (Parpola, 1999), 606
B.C. (Sykes, 1969) or 605 B.C. (Smith, 1960; Saggs, 1984) after the fall of
Harran and the end of the rule of Ashur-uballit II. This unscrupulously means that
the Assyrian Empire as a political system came to an end, the last king was
eliminated and the army disintegrated through death, desertion or simply
disengagement.
2.2.2 Physical
Physically, Assyria was defeated and occupied and its three capital cities-
Assur, the religious metropolis, Nineveh, the administrative center, and probably
Nimrud, the military headquarters- as well as all the main Assyrian towns had
been destroyed (Roux, 1964:313). However, regardless of how devastating the
physical blow to the capital cities had been, it should not imply the absolute
Bilingualism: A Salient and Dynamic Feature of Ancient Civilizations 17
annihilation of the urban population and urban life. The axiomatic reaction to any
massive, aggressive and violent invasion has always been and still is in the form
of resistance, submission or retreat or a combination of them. Obviously, many
soldiers and civilians perished in the war of resistance, but the majority survived
through non-involvement, submission or retreat to safer regions. This line of
logical assessment of the consequences of any invasion or conquest aims at
countering the purported annihilatory blow to Assyria and its people. It is
absolutely unreasonable to interpret the collapse of a political system in the sense
of the instantaneous disappearance of its citizenry in its entirety. The fact that
nothing of this sort has happened in history and the survival of the citizenry of the
Byzantine, Roman and Ottoman empires serves as the best evidence with regard
to the separation between the survivability of political systems and their peoples.
In each case it was the political machine that collapsed and the territory under
jurisdiction of each empire split into smaller countries, states and provinces that
survived under the same or different names. This has to be so and cannot be
otherwise because of the absence of any precedence of total annihilation of a
people in the documented history of wars and invasions. The tragic outcome of
such traumatic clashes in history has never been in the form of total obliteration of
a people or even in the obliteration of its majority. It is true that wars and
invasions consume many people and destroy much property, but the majority of
both humans and physical entities survive the tragedy. In the recorded history of
humanity, there has been no worse catastrophe than World War II. Berlin and
many other cities were destroyed, tens of millions of soldiers and civilians did
perish and the Nazi war machine and regime did disintegrate, but the German
People and Germany survived. All the above historical events gear this
argumentation toward the inevitable need for distinction between massive and
large-scale physical and human destruction as opposed to their total annihilation.
2.2.3 Cultural
The most controversial focus of the annihilatory versus large-scale claim

of destruction that ensues from the collapse of a political entity will involve the
cultural constituents of the entity, especially its language, religion and other
cultural practices. These constituents are non-physical and non-political therefore
the dynamics that determine their demise and survival are governed by different
sets of conditions and laws from those governing the physical and political
constituents. For instance, a political regime may be brought to an end
instantaneously by a coup d’etat or by foreign occupation, the latter being
typically applicable to the Assyrian Empire as a result of the joint collaboration of
the Medes and the Babylonians. A king or a ruler may suddenly perish as a result
of a heart attack, stroke, assassination or dethroning. Unlike those physical and
political constituents, the cultural ones are hardly and rarely susceptible to the
conditions and laws of sudden disappearance and demise. It is those conditions
and laws that govern the slow and gradual mode of disappearance of the cultural
constituents that will be the primary focus of the discussion hereafter. Many
cultural traditions, such as the continuity in using the Assyrian names,
reconstructing the temples and worshipping the Assyrian gods, are vividly
documented by Parpola (1999). He specifically states; “The gods of Ashur,
Sherua, Ishtar, Nanaya, Bel, Nabu and Nergal continued to be worshipped in
Assur at least until the early third century AD.”(1999:2). In fact, “the Assyrian
calendar and month names remained in use in the whole Near East, as they still do
today.” (1999:3). Because of the abundance of evidence with regard to the
continuity of Assyrian cultural and religious constituents afforded by Parpola
(1999, 2000-a, 2000-b, 2002) there is no use, for the purpose of this study, in
further pursuing this type of evidence. Instead, the focus in demonstrating the
laws of survival of the cultural constituents will be exclusively on language in
both its written and spoken forms.
2.3 Panorama of Shift and Survival of Languages in Mesopotamia

The oldest recorded language in Mesopotamia is, unequivocally,
Sumerian, which is historically traced back to the last quarter of the fourth
millennium B.C. There are also very strong indications that the first writing
system, known in our history as the cuneiform, was invented by the Sumerians
(Bottéro, 1987:87). As for the racial origin of the Sumerians and the linguistic
affinity of their language, they remain at the present unassigned (Wiseman, 1973:
xv). The rest of the dominant languages in Mesopotamia after the Sumerian were
all of the Semitic family beginning with Akkadian [Babylonian and Assyrian],
Aramaic and Arabic. Most pertinent to the theme of this paper are the following
salient characteristics that have governed the relationship among those languages.
First, each language replaced the other in a successive manner. Second, the shift
from one language to the other was very gradual and it took a very long time,
usually extending in centuries. Third, prior to each replacement, there emerged a
long period of bilingualism involving the two languages in contact. Fourth, each
language brought with it a system of writing or modified the one it inherited; thus,
quite identical with the emergence of the periods of bilingualism, there extended
long periods of biliteracy, 1 defined here as the simultaneous use of two different
writing systems. In the following sections, an attempt is made to provide a
descriptive outline of all the above four characteristics.
2.3.1 Succession of Languages
Sumerian remained uncontested for a long period roughly extending from

the arrival of the Sumerians in circa 3500 BC until the founding of Akkad and the
advent of Akkadian, the first Semitic language, in 2400 BC2 (Hawkes, 1973: 451).

1
See chapter 3 for details.
2
The year of 2400 BC is only an approximate date for the advent of Akkadian language. These
Semitic people [the Akkadians] were by no means newcomers to the area. The Sumerians and
Akkadians had been in contact with each other even before the appearance of writing (Gordon,
1982: 155, cited in De Francis, 1989:86; cf. Walker, 1990: 27). According to Parpola, Akkadian is
directly attested already c. 2700 BC [Tell Abu Salabikh] and indirectly [through loanwords in
Sumerian] already c. 3000 BC at the latest (Personal Communication, 2002-b).
Akkadian, which was the language spoken in both Assyria to the north and
Babylonia to the south, began to compete with Sumerian for supremacy, which
went on for a long time. “It was only during the two centuries that followed the
fall of Ur (circa, 1900 B.C.), usually known as the Isin-Larsa period, Sumerian
was thought to have died as a spoken language. For a long time it had been
absorbing more and more Semitic words, and now it succumbed altogether.”3
(Hawkes, 75-6) After the dominance of Akkadian, “Sumerian did not survive
except as the learned language among the scholars, somewhat like Latin among us
in the Middle Ages. It remained the scholarly language until the very end of the
history of Mesopotamia, shortly before the Christian era. (Bottéro, 1987: 91)
However, Akkadian gained supremacy for many centuries to come, but “by the
late Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian period [which, for lack of specific date, is
placed at circa, 750 BC to indicate half way into the Neo-Assyrian period, my
insertion] Akkadian itself was obsolescent4, and Aramaic, which was spoken by
the peoples surrounding Mesopotamia, had spread to all parts of the country [i.e.,
Mesopotamia] (Contenau, 1954: 7). In fact, the Arameans made their appearance
in northwestern and southwestern Mesopotamia towards the close of the thirteenth
century BC (Diringer, 1968: 197). The use of Aramaic was not confined to
Mesopotamia, but was also the lingua franca language throughout the Neo-
Babylonian, Neo-Assyrian and the Achaemenian Empires (Roux, 1964: 228;
Malamat, 1973: 147-148; Diakonoff, 1985: 124; Parpola, 1999: 3). In fact, after
becoming the lingua franca of the Persian period, it spread over an area from Asia
Minor and the Caucasus to India, Afghanistan, northern Arabia and Egypt
(Malamat, 1973: 147. Aramaic, in both its spoken and written forms, was in
active circulation at least until the 7th century AD when Islam conquered the
region and introduced Arabic5 to which Aramaic gradually succumbed. Since then
Arabic has become stronger and Aramaic has eroded very precariously. Based on
the estimated dates in 2.3.1, the durations are summarized in Table 2/1, below:

3
There is some disagreement on the disappearance of Sumerian as a spoken language. Postgate
adduces a slightly different historical landmark for the death of Sumerian as a spoken language
and states that it coincides with the Old Babylonian period, which he places at 1700 BC (1992: 65-
6) and Diringer (1968: 20) states the same date. DeFrancis (1989: 86) cites several different
authors claiming different dates, while Coulmas adduces 1900 BC as the relevant date. Parpola
suggests that Sumerian may have survived as a spoken language in the south until c. 1450 (2002-
b).
4
This statement about Akkadian is only acceptable in terms of formal dominance of Aramaic,
which should not imply, in any sense, the total death of Akkadian “because the use of this
language [Akkadian] in its various dialects continued down to the time of Christ (Healey, 1990:
204).
5
This date for the introduction of Arabic is only approximate. It should not imply, in any sense,
the first exposure of Mesopotamia to Arabic. Parpola, citing Israel Eph¥al (1982), brings to my
attention that the first attestation of Arabic and Arabs dates to c. 700 BC (2002-b). Eph¥al’s
statement may be true, but it may be too casual and symbolic to constitute a solid date in the
overall timing of dates in this study. Obviously, Parpola recognizes the broad and approximate
approach to the assessment of dates and durations in this study for reasons identified below (2002-
b).
Language Appearance in Mesopotamia Duration of Dominance
Sumerian 3500 BC 3500 BC – 1900 BC
Akkadian 2400 BC 1900 BC – 750 BC
Aramaic 1200 BC 750 BC – 600 AD
Arabic 600 AD 700 AD – Present

Table 2/1. Formal Appearance of Languages in Mesopotamia and Duration of
their Dominance.
2.3.2 Duration of Language Shift Cycle
In dealing with the duration of the complete language shift cycle, which
represents the time from which a latter or second language [L2] [identified by
Sasse, 1992: 7, as the target language] comes into contact with an earlier or first
language [L1] [Sasse’s abandoned language], coexists with it until the time L2
[second language] establishes itself firmly as a recognized language and begins
gradually superseding L1. For the dynamics of this shift cycle see Fig.2/1 in
2.4.1.2 below. It is almost impossible to be exact in timing the beginning, peak
and completion of these cycles due to the long duration covered by this discussion
and the lack of definitive historical data in many instances. Thus, the dates and
durations displayed in Table 2/2 below are only approximate.
Language Shift Cycle Duration of Shift Cycle
1 Sumerian (L1) Ä Akkadian (L2) 2400BC – 1900BC – 750BC
2 Akkadian (L1) Ä Aramaic (L2) 1200BC – 750BC – 600AD
3 Aramaic (L1) Ä Arabic (L2) 700AD – 900AD – 1258AD

Table 2/2. Duration of Language Shift Cycle between Languages in
Mesopotamia.
Looking at the first language cycle, during which Akkadian replaces

Sumerian, the date of 2400 BC stands for the first appearance of Akkadian, 1900
BC is the disappearance of Sumerian as a spoken language and the ascendance of
Akkadian as dominant, while 750 BC is the disappearance of Akkadian as a
spoken language. In the second cycle, 1200 BC is the appearance of Aramaic and
750 BC is the descent of Akkadian and ascendance of Aramaic, while 600 AD is
downturn of Aramaic. In the third cycle, 700 AD is the appearance of Arabic and
900 AD is the recession of Aramaic and the full dominance of Arabic which is
still effective.
While still in the realm of discussing the duration of the shift cycle, it is
pertinent to point out that a given language may recede from active, formal and
intellectual circulation and use, but may continue to survive orally among the
populace for long centuries to come. The best authentic and documented example
of language survival after a colossal challenge is the contact between Arabic and
Aramaic. The contact formally began with the advent of Islam when Arabic
became the formal language of the administration and soon afterwards the
language of literacy, literature and science. However, Aramaic continued to
function as a strong religious and academic language at least until the Abbasid
Caliphate era, especially in the 9th and 10th centuries, during which most of the
massive translation of the Greek philosophical, scientific and medical heritage
was administered first into Aramaic (Syriac) and then into Arabic. Perhaps, the
most appropriate date for the serious demise of Aramaic as a scholarly language
coincides with the Mongol invasion of the Middle East and the fall of Baghdad in
1258AD. Doubtless, Aramaic still survived both as a written and spoken
language, but it was no longer a match to Arabic. In fact, it is still in existence
until this very day albeit in a shrunken form.
2.3.3 Periods of Bilingualism
Bilingualism is used here to stand for the duality in the simultaneous use
of the oral code of communication of two languages as opposed to biliteracy,
which stands for the simultaneous use of the written code of communication of
those two languages. It would be much easier to cluster the discussion of the two
codes together, but their separate treatment here is intended to highlight the
complexity and pervasiveness of the duality of language use and the historical
evolution of the written code from a system with larger signs, more concrete and
more iconic to minimal signs, more abstract and more symbolic. In other words, it
is very important to involve the evolution of the writing system from
pictographic, through ideographic and syllabic, to alphabetic.
Under a special section titled ‘bilingualism and its consequences’, Bottéro
states: “[I]n the establishment and the elaboration of the writing system [i.e.,
cuneiform] another main element played a role, whose importance we have to
stress now: the thorough bilingualism of the civilization [my emphasis] that used
this writing system.” According to Table 2/2 above, the shift cycle, which
extended some five centuries [i.e., 2400-1900 BC for Sumerian-Akkadian],
represents a period of general bilingualism beginning with the stronger dominance
of L1, which gradually erodes in favor of L2 until the dominance is reversed. The
shift cycle from Akkadian to Aramaic extended almost as long as the first cycle of
Sumerian-Akkadian [i.e., 1200-750 BC]. Due to the relative historical recency of
the Aramaic-Arabic cycle, certain pieces of evidence are far more accurate and
specific than for the previous two cycles. For instance, Aramaic is still written and
spoken, in one form or another, until this very day. However, it is quite difficult to
precisely decide when Aramaic formally succumbed to Arabic. If the massive

circulation of a language for spoken and written purposes in both formal and
informal situations are considered then the most acceptable, albeit approximate
date, will be 1258 AD which is the official date for the fall of Baghdad after the
Mongol invasion of Mesopotamia- an invasion that had a devastating impact on
the Christian Aramaic-speaking communities.
Thus, there are two very significant features of such language shift cycles:
first, they are completed over several centuries; second, the bilingualism during
such cycles usually serves as the harbinger signaling the descent of L1 and of
ascendancy of L2. There is ample evidence in ancient history on such lengthy
periods of bilingualism mainly documented through orthographic specimens,
which are the focus of the next section.
2.3.4 Periods of Biliteracy
The Akkadians did not have a writing system of their own. Therefore,
when they came into contact with the Sumerians they had no choice but to adopt
the Sumerian cuneiform from the mid-third millennium onwards. Actually, the
Sumerian language first became known from bilingual texts written in Sumerian
and Akkadian and found in the seventh-century BC royal libraries at Nineveh
(Ibid). When the Akkadians gained influence in Mesopotamia, a situation of
language contact and bilingualism with diglossia came into existence in the
ethnically mixed population in the region (Coulmas, 1989: 80). This modification
of the Sumerian to write the Akkadian, known as the Sumero-Akkadian, rendered
Akkadian an international language of diplomacy and trade in the ancient
civilized world for several centuries BC (Diringer, 1968: 22; Coulmas, 1989:
216)). Most interestingly, the use of the Sumerian or Sumero-Akkadian forms of
cuneiform remained in circulation long after the disappearance of Sumerian and
Akkadian as spoken languages. Even though Akkadian replaced Sumerian, it did
not mean the total disappearance of the latter. “From the Sargonid times onwards
more and more of the students would have spoken Akkadian, but had to learn
Sumerian as an academic language. For this purpose bilingual lists of words and
phrases were prepared- the first time that anything approaching a lexicon had ever
been devised.” Hawkes, 1973: 217). In fact, the contact and borrowing between
Sumerian and Akkadian, two linguistically different languages, was the first time
in recorded history that a “need for dictionaries arose. The Akkadian scribes
compiled textbooks, which contained (1) Sumerian cuneiforms, (2) their
Akkadian equivalents, (3) translations of whole Sumerian sentences (Diringer,
1968: 21). To meet the pressing needs of handling the growing trends in
bilingualism and biliteracy, “bilingual teaching aids were developed for the use in
the edubba 6 [school] where scribes received their training (DeFrancis, 1989: 87).
There is evidence of texts written in cuneiform that are dated as late as the
1st century BC (Walker, 1990: 27) as well as the 1st century AD (Diringer, 1968:

6
Edubba or é-dubba etymologically means ‘tablet house’ where writing was being formally
taught (Hawkes, 1973: 214-5; Walker, 1990: 43). Historically, this is the first time the concept of
school was instituted in human civilization.
21; Coulmas, 1989: 80)7. This extensive period of the circulation of the cuneiform
writing implies the presence of extensive periods of Sumerian-Akkadian
biliteracy (i.e., ideographic and syllabic writing) and Akkadian-Aramaic biliteracy
(i.e., syllabic and alphabetic writing). One can strongly affirm that the Akkadian
(i.e., Assyrian/Babylonian)-Aramaic biliteracy had been one of the most salient
characteristics of the Neo-Babylonian, Neo-Assyrian and Achaemenian
civilizations; doubtless, as it will be revealed in due course, significant specimens
of evidence from those periods of bilingualism and biliteracy have served as the
most efficient tool of deciphering the ancient Mesopotamian languages and
enriching human knowledge of those ancient civilizations. Bilingualism and
biliteracy were such significant phenomena of the Assyrian-Aramaic era. “From
its inception, the Aramaic alphabet, in a sense, had to fight a duel with the
cuneiform system of writing. It was a long struggle- it lasted until the
commencement of the Christian era- between the complicated theocratic system
of writing accessible only to certain privileged classes and the simple democratic
system accessible to everybody; at the end of the seventh century B.C., all Syria
and the great part of Mesopotamia became thoroughly Aramaized.” (Diringer,
1968:200; cf., Toynbee, 1947:19) These lengthy periods of biliteracy or even
triliteracy (i.e., ideographic ‘Sumerian’, syllabic ‘Akkadian’ and alphabetic
‘Aramaic’) required a class of professional individuals to promote and practice
the inevitable need for different forms of literacy. This class of professionals is
known as the scribes many of whom were both bilingual and biliterate. One such
famous scribe was, no doubt, Ahiqar, Esarhaddon’s ummƗnu8 (Tadmor, 1975: 42;
Greenfield, 1985: 699). When an Aramean scribe received a cuneiform tablet
recording business matters in the Assyrian language, he sometimes took his pen
and marked it with memoranda in Aramaic (Breasted, 1944: 165). In fact,
Aramean clerks were appointed to government offices, and it was very common
thing for an Arameans official of the Assyrian Empire to keep his records on
papyrus, writing with a pen and ink on a roll, while his Assyrian associate in
office wrote with a stylus on a tablet of clay (Breasted, 187). Breasted’s
description of the above biliteracy and joint representation of pairs of scribes is
well documented in many of the Assyrian reliefs such as the famous one
recording the booty on one of the campaigns of Tiglath-Pileser III, 744-727 BC
(Walker, 1990: 46).
2.4 Discussion
2.4.1 Highlights of Discussion
In the above presentation of materials and evidence with regards to the

different linguistic phenomena, such as language and writing erosion, shift, and

7
Parpola brings to my attention Geller’s works (1997 and 2001) which produce evidence to the
effect that the cuneiform probably continued to be written until the Sasanian times [i.e., 226-651
AD, my addition] (2002-b).
8
Meaning ‘counselor’. In fact, Ahiqar was an ummƗnu of both Sennacherib and Esarhaddon
(Greenfield, 1985: 699; Walker, 1990: 43).
disappearance that accompany languages in contact, there were several

undeniable facts that emerged distinctly. First, a culture, language and a writing
system do not disappear suddenly; they are very much unlike human beings who
are vulnerable to sudden and instantaneous disappearance. Each of these linguistic
entities needs at least a period of few or even several centuries to erode and
disappear. Each such period is called shift cycle. Second, during these shift
cycles, there must emerge stages of bilingualism and biliteracy. Third, the shift
between cultures, languages and writing systems does not take place in the form
of total replacement of one for the other; there are always extensive borrowings
among them. In other words, L1 and C19 leave some of their linguistic and
cultural residues in L2 and C2 through borrowing and blending. The presence of
such linguistic and cultural residues in L 2 and C2 may last for centuries after the
disappearance of L1 and C1.
2.4.1.1. Pivotal Aspect of Discussion
A pivotal aspect of this discussion is meant to revolve around the concept

of shift cycle, especially in language and culture. To render the outcomes of this
study more comprehensive and viable, one has to broaden the scope of this study
to include at least one example of contemporary language and cultural shift which
can serve as a basis for comparison. One such most convenient example is the
experience that almost all the ethnic groups coming to the United States go
through in their struggle to maintain their native languages. By comparing the
pattern of language shift in the United States with the one that emerged in ancient
Mesopotamia we will have two distinctly different models. For convenience,
these two models will be abbreviated as G-model [or Generational Model for
United States] and C-model [Centennial Model for Mesopotamia]. With the G-
model, the ethnic language/culture shift cycle is often completed within three
generations of the exposure of a given ethnic group to English and its mainstream
culture. Unlike the G-model, the C-model of language/culture shift cycle is
completed in several centuries. Obviously, there is a drastic difference between
the two models, which will be known, hereafter, as the mini shift cycle and the
grand shift cycle. For both cycles to function, a contact between two
language/cultures should take place. The volume of the contact, its intensity and
efficacy between L1/C1 and L2/C2 depend on many factors including geographic
and religious barriers, population size, political/military /economic strength,
educational/intellectual prowess and language/culture prestige, among others. The
more geographically a language/culture is isolated the less the opportunity for
contact resulting in a longer survival of a language. A typical example of this
geographic isolation is the survival of Basque language in the midst of the
overwhelming linguistic adversity emanating from the surrounding Indo-
European languages, especially the Romance languages from which it has
suffered seriously (Cenoz and Perales, 2001: 92). Similarly, the survival of the
Aramaic language until this very day in spite of the fifteen-century long

9
C1 is the abbreviation for former [earlier] culture and C2 is the abbreviation for the latter culture
quite analogous to L1 and L2.
domineering influence of Arabic is in great part attributed to the existence of

geographic and religious barriers since the speakers of Aramaic, due to massive
persecution, took refuge in the most mountainous regions in the Middle East and
retained their Christian faith in the midst of an Islamic ocean. Furthermore, inter-
religious marriages were prohibited. As for the population, ceteris paribus, the
larger the size the greater the influence becomes. Likewise, the greater the
political, military and economic power of a given entity, the greater the influence
its language and culture leave on the entity with which it comes into contact. To
illustrate, if, for instance, the economic conditions in entity ‘A’ offer more
employment opportunities, the immediate consequence is the attraction of more
people from entity ‘B’ whose economic opportunities are meager. If it had not
been for the potato famine, the volume of the Irish immigration to United States
would, perhaps, have been less. By the same token, the overall massive Europeans
immigration to the United States has been primarily attributed to employment
opportunities. With regards to the educational/ intellectual prowess and
language/culture prestige, the best Mesopotamian example is the swift and
pervasive spread of Aramaic not just throughout Mesopotamia, but also
throughout the greater Middle East. The Arameans were the most active ethnic
groups in trade and business. Although they never established an empire or a
formal powerful political entity, their population was large in size and highly
mobile due to their economic prosperity. Besides, they were the first Semitic
people who functionally developed the Phoenician alphabet. Malamat summarizes
the speedy spread of Aramaic and its lingua franca status in place of Akkadian
[Babylonian and Assyrian] and Persian as follows:
“The spread of Aramaic, facilitated by its simple script, was furthered by large
scale population movement: mass deportations of Arameans, and their
resettlement within the Assyrian Empire; their service within the Assyrian army
and administration; and their widespread mercantile activities. The latter, along
the international trade routes, and Aramean settlements at the major caravan
stations, coupled with inherent wanderlust, placed them to the fore of Middle
Eastern commerce from the ninth century BC onwards.”(Malamat 1973: 148)
All those potent aspects of the Aramean civilization and Aramaic language may
serve as a very strong explanation for the relatively short language shift cycle
from Akkadian to Aramaic and the extensive far-reaching spread of the latter.
2.4.1.2 Most Pivotal Aspect of Discussion
It is true that in the preceding section, language shift cycle was considered
a pivotal aspect of the theme under discussion; however, the most pivotal of all
aspects is the emergence of lengthy periods of bilingualism and biliteracy that not
only constitute the most characteristic feature of the shift cycle, but also the most
salient feature of the ancient civilizations whenever they came into contact with
each other and the concomitant civilizational transformations that took place. In
§3.2 above, brief descriptions of the concept of language shift cycle and the
process through which it materializes were given. However, because of the
significance of this aspect of the study the concept and process will be elaborated
on for better understanding. In Fig. 2/1, below, L1 stands for the earlier language
and L2 stands for the latter language. The overall movements of both L1 and L2
assume the shape of two curves each of which is the reversal of the other. The
high point from which L1 curve begins represents an approximate peak of
dominance after which L1 follows a steady downward bent symbolizing the
gradual loss of dominance. Conversely, L2 curve begins with the lowest point
representing its most subordinate status that coincides with its first appearance
after which it steadily rises until it reaches its highest peak on the opposite end of
the curve. Throughout the duration of the shift cycle, there is a continuous status
of bilingualism and/or biliteracy with different degrees of proficiency. In the first
half of the cycle, the proficiency of L1 is dominant. The dominance in the second
half is reversed in favor of L2. Around point X, where the two curves cross, a
period of balanced proficiency in bilingualism is expected after which the reversal
in proficiency from L1 to L2 begins. These periods of bilingualism/biliteracy last
for centuries and they are part and parcel of the language shift cycle. To render
this schematic representation of the shift cycle more specific and concrete, let us
consider the Akkadian-Aramaic shift cycle. Based on the schematic diagram of
Fig. 2/1, L1 is Akkadian and L2 is Aramaic. The peak period of Akkadian is
assumed to come around 1900 BC, which is the date at which Sumerian ceased
being spoken. The lowest point in the cycle for Aramaic (L2) is set at 1200 BC,
which signals its first appearance on the Mesopotamian arena. The crossover
around point ‘X’ represents the period of active bilingualism/biliteracy that is
historically documented throughout 900 BC through 700 BC after which Aramaic
secures complete dominance at least until the advent of Islam in the 7th century.
Figure 2/1. A schematic representation of language shift cycle in which L1

represents the dominant language losing ground and L2 represents the subordinate
language gaining dominance.
2.4.2 Contribution of Bilingualism to Understanding of Human

Civilization
Any period of bilingualism/biliteracy, which accompanies language shift

cycles, and the historical evidence of them left behind contribute immensely and
differently in the description and interpretation of the ancient human civilizations.
Below are some such contributions.
2.4.2.1 Evidence on Dynamic Nature of Human Civilizational

Interaction
Bilingualism/biliteracy constitutes one of the most important pieces of

evidence on the dynamic nature of interaction, integration and transformation
among the ancient civilizations. It affords ample evidence not just on the
occurrence of cross-language/culture contact between and among civilizations,
but also on the pace, extent and aspects of the contact.
2.4.2.2 Aid in Deciphering Ancient Languages
Bilingualism/biliteracy actively contributes in the decipherment of many

ancient languages and the illumination of some very obscure periods in the
ancient history of the Middle Eastern civilizations, in general, and the
Mesopotamian civilization in particular. Many scholars have highlighted the
significance of bilingual inscriptions as the most useful tool in the decipherment
process of the ancient Mesopotamian languages; a process that seriously began in
the 19th century and is still ongoing (Barber, 1974: 8; Daniels, 1996: 145). With
special emphasis on the Assyrian and Aramaic connection, Parpola points out: “
By the eighth century, every official document was drawn up both in Akkadian
and Aramaic. By the beginning of the seventh century the whole ruling class was
certainly fully bilingual…many scribes who wrote in cuneiform appear to have
spoken Aramaic as their first language (1999: 5). A very important symbol of the
growing element of bilingualism and biliteracy between Assyrian and Aramaic is
the adoption of adê, the loyalty oath- which existed as a concept and institution
since 750 BC- as a practice in voicing allegiance to the King of Assyria by its
vassals. In fact, many vassal treaties with North Syrian countries were written in
duplicates: in Aramaic and Akkadian, in the Assyrian dialect (Tadmor, 1975: 42-
3). Contenau summarizes the role of bilingual inscriptions in the advancement of
Assyriology as a broad academic discipline. He states:
“Without a bilingual inscription, Assyriology could not have advanced, for it has
since become clear that no true insight into Mesopotamian civilization is possible
without a profound knowledge of the language and of those people who spoke it.
As it was, however, there was no lack of bilingual inscriptions, ranging from
dictionaries to inscriptions in alternate lines. The unknown language was
Sumerian, the tongue spoken by the peoples who had developed their own
civilization in Lower Mesopotamia, which the Semites later borrowed.” (1954:
186)
In sum, every student of ancient history and archaeology is well aware that
without some valuable bilingual and trilingual documents and inscriptions, such
as the Behistun and Rosetta inscriptions, it would have been quite challenging,
perhaps even impossible without the assistance of modern computer technology,
to decipher the ancient languages of many ancient civilizations.
2.4.2.3 Evidence on Dynamic Nature of Human Languages as Live

Entities
Bilingualism/biliteracy represents glaring evidence that human languages

are live entities that emerge, as the need arises, grow, change, assimilate into
others, and even disintegrate and vanish. This is exactly what happened to
Sumerian and Akkadian, among many other languages of ancient civilizations.
The key lesson one learns from this dynamic behavior of human languages is that,
throughout long centuries, peoples and nations may undergo a radical change of
language which may conceal and obscure part of their ethnic and national
identities, but in no way obliterates them totally. In other words, the same people
with a linguistically modified national identity or ethnic identity may still be there
and surviving for many centuries long after their linguistic conversion. There are
many such examples of radical linguistic conversions in the history of human
race. One such massive linguistic conversion is the dominance of Aramaic in
what was Babylonia and Assyria whose language was Akkadian. According to
Greenfield: “The use of Aramaic in the Assyrian Empire at an early period is
attested to by references to Aramaic letters [i.e., egirtu armƝtu] and the Aramaic
scribes and documents before the rise of the Sargonid dynasty. Indeed the gradual
absorption of great numbers of Aramaic speakers from the West influenced the
composition of the administration of the Assyrian Empire.” (1985: 698) Parpola
states the same concept of the all-encompassing spread of Aramaic in Assyria
somewhat differently: “The Aramaization of Assyria was calculated policy aimed
[by the Assyrians, my emphasis] at creating national unity and identity of a kind
that could never have been achieved, had the Empire remained a loose
conglomeration of a plethora of different nations and languages. And it did pay
off. Even though Akkadian retained its position as the language of the ruling elite
and the cuneiform script continued to be used for prestige purposes, Aramaic soon
became part and parcel of the imperial administration too (1999: 5; 2000-a: 6). It
was this Arameo-Assyrian interconnection or even blending that produced an
Aramaic-Assyrian koiné and was characteristic of the Neo-Assyrian civilization
(Tadmor: 1975: 43). Due to the deep reciprocal influence between Assyrian and
Aramaic, Rosenthal (1974:6) “indicates that during the second millennium BC,
various Aramaic dialects were likely to have been spoken at the borders and
within Mesopotamia and the Fertile Crescent. But it was the dialect used by the
Arameans settled within the confines of Assyria that from the eighth century BC
on supplanted all other dialects.” Perhaps, equally interesting is the fact that “the
Aramaic script was often called ‘Assyrian’. This attests to the continued
awareness that it developed into an independent entity during the Assyrian
period.” (Greenfield, 1985: 710) Naveh citing Talmudic sources points out that
the Jewish script is a direct derivation from the Aramaic and is called the
‘Assyrian script’ or ketƗb !aššǌrƯ simply because it was based on the Aramaic
script that was commonly used in Babylonia and Assyria during the diaspora
(1982: 11; cf., Millard, 19??: 107). It is also called the ‘square script’ or ketƗb
merubba (Diringer, 1968: 202; Coulmas, 1989: 143; Healey, 1990: 43).
“The unifying force of Arabic and Islam is the main reason for the gradual
extinction of Aramaic. The importance of Aramaic in the religious field is
paramount. For more than a thousand years it was the vernacular of Israel and
became the second holy tongue, taking the place next to Hebrew in the religious
and literacy life of the Jewish people. It was the vernacular of Jesus Christ and
the Apostles, and probably the original language of the Gospels. The majority of
the religious works of the various oriental Churches are written in dialects
descended from Aramaic and in scripts descended from the Aramaic alphabet.”
(Diringer, 1968: 198)
2.4.2.4 A Constant Component of Civilization
In the long history of human civilizations, bilingualism/biliteracy is not a

marginal or accidental linguistic/cultural phenomenon that emerges sporadically
and intermittently here and there. Conversely, bilingualism is a constant
component of the overall structure of human civilization; it automatically emerges
when two or more languages come into contact. Its saliency is so powerful that
bilingualism is an easily justifiable normal and natural sociolinguistic and
psycholinguistic phenomenon. The sociolinguistic naturalness of bilingualism is
substantiated by its pervasiveness throughout all linguistic communities and its
automatic and subconscious acquisition whenever language contacts are
established. Likewise, psycholinguistically bilingualism is a normal and natural
phenomenon because human beings, especially the young, internalize it readily
implying that human brain is endowed with enough cognitive potential to
internalize more than one language.
2.4.2.5 A Significant Tool of Identity Building and Changing
Bilingualism/biliteracy is one of the most efficient and effective

civilizational tools that help blend different cultures and languages and bring
about changes in the ethnic identity of many nations and peoples. Thus, massive
cultural and linguistic shifts and conversions in the aftermath of long stretches of
active bilingualism are not unfamiliar in the history of peoples and nations. “The
fact that the majority of the natives of Britain lost their Celtic languages and
picked up a Germanic language to be known later as English; the fact that the
natives of Egypt lost their ancient Egyptian language and gradually embraced
Arabic; and the fact that the natives of Central and South America who were
never Latinos in language, Hispanics in culture and Catholic in religion are now
predominantly Spanish-speaking and overwhelmingly Roman Catholics all attest
to such massive conversions and obscuration of ethnic identities.” (Odisho, 2001:
140) In order to be able to envision and assess the depth and breadth of the
Assyrian-Aramaic confluence, the following detailed statement from Tadmor is in

order:
“The Arameo-Assyrian interconnections or even blending in what is usually

designated as ‘Assyrian civilization’ of the later empire should be considered in
greater detail. I have attempted to trace its origins from the reign of
Ashurnasirpal, the outstanding Assyrian nationalist. Ironically, it was he who, by
his policy of deportation of westerners [Arameans, my emphasis] into Assyria
proper, set the pattern for the future hybrid culture of the ‘Aramaic-Assyrian
koiné.” (1975: 43)
Likewise, Saggs states: “The culture of the new Assyrian Empire was by no
means purely Assyrian nor even Assyro-Babylonian; it was a hybrid culture. One
of the main elements which first came in during the first millennium was due to
the Arameans.” (1984: 129) Parpola gives a good example for the role of
bilingualism/biliteracy in reshaping and changing the ethnic identity of a given
nation or people by saying: “It can be considered certain that by the end of the
seventh century BC, Aramaic and imperial culture had become essential parts of
Assyrian identity.” (1999: 6; 2000-a: 6)
This kind of bilingual/biliteracy shift or conversion side by side with other
religious and other cultural conversions that preceded, co-existed and followed
the collapse of the Assyrian Empire seriously mislead some historians into the
acceptance of the notion that the downfall of Nineveh was the doomsday for all
the Assyrians in Assyria, their language, religion and other aspects of culture.
This interpretation of the total collapse of a political system as the total
annihilation of its entire citizenry and culture is inconceivable. I seriously doubt
that the human history has ever experienced the total annihilation of the entire
population of a nation. The collapse of the Byzantine, Roman or Ottoman empires
and the survival of their peoples is the best refutation to the annihilatory view.
With all those empires, it was the political machine that collapsed and the territory
under its jurisdiction split into smaller countries, states or provinces that survived
under the same or different names. This has to be so, and cannot be otherwise,
because those who perish with the collapse of the political system represent the
minority while the majority outlives the collapse though frequently undergoes
various political, religious and linguistic changes. Based on common sense and
the evidence from the political history of past empires and nations, the sudden
annihilation of a political system or empire should not entail the annihilation of it
peoples, languages and cultures. Nations, languages and cultures don’t die with
heart attacks, strokes and coup d’états; individuals, kings and political systems do.
It is appropriate here to draw an analogy with World War II. In the recorded
history of humanity, there has been no worse catastrophe than this War. Berlin
was destroyed, millions of soldiers and civilians did perish and the Nazi war
machine and regime did disintegrate, but the German people and Germany
survived though in two parts and with many small parts being annexed to the
neighboring nations. Incidentally, the most recent example to support the line of
thinking espoused here is the collapse of the Soviet Union. Nothing disappeared
except the politico-economic system, whereas the peoples not only regained their
political freedom, but also embarked on reaffirming their ethnic, linguistic and
cultural identity. I, therefore, have no hesitation, whatsoever, in adopting
Diakonoff’s view, as I did in the past (Odisho, 1988) and completely rejecting
Durant’s, among others, description of the total annihilation of the people of
Nineveh and Assyria. It is true that Nineveh, as a capital, fell. It is true that
Assyria, as a political system, collapsed. It is quite conceivable to talk of tens, or
even hundreds of thousands of casualties. But none of the above facts should be
construed as the total annihilation of the Assyrians (Odisho, 1988:8; 2001: 141).
The knowledge of such radical, pervasive and massive linguistic, religious and
cultural conversions are extremely essential in solving many historical problems
or at least shedding some light on them to help with the solution. One such major
politico-cultural problem in the modern history of the Assyrians is their
connection or affiliation with the ancient Assyrians which some historians and
politicians deny (for details see, Odisho, 1988 and 2001). One cannot stop
politicians from denying the connection because they are people whose decisions
are often dictated by their political philosophies. However, if historians claim the
denial, then it should be scientifically and objectively substantiated; otherwise, the
denial is judged as subjective, lacking in evidence or even bias and should be
seriously scrutinized. One such claim has been repeatedly recurring in Joseph’s
works (1961; 1998; 2000). I have previously rejected Joseph’s denial of the
connection elsewhere (1988: 18; 2001: 143-4) and I, therefore, do not want to
revisit the subject except for three brief comments.
First, Joseph’s logic in the denial is exclusively based on historical events
in their absolute sense and their verbatim wording without subjecting those events
and their wording to a dialectic and dynamic interpretation; history is not the
exclusive making of isolated decontextualized events or statements. Joseph’s
exclusively history-based approach to solving the problem of connection which is
not just historical, but rather heavily wrapped and embedded in linguistic and
cultural contexts, is the primary reason behind his failure to accept the connection.
His very narrow perspective and his exclusively history-based conceptualization
of the problem impose on him a tunnel vision which eliminates very important
and relevant information lying in the periphery of the overall vision span. This
information is extremely necessary for a comprehensive and objective assessment
of all the dimensions of the problem. Much of this evidence comes not only in the
form of pertinent linguistic and cultural factors, but also in the form of the
dynamics that govern the nature of the linguistic and cultural cycles of shift. Such
cycles are indispensable in dictating and shaping the annals of history. However, I
thank Joseph for giving me the inspiration to build up the theme of this research
in which I strive to reveal the dynamism underlying the lengthy cycles of
language and culture shifts.
Second, the change of language or change of names should not deprive an
ethnic group from its native historical identity. The gradual shift of language from
Assyrian into Aramaic via an Aramaic-Assyrian koiné is not enough reason to
deprive a people of its ethnic identity. If this were true, the Irish would have no
justifiable claim today to their historical ethnic identity of Irishness simply
because they underwent a language shift from Celtic to English. By the same
token, the Egyptians of today would have no justifiable claim to their ancient
Coptic ethnic identity because they gave up their Old Egyptian language in favor
of Arabic. In fact, if one follows Joseph’s emphasis on judging the accuracy of
historical facts and events by names then the Egypt of today would have nothing
to do with the Egypt of yesterday because Egypt has long been historically known
to its natives as Masr10 not as Egypt which has been popularized in the Western
World through Greek. Consequently, it is quite plausible and legitimate to say that
after the linguistic conversion of the Assyrians into Aramaic they remained
Assyrians in their ethnic identity, but with an Aramaic-Assyrian linguistic Koiné.
Another marginal factor that Joseph assigns an important role in his attempt to
dismantle the connection between ancient and modern Assyrians is the weight he
grants the change in proper names as if they constitute an undeniable and constant
component of an ethnic identity. He proudly cites Fiey stating rhetorically: “I
have made indices of my Christian Assyria…and I have had to align some 50
pages of proper names of people; there is not a single writer who has an
‘Assyrian’ name.” (Fiey, 1965: 146-148, cited in Joseph, 1998) Names do not
always represent a reliable index to historical, ethnic or national origin. Names
may change across generations, while other major components of ethnic identity
such as language require centuries to erode and shift according to C-model
mentioned in 2.4.1.1. Thus, to build an argument for the denial of the ethnic
identity and affinity to some modern descendents, who still claim it, based on
proper names cannot be but a very feeble argument. All what Joseph needs to do
to ascertain that proper names have a very fleeting or transient nature that
oftentimes renders them vulnerable to change across generations is to study name-
change among the Assyrians who settled in Iraq after 1918. It is quite obvious that
the Assyrians came with their historical and biblical names, gradually adopted
Anglicized or English names, followed by ancient Assyrian names and finally
began to embrace Arabicized and Arabic names in order to facilitate their day to
day survival and alleviate their ethnic problems.11
Third, Joseph accepts the connection of the modern Assyrians to the
Arameans or Syrians, but rejects their connection to the ancient Assyrians
although both the ancient Assyrian and Arameans were historically affiliated with
the same regions which the modern Assyrians have inhabited as far as their
history is traced back.
2.5 Conclusions
After presenting all the historical evidence pertinent to the ancient
Mesopotamian languages and the discussion that ensued, there are several points,
which emerge distinctly and are significant enough to lead to several conclusions.
First, a political system, in the form of an empire or government, does not
constitute a constant component of the ethnic identity or identities of the people
inhabiting within the domain of a given political system. An ethnic identity may

10
Perhaps from its ancient name of Mudraya (Breasted, 1944; Frye, 1963; Herzfeld, 1968).
11
Similar trends in name changing among modern Assyrians occurred in Iran, Turkey, Syria,
Lebanon and the republics of the ex-Soviet Union.
be there before the political system and may also outlast the system. Thus, the fall
of a political system does not and should not imply the vanishing of a people as a
collective human body nor should it imply the sudden disappearance of the
language or culture of that people. The fall of Assyria simply meant the demise of
the political system not the demise of a people and the evaporation of its ethnic
identity.
Second, languages are live entities that may last for millennia, but if they
embroil in a competition they do not disappear instantaneously. They tend to
follow two main models of language shift cycle identified in 2.4.1.1 above, as the
G-model, which stands for a mini shift cycle being completed over three
generations and the C-model representing the grand shift cycle lasting several
centuries. According to such language shift cycles, which have been established
and assigned approximate durations in this study using the available historical
data and documentation, it would take several centuries for the disappearance of
the Assyrian language after the collapse of Assyria in circa 612 BC.12 Even after
the passing of several centuries, the total loss of the Assyrian language should not
be construed as the absolute obliteration of their ethnic identity and the loss of
their right to claim their native identity. People and ethnic entities may very
legitimately claim their native and historical ethnicity even long centuries after
the loss of their language or even their total displacement from their homeland.
Otherwise how could the Irish claim their Irishness until this very day even with
the practical loss of their Irish Gaelic [Celtic] language? How would today’s
Egyptians dare to do the same after the loss of their ancient Egyptian [Coptic]
language and their conversion to Arabic long centuries ago? Would anyone dare
to deny the Native Americans their nativeness and ethnicity because they lost
their native languages?
Third, bilingualism, which many people tend to think of as a relatively
modern phenomenon, is a very old one; in fact, it should be as old as when two
human languages first came into contact with each other. Therefore, it is about
time that bilingualism were considered as one of the oldest linguistic phenomena
in the oral and written history of humanity and civilization at large. In today’s
world of global integration, we should embark on educating the younger
generations that monolingualism is not the rule and bilingual or multilingualism
the exception. Both are normal and constant characteristics of human life and
civilization. There had been bilingualism prior to our recorded history, throughout
our recorded history and it will remain all along the future. A careful observation
of the pervasiveness of bilingualism among world population and the automatic
and subconscious manner in which children acquire it are robust proofs that
bilingualism is a normal sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic phenomenon.
Fourth, as indicated in the second conclusion, language may face
competition and subsequently be vulnerable to shift or disappearance. However,
in both shift cycles mentioned above, each cycle is usually completed after a
period of bilingualism. Of great interest and relevance to the study of ancient

12
The reader should be reminded that it takes a very long time for the total death of a language. As
pointed out earlier on, the use of Akkadian in its various dialects continued down to the time of
Christ (Healey, 1990: 204).
civilizations is the so-called grand shift cycle, which may last from several
centuries to a millennium. A considerable part of this lengthy period has to be in
the form of a long stretch of bilingualism/biliteracy. These stretches had, and still
have, considerable contributions to the analysis, interpretation and understanding
of human history and civilizations. “In fact, any long-term project for a
comprehensive survey of the cultures and languages of Mesopotamia, such as
Melammu, has to grant serious consideration to those lengthy transitions of
bilingualism, biculturalism and biliteracy and the dynamics that governed them.
We should all remember that it was through the help of bilingual and multilingual
pieces of evidence such as the Behistun Monument and Rosetta Stone that
archaeologists and linguists were able to decipher the codes of the ancient
languages and illuminate their civilizations.” (Odisho, 2001: 147)
2.6 Bibliography
Barber, E.J.W (1974). Archaeological Decipherment: A Handbook. Princeton:
Bottéro, Jean (1987). Writing, Reasoning and the Gods. Chicago: The University
of Chicago Press.
Breasted, J.H. (1944). Ancient Times: A History of the Early World. Boston:
Gimm & Company.
Cenoz, Jason and Perales, Josu (2001). The Basque-speaking Communities.
Multilingualism in Spain: Sociolinguistic and Psycholinguistic Aspects of
Linguistic Minority Students (ed. M. Teresa Turell). Clevedon:
Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Contenau, Georges (1954). Everyday Life in Babylon and Assyria. London:
Edward Arnold Publishers, Ltd.
Coulmas, Florian (1989). The Writing Systems of the World. London: Basil
Blackwell.
Daniels, Peter T. and Bright, William (1996). The World’s Writing Systems. New
York: Oxfor University Press.
DeFrancis, John (1989). Visible Speech: the Diverse Openness of Writing
Systems. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press
Diakonoff, I.M. (1985). Media. The Cambridge History of Iran, Vol 2:36-148.
Diringer, David (1968). The Alphabet: A Key to the History of Mankind. New
York: Funk & Wagnalls.
Durant, W. (1942). The Story of Civilization: Our Oriental Heritage. New York:
Simon & Schuster.
Eph¥al, Israel (1982). The Ancient Arabs. Jerusalem: The Magnes Press.
Frye, R.N. (1963). The Heritage of Persia. Cleveland: World Publishing Co.
Geller, Mark (1997). The Last Wedge. Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, Vol. 87, pp.
43-95.
Geller, Mark (2001). The Aramaic Incantation in Cuneiform Script. Ex Oriente
Lux, Vols. 35-36, pp. 127-146.
Greenfield, J.C. (1985). Aramaic in the Achaemenian Empire. The Cambridge

History of Iran, Vol. 2, 298-313. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hawkes, Jacquetta (1973). The First Great civilizations. New York: Alfred A.
Knopf.
Healey, John F. (1990). The Early Alphabet. Reading the Past: Ancient Writing
from Cuneiform to the Alphabet (J.T. Hooker, ed). London: The British
Museum Publications, Pp. 197-257.
Hooker, J.T. (1990). Reading the Past: Ancient Writing from Cuneiform to the
Alphabet (introduction, pp.6-13). London: The British Museum
Publications.
Joseph, John (1961). The Nestorians and Their Muslim Neighbors. Princeton:
———. (1998). The Bible and the Assyrians: It Kept their Memory Alive.
Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies, Vol.12:1, pp.70-76.
———. (2000). The Modern Assyrians of the Middle East. Leiden: Brill
Naveh, Joseph (1982). Early History of the Alphabet: An Introduction to the
Semitic Epigraphy and Palaeography. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Aramaic). Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
———. (2001). The Ethnic, Linguistic and Cultural Identity of Modern
Assyrians. Melammu Symposia II: Mythology and Mythologies. R.M.
Whiting (ed), pp. 137-148. Helsinki.
Olmstead, A.T.E. (1948). History of the Persian Empire. Chicago: Chicago
University Press.
Parpola, Simo (1997). Assyria 1995: Proceedings of the Tenth Anniversary
Symposium of the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project, Helsinki Sept. 7-11,
1995 (eds. S. Parpola and R. M. Whiting, pp. 7-11). Helsinki.
———. (1999). Assyrians after Assyria. Paper presented at the Assyrian National
Convention, September 4, Los Angeles.
———. (2000-a). ‘The Neo-Assyrian Ruling Class.’ Paper presented at the Third
Symposium of the Estonian Assyriological Society (Tartu, April 26,
2000).
———. (2000-b). ‘Assyria’s Expansion in the 8th and 7th Centuries BCE.’
Symbiosis, Symbolism and the Power of the Past: Canaan, Ancient Israel
and their Neighbors. (eds. W.G. Dever and S. Gitin (forthcoming).
———. (2002-a). ‘The Leftovers of God and King: On the Distribution of Meat
at the Assyrian Achaemenid Imperial courts.’ Scelte alimentari e identità
nel mondo antico. (eds. L. Milano and C. Grottanelli). Padua
(forthcoming).
———. (2002-b). Personal Communication.
Postgate, J.N. (1992). Early Mesopotamia: Society and Economy at the Dawn of
History. London: Routledge.
Harrassowitz.
Roux, George (1964). Ancient Iraq. Cleveland: World Publishing Co.
Saggs, H.W.F. (1984). The Might that was Assyria. London: Sidgwick and
Jackson.
Sasse, Hans-Jürgen (1992). Theory of Language Death. Language Death: Factual
and Theoretical Explorations with Special reference to East Africa. (ed.
Matthias Brenzinger, pp. 7-30). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Smith, S. (1960) Ashurbanibal and the Fall of Assyria. The Cambridge Ancient
History, 3:113-131. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sykes, Percy (1969). A History of Persia. New York: Barnes & Noble, Inc.
Tadmor, Hayim (1975). Assyrians and the West: The 9th Century and its
Aftermath. Unity and Diversity: Essays in the History, Literature and
religion of the Ancient Near East (eds. Hans Goedicke and J.J.M. Roberts,
pp. 36-48). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press
Walker, C.B.F. (1990). ‘Cuneiform’. Reading the Past: Ancient Writing from
Cuneiform to the Alphabet (pp.15-73). London: British Museum
Publications.
Chapter 3
‘Bi-’ and ‘Multi-’ Situations in Writing

Systems, Writing Mediums and Writing
Implements
There are two reasons that enticed me to pursue the evolution of writing
mediums1 and implements. First, when I reported the dynamics and timelines for
the emergence, survival and demise of writing systems along six millennia in
Mesopotamia [see Chapter 2], I noticed long periods of bi-literacy and multi-
literacy between two or more writing systems prior to one of them succumbing to
the other. Second, when in a class discussion with some students regarding the
evolution of writing systems from complete iconic representations [pictures] to
utterly non-iconic symbols [alphabets], human civilization was defined as ‘a long
journey from concreteness to abstraction’. Some of my audience requested further
elaboration of this statement. At the time, the history of the evolution of numbers
beginning with their indication with calculus2 [pebbles], fingers, notches on wood
or tree, to short vertical lines ||||||||||| and ending with the Roman numeral I, II, II,
II, IV V VI after subjecting the vertical lines to a couple of organizational rules
etc... One such rule to indicate a tendency toward abstraction was to avoid
marking the enumeration with repeated strokes because it was repetitive, tedious,
confusing and time-consuming. For instance, instead of marking five strokes for
‘five’ and ten strokes for ‘ten’, they were replaced with the symbols ‘V’ and ‘X’
perhaps the former indicating the skeletal image of five fingers on a hand and the
latter being merely two ‘V’s connected at their points (Durant, 1942: 76),
respectively. Another rule was the insertion of a smaller numeral to the left of the
larger number to imply subtraction, whereas its insertion to the right implied
addition. Such rules were introduced to save space and render the communication
with numbers more user-friendly, more legible and more generative. The shift to
the so-called Hindi-Arabic numerals [0123456789] was the last stage were iconic
signs for numbers lost their iconicity [concreteness] and became mere symbols
[abstraction]. The transformation of concrete signs to abstract symbols is a vivid
example of evolution away from concreteness and in the direction of abstractness.
It also serves as evidence of the existence of ‘bi’ and ‘multi’ numerical systems
that are still in use.

1
In this context, the plural formation for the term ‘medium’ is ‘mediums’ rather than its more
conventional plural of ‘media’ to avoid confusion with its usage as in ‘multimedia’ denoting the
outlets for information dissemination [e.g., television, radio, internet] or information projection
means [e.g., films, slides]. Additionally, the prefix ‘multi’ with ‘media’ is avoided in order not to
create the ‘plural of the plural’ since ‘multi’ already signals plurality; consequently, ‘multi-media’
will be avoided in favor of ‘multi-medium’.
2
The Latin word for ‘pebbles’ implying that counting was a concrete process that began with
pebbles (Durant, 1942: 76).
In an initial study of the writing systems, my interest was focused on the

co-existence of biliteracy and multiliteracy situations for the use of those systems.
Soon, the narrow focus inspired me to look at the evolution of human writing
systems further and with a broader perspective. I soon discovered that similar to
the presence of biliteracy and multiliteracy periods for writing systems, there are
numerous analogous and parallel systems in human civilization to those of the
writing systems and numeral systems. The early observations indicated that the
evolution patterns in human civilization and the emergence of ‘bi’ and ‘multi’
systems is not confined to languages, cultures and writing systems. This study is
devoted to further explicate the ‘bi’ and ‘multi’ systems, especially of writing
mediums [materials] and writing implements [tools].
3.2 Needed Terminology

Since some of the terms used in this study denote specific meanings, they
have to be clarified to avoid confusion:
1) Literacy. Stands for competency or proficiency in depicting spoken language

in a given form of writing. Consequently, biliteracy stands for the competency
in depicting spoken language in two different systems of writing. A more
refined identification of biliteracy may require the distinction between:
2) Primary biliteracy vs. Secondary biliteracy vs. Tertiary biliteracy. The first
stands for writing in two different primary systems such as pictographic and
logographic [ideographic]; logographic and syllabic; logographic and
alphabetic; or syllabic and alphabetic etc... The writings on the famous
Rosetta Stone is a typical example of primary triliteracy. The second stands
for writing in two different forms of one primary system such as the syllabic
writing system [e.g. Japanese people writing in Katagana and Hiragana] or
two different forms of alphabetic writing [e.g., Serbians writing in Latin and
Cyrillic alphabets]. Tertiary biliteracy represents writing in two scripts of the
same primary writing system such as writing in two scripts of Latin alphabet
as applied to English and German texts or writing Arabic and Farsi in Arabic
alphabet (Odisho, 2005).
3) Medium: stands for the material on which writing is portrayed. Thus,

bimedium and multimedium denote the simultaneous use of two different
materials such as stone and clay or clay and parchment or papyrus and
parchment etc…Multi-medium denotes the simultaneous use of several
different materials such as stone, clay, parchment, papyrus, paper etc… to
portray writing.
4) Implement: stands for the tool or instrument used for writing such as chisel,
knife, stylus, brush, pen, pencil etc... By the same token of bimedium and
multimedium situations, one can, if necessary, use the terms bi-implement and
multi-implement [to be written, henceforth, as biimplement and
Bi- and Multi- Situations in Writing Systems, Mediums and Implements 39
multiimplement for consistency with the transcription of other terms] to

describe situations in which the ancient scribes used two different implements
to write on two different mediums. One of the best pieces of evidence
attesting to a typical of ‘bi’ systems comes from the 8th and 7th centuries B.C.
of the Assyrian Empire where there are pictures of scribes not only using
different writing systems [i.e., Assyrian cuneiform and Aramaic alphabet] but
also different implements of writing [i.e., stylus vs. reed pen] and different
mediums [i.e., clay vs. papyrus roll or leather scroll] (for more details see
Walker, 1990; Naveh, 1982; Driver, 1976 Toynbee, 1947: 19; see also Figure
3/1, below). Today, as well as in the past, calligraphers tend to use more than
one implement in practicing their profession.
Figure 3/1. Pictoral example of ancient Assyrian scribes from

8th and 7th centuries B.C. using biliteracy, bimedium, and bi-implement
3.3 Historical Sketch of Bi/Multilingualism and Bi/Multiliteracy

Throughout the history of civilization, there has always been linguistic
diversity and linguistic contacts which have jointly led to the emergence of
bilingual and multilingual situations. In Chapter 2, several significant conclusions
were made with regard to bilingualism and multilingualism and biliteracy and
multiliteracy throughout the ancient history of the Mesopotamian civilizations.
Foremost among such conclusions were the following:
1) When two languages are in close geographic proximity and prolonged contact,
a bilingual situation has to arise.
2) When the two languages maintain the social, economic, geographic and
educational conditions of language survival, the bilingual situation will last
for centuries and even for millennia.
3) There are well-defined dynamics that govern the bilingual situation, its
duration and, at times, the succumbing of one language to the other and its
final disappearance. It often requires centuries for language disappearance to

materialize.
4) When the languages in contact have developed different literacy means

[orthographies] for communication, it is likely that a biliteracy situation arises
until one writing system supersedes the other.
5) There are well-defined dynamics that govern the biliteracy situation, its
duration and, at times, the succumbing of one writing system to the other and
its final disappearance. It often requires centuries for a writing system to
disappear.
In order to briefly demonstrate the above observations, it was noticed that

when Sumerian and Akkadian languages or Akkadian and Aramaic languages
came into contact, bilingual situations emerged and lasted for centuries. As for the
emergence of biliteracy situations, it suffices to say that a Sumerian-Akkadian
biliteracy [i.e., logographic and syllabic] emerged followed by an Akkadian-
Aramaic biliteracy [i.e., syllabic and alphabetic] both of which lasted for several
centuries and even as long as a millennium. Elsewhere, in a short survey of the
stages of the evolution of writing throughout the history of human civilization
(Odisho, 2004), there was clear evidence of a dominant trend of progression from
concreteness to abstraction in the design of the systems of writing. Writing began
with the creation of holistic pictures [iconic representation] of real objects or
referents [pictography] followed by a period of simplified skeletal representation
of the pictures in the form of graphic signals to merely convey a concept or idea
of the objects [ideography or logographic]. With the gradual loss of iconicity in
the graphic signals of objects, the objects or ideas were indicated by mere
linguistic signs first in the form of syllabic units and later in the form of
autonomous alphabetic units both of which are linguistic symbols with minimum
iconicity, if any, and maximum abstraction.
No doubt, writing does not exist in a vacuum; it has to have a medium for
its representation. Similarly, the medium requires an implement, instrument or
tool that is compatible with the nature of the medium– solid vs. soft and rough
surface vs. smooth surface etc…. Special focus will be on the following points: 1)
The existence of a similar trend of evolution from concreteness to abstraction in
the mediums of writing; 2) The presence of relatively well-defined periods for the
dominance of each medium as well as periods of bimedium or multimedium
during which two or more mediums are used simultaneously; 3) Each medium of
writing, in turn, requires the creation and evolution of the convenient implement
[tool] of writing; 4) The implements of writing also distinctly portray periods of
single implement dominance side by side with periods of biimplement and
multiimplement marked by a trend of evolution from concreteness to abstraction.
3.4 Scope of Writing Mediums and Underlying Causes of Change

There is virtually no limit to the mediums [materials] that have been used
for writing from the earliest precursors to the present (Balckwell Encyclopedia of
Writing, 1996: 558). Some such mediums range from rocks, stones, wood, bark,
bones, shells, pottery, different kinds of skin or leather– including parchment and
vellum–, wax, leaves, silk, cotton, papyrus to paper. It is quite evident that not all
those mediums have been very popular and widely-used. The most outstanding
mediums that constitute landmarks in the six or seven millennia of the history of
the evolution of writing are rock [stone], clay, papyrus, parchment and paper
which will be the focus in this study. These landmarks in themselves represent the
successive revolutions in the medium of writing. In this age of computer
technology and digital3 literacy, we are presently in the midst of yet another
revolution which has introduced the electromagnetic surface on which writing and
other graphics are recorded digitally in the form of bytes of information (Bolter,
2001:2; Robinson, 2002: 21). Obviously, the logistics of information storage
necessitates objects [mediums] on which this information can be stored; in other
words, writing becomes writing only when it is recorded on some type of writing
material (Gaur, 1984: 35).
Throughout history, the change in the mediums of writing has been
triggered by several reasons foremost of which are: 1) Volume or size of writing
needed; 2) Ease of writing with regard to the texture and surface of a given
medium; 3) Economics of writing in terms of time, efforts and cost; 4)
Preservability of the written texts. Let us elaborate somewhat on the above four
reasons.
3.4.1 Volume and Size of Writing
In the early stages, writing, such as the Sumerian cuneiform, served very
restricted purposes in trade and agriculture like listing sacks of grain and heads of
cattle (Jackson, 1981: 16; Jean, 1992:13). The purposes gradually broadened to
include other social and literacy activities. Thus, because of the limited purposes
of writing and the difficulty of writing on clay with a wedge, the volume of
writing was relatively small. The volume of writing on rocks was even smaller
because of the greater difficulty of engraving written symbols or shapes with a
chisel or metal instrument. Consequently, to generate larger volume of writing, it
was quite natural to require other mediums and implements that were easier to
manipulate.
3.4.2 Texture and Surface of Mediums
Obviously to write on rocks requires not only some specific manual and
craftsmanship skills, but also some initial work on preparing the surface of the

3
‘Digital’ is derived from the Latin <digitus> meaning “finger”. When something is digitized, it is
interpreted as a sequence of numbers according to a certain code; thus, digital production of
literacy is radically different from hand-written, typewritten and printed literacy (Heim, 1987: 84).
rock prior to incising or etching the targeted signs and symbols. Though it may
seem relatively easier to impress on wet clay with a wedge, but the very wetness
of the clay makes the retention of shapes of the impressed signs quite difficult
(Gelb, 1963: 69; Jean, 1992: 15). Thus, the clay pieces on which writing is
impressed often require further care or even baking to maintain the permanency of
the targeted shapes (Postgate, 1992: 56). It is, therefore, quite natural for people to
seek mediums and surfaces that are more user-friendly than rock and clay. In light
of those technical difficulties, rock, clay and wood gave way to papyrus and
parchment.
3.5 Economics of Writing

This aspect of prerequisites of writing deals with the time, effort, cost and
ease of producing written texts. The history of change in the mediums of writing
and the design of the surface and space of the written text from rock slabs to clay
tablets to papyrus scrolls or rolls, to codex and finally to the modern paper books
tells the story of the journey of the mediums of writing from the most concrete
and crude to the most abstract and refined. Besides, the change represents the
panorama of processes of transformation of writing from the least economic to the
most economic. As recent as the last three decades and with the advent of
computer technology, there are irrefutable indications that the concepts of writing,
surface and page are becoming even more abstract in form and more economic in
production. It is, therefore, quite logical to agree with the statement claiming that
the supremacy of paper has been irrevocably challenged (Gaur, 1984).
3.6 Preservability of Written Texts

As pointed out earlier on, there is a wide range of mediums used for
writing which differ in nature and texture. The difference, in turn, impacts the
duration of the preservability of the medium and written text it portrays. The more
solid the medium is, the greater its indestructibility [imperishability]; conversely,
the less solid the medium is, the greater its perishability. However, with the
passage of time since the beginning of writing on rocks, written texts began to
receive greater attention for conservation. Inscriptions on rocks were often
outdoors and exposed to the inclemency of weather. No doubt, many texts have
been destroyed and some fortunately survived because of the natural durability of
rocks, especially in the form of marble. The hundreds of thousands of clay tablets
survived until this very day by virtue of their earth [clay] composition, especially
when they were baked in ovens or kilns. Additionally, another important reason
for the survival of clay tablets has been attributed to their storage places such as in
special libraries attached to temples and palaces– such as the Assyrian
Ashurbanipal library in Nineveh– because of their social, religious and economic
values (Gaur, 1984). However, due to the proliferation of literacy across centuries
and millennia and its great role in human civilization throughout the world, there
emerged an irresistible need for more user-friendly, accessible and economic
mediums for writing. This need was satisfied through the gradual conversion from
rock, clay and wood mediums to papyrus and parchment. Although the latter two
mediums are more perishable than the former, they were, however, afforded much
better conditions and places for conservation such as cathedrals, churches and
libraries. For instance, the library of Alexandria was the home for approximately
500,000 volumes and that of Pergamon for 200,000 volumes.
3.7 Salient Features of Bimedium and Multimedium Periods

Undoubtedly, it is quite difficult to strictly identify well-delimited periods
of simultaneous use of writing mediums [bimedium or multimedium] throughout
the six millennia history of literacy. The difficulty is attributed to two major
reasons. First, the large number of mediums used for writing. Second, some
mediums continued to be used occasionally, especially, for epigraphic,
calligraphic and ceremonial purposes. However, if one focuses on the mediums
the primary purpose of which has been writing beyond the epigraphic,
calligraphic and ceremonial purposes then clay, papyrus, parchment, paper and
more recently the electromagnetic disc stand out prominently. With emphasis on
Mesopotamia, Egypt and Greece as three prominent centers of writing and
literacy, one can readily determine that although clay singled itself out as the
primary medium of writing in Mesopotamia (Walker, 1990: 32; Healey, 1990:
197-258; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_book, 2006), and papyrus
was the natural writing surface for Egypt (Jackson, 1981:35; Blackwell
Encyclopedia of Writing Systems: 1996: 558) while stone and papyrus were more
popular in Greece, the three centers simultaneously used stone, wood and
different types of skins. For instance, in Mesopotamia, clay was dominant, but
leather was equally popular (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parchment, 2006;
Bolter, 2001: 21); similarly, in Egypt inscriptions preserved on wooden statues
and sarcophagi coexisted with inscriptions on papyrus that go back to 2134-1789
BC (Gaur, 1984: 37-42).
As a major turning point in the history of writing mediums, especially in
Greece where Egyptian papyrus was common, papyrus began to lose ground in
favor of parchment (Jackson, 1981: 37) because Egypt’s papyrus4 became more
expensive and it was not as convenient for writing as the parchment. Although
parchment processing was equally expensive, it, nevertheless, surpassed papyrus
in certain qualities such as affording higher durability and preservability, allowing
erasure of text and limiting ink diffusion (Bolter, 2001: 21). By 800 AD, the use
of parchment had replaced papyrus in many areas outside Egypt. Parchment
became very popular in Greece and its heyday use was during the Middle Ages,
1100-1450AD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parchment, 2006).
To sum up the simultaneous and overlapping periods of the mediums in
circulation, it is worth mentioning that stone was no longer a common medium
when clay, papyrus and parchment were in vogue. Nevertheless, stone has been
continuously in use, though occasionally, for epigraphic and ceremonial purposes

4
The use of papyrus continued in Egypt until it was replaced by inexpensive paper introduced by
Arabs. The latest certain dates for the use of papyrus are 1057 AD for a papal decree and 1087 for
an Arabic document (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus, 2006).
until this very day. Clay in Mesopotamia and papyrus in Egypt and the
Mediterranean Sea basin continued their dominance for millennia until parchment
gained more visibility with Christianity and began to make a marked presence in
the Middle Ages. Finally, parchment drove papyrus out as the preferred writing
surface (Blackwell Encyclopedia of Writing Systems, 1996: 558); nevertheless,
papyrus and parchment continued to dominate until paper5 was introduced
gradually in the 8th century first in Baghdad (Rogers, 1960:112; Jackson, 1981:
104) via Samarkand, Turkestan which was invaded by Arabs who captured many
Chinese experts in paper-making. The use of paper as a medium of literacy spread
westward with the Islamic conquests reaching Egypt, North Africa and finally
Spain. In the 11th Century, paper was commonly in use in Spain.
Thus, in spite of the dominance of paper, the 3P’s – papyrus, parchment
and paper– continued to coexist and created typical periods of bimedium and
multimedium for writing and literacy. There is even evidence of composite books
[i.e. bimedium] made of both parchment and papyrus (Jackson, 1981: 46).
Gradually, however, paper industry improved in quality and production capacity
to an extent that papyrus and parchment had to give way to paper.
Coincident with the evolution of writing mediums, there also evolved the
concept of the space of writing. The progression from stone to clay to papyrus, to
parchment and finally to paper represents a succession from more concrete to
more abstract in mediums and immediately reminds one of an identical
progression in the concept of space of writing from stone slabs to clay tablets to
papyrus sheets as well as parchment sheets to regular paper. The large parchment
customized to smaller leaves [sheets] was the precursor of the concept of page
which finally gave birth to our modern standard paper page. Likewise, the concept
of a ‘book’ (Rogers, 1960: 36) also underwent the evolutionary progression from
a large slab to a combination of tablets6, to a volumen 7 [a roll of papyrus] to a
codex8 [a collection of parchment leaves] to the modern book. Nowadays, it is
evident to every literate person that computer technology has heralded the most
recent revolution in the world of literacy and communication at large. It has
changed the concept of a page, of a book, of ‘writing’ and of the implements of
writing. It is true that the importance of ‘paper’ and ‘book’ is still undiminished;
nevertheless, the electromagnetic medium of information storage and
dissemination are rapidly taking over many functions for recording, storing and
transmitting information (Blackwell Encyclopedia of Writing Systems, 1996:
558) that the traditional page and the book used to deliver. In other words, “the
supremacy of paper has been irrevocably challenged. Even if the electronic
library, the paperless office and the bookless society have not yet arrived, the
position of ‘writing’ material has changed fundamentally (Gaur, 1984: 47).

5
Paper was invented in China in the 2nd century AD.
6
In fact, the Sumerian word for the early concept of school is <edubba>, a compound of <e> =
“house” + <dubba> “clay tablet” from which the modern word <adobe> seems to be a derivation
via Arabic (Hawkes, 1973: 214-215; Saggs, 1989: 105; Walker, 1990: 43; Postgate: 1992: 69).
7
The origin of the modern term ‘volume’.
8
Interestingly, even the word <codex> in Latin etymologically refers to “tree trunk; block of
wood; or writing tablet” (Random House college dictionary, 1975)
3.8 Bi-implement and Multi-implement

After a survey of the mediums used for writing throughout the recorded
history of civilization, it is about time to point out that the mediums of writing
also predetermine to a large extent the implements necessary for writing (Gaur,
1984: 36). In the absence of a brush, the chisel, or any primitive form of metal
tool, was the only implement to engrave or scratch signs on a stone. A gouge or
graver was needed for inscription on wood (Ogg, 1971: 61). The wet clay being a
softer medium, it only needed a less hard and rigid tool in the form of a stylus or
wedge; thus, a piece or reed cut in a special form was sufficient to impress or
incise signs on the clay. With the appearance of papyrus a new surface was
introduced for which a brush dipped in dark liquid, the forerunner of today’s ink,
was the implement for writing. At first, it was a hard brush made of a reed
loosened at one end by repeated slitting (Ogg, 1971: 62) or chewed or hammered
soft (Jackson, 1981: 21) to make it more convenient for the retention of ink and
dispensing it slowly. Later, instead of loosening the one end of the reed with
repeated slitting, the reed was first cut diagonally at one end to create a tip or nib
and then the tip was slit once in the middle. Soon, with the emergence and
popularity of parchment as the medium, the quill pen was introduced.
Historically, it is the quill pen, which came into use in the 7th century and
replaced the reed pen that has gradually and successively given birth to the
following writing instruments: pencils, metal pens, fountain pens, ball-point pens,
felt-tipped pens etc… Except for calligraphic purposes and ceremonial occasions,
the quill pen remained in use until the end of the 19th century, thus ending over
one millennium period of bimedium and multimedium situations jointly with the
pencil, metal pen, fountain pens, ball-point pen etc…Presently, the latter is the
most dominant instrument of writing; however, its dominance is gradually
eroding with the advent of computer technology and electromagnetic digital
writing.
3.9 Interaction between Writing Medium and Writing Implement

The interaction between writing mediums and writing instruments has
been succinctly captured by Gaur (1984:36) who summarizes it as follows:
“Writing material is not neutral; it can shape and influence the development of
scripts in matters of general appearance, the way individual signs are formed, and
also as far as the direction of writing is concerned. It also frequently exercises a
quite decisive influence on the shape of the ‘book’. . Moreover, once a particular
convention has been established it will often remain, even progress further in the
same direction, long after it has been replaced by an entirely different type of
material. The material also predetermines to a large extent the instruments for
writing, and vice versa.”
There are several significant aspects of interaction that are captured by Gaur’s
statement. First, with regard to the manner in which the writing material impacts
the shape of the individual signs, writing on clay demonstrates the best example.
Due to the elasticity of the wet clay, it was soon discovered from experience that
signs, especially those involving curves, did not retain their initial shape
immediately after they were inscribed. This led to the development of styluses
with wedges that produce straight lines and angular signs (Finegan and Bosnier,
1989: 362; Cooper, 1996: 38; Fromkin and Rodman, 1998: 495) to avoid
curvatures and round features. This, in itself, shows the influence which the use of
certain tools and materials naturally exerts on the shape and stylization of the
written forms themselves (Jackson, 1981: 16) It is because of the wedge-shaped
stylus that the term ‘cuneiform’ is coined9 from the Latin root ‘cuneus’ meaning
“wedge” (Jackson, 1981: 34; Jean, 1992: 15). As for the direction of writing, it is
repeatedly reported that to engrave or inscribe signs on stone or rock the task
requires both hands, the left to hold the chisel and the right to hold the hammer to
strike at the chisel. These hand postures and functions automatically imply that
the direction of the writing will be from right to left unless the scribe is left-
handed. With regard to the shape of the ‘book’, it was already pointed out earlier
on that the concept of ‘book’ gradually emerged when there was shift from stone,
clay and wood10 to papyrus and parchment. The ability to produce thin versions of
papyrus and parchment and cut them to smaller sheets enabled ‘book’-makers to
cluster several sheets together which bred the modern paper-book. It is, however,
worth mentioning that prior to cutting papyrus and parchment to sheets, they were
produced in rolls.
The most relevant, to the theme of this paper in Gaur’s statement is the
last sentence that captures the essence of evolution in implements from the metal
chisel through the gouge, the quill, and different types of pens up to the
electromagnetic touch with finger or pointer. The transformation from the
muscular effort required for using a chisel to engrave on a stone to the
electromagnetic energy released by specially designed pointer touching a screen
or a gentle finger touch on the knobs of a computer keyboard is the epitome of a
civilizational journey of six millennia that began with a drift from concreteness to
abstraction, from bulkiness to minusculity and from virtual physical energy to
electromagnetic energy. This whole change in the mediums and implements of
writing is the result of the continuous interaction between the physical [material]
prerequisites of writing and the economy in the production, storage and
dissemination of information, in general, and literacy, in particular.
3.10 Conclusions
The evolution11 of writing, undoubtedly, amounts to one of the most
significant achievements in the history of human civilization. If the evolution of

9
It was named <cuneiform> in1700AD after the triangular of the straight strokes of which the
signs were composed (Postgate, 1992: 62).
10
Interestingly, one Germanic version for the etymology of the word ‘book’ in English is <bƝce>
(to be pronounced <beeke>) which stood for “beech tree” which has a ‘smooth grey bark’ (The
Random House College Dictionary, 1975). This connection between ‘book’ and ‘beech tree bark’
most likely implies that one early medium for writing was beech tree bark.
11
Some use the term ‘invention’, but since writing did not emerge all of a sudden, the term
evolution captures its millennia-old history more accurately and succinctly.
writing with its different systems [pictographic, logographic, syllabic and

alphabetic] is looked at more comprehensively in conjunction with the evolution
of the mediums of writing and the instruments of writing there are some
fascinating well-defined trends along which the evolution has progressed. Most
prominent of such trends are the following:
3.10.1 Concreteness to Abstraction
Writing as a system began with representing real objects in an iconic form

and gradually ended in symbolic abstract representations not just for those
concrete objects, but for concepts and ideas in isolation and in a concatenated
form to construct meaning. In other words, writing began with the expression of
individual concrete objects and concepts with crude graphic representations and
ended in generating infinite abstract symbolic structures that are capable of
generating any meaning. In is not, therefore, a surprise to see that the word ‘write’
across many languages originally stands for concrete action such as <cut>,
<scratch>, <engrave>, <paint>. For instance, the English verb <write> has a
Germanic etymology of <reissen> which means “tear” or “draw”(Langenscheidt’s
concise German dictionary,1973); the Greek <gráphein> means <to carve>
(Coulmas: 1989); Latin <scibere> also means “to scratch or carve”; and the
English <incise> is a loan from Latin made up of <in> + <cid> = “cut” meaning
“to cut in”.
3.10.2 Less Economic to More Economic
The progress in writing systems, mediums and implements is very clearly

a transformation from less economic processes and practices to more economic
ones. In case of writing systems, the shift from pictorial system to logographic, to
syllabic and finally to alphabetic drastically reduced the number of the basic units
required for the execution of the process of writing. For instance, in the pictorial
representation the relationship between the referent and the sign was one-to-one.
In other words, ten objects required a minimum of ten graphic signs. Moving
toward the logographic representation, the number of graphic signs dropped due
to the simplification, generalization and stylization of graphic signs. For example,
the sign of a circle offered itself to represent the following objects/concepts: sun,
wheel, clock, full moon or any round object. The number of signs/symbols further
dropped with the shift of logographic system to a syllabic one. With the
phonetization of writing and the advent of the alphabetic system, the number of
the symbols reached its minimum. If we were to make a rough generalization of
the number of units in each of the above writing systems, then the number of
alphabetic units would be in tens, syllabic in hundreds, logographic in thousands
and pictographic in tens of thousands if not in millions.
In the domain of writing mediums, the decrease in the extent of physical
effort needed for preparing a stone slab, a clay tablet, a papyrus or parchment
scroll and a modern paper page does not only represent economy in physical
effort, but it also undeniably represents remarkable economy in the cost of
producing the medium and its quality. Simply, the time needed for preparing a
stone slab in the past is enough to produce millions of paper pages in the present.
The same economic trend applies to preparation and production of writing
implements in their progression from the chisel to pen, pencil, ball-point pen and
to the electromagnetic touch or pointer.
3.10.3 Non-Generative to Generative
The total loss of iconicity in alphabetic writing and its movement in the
direction of pure symbolic abstractions changed the whole process of writing
from a less generative to a more dynamic and highly generative. Mathematically,
the number of meaningful units at different levels of structural size and
sophistication, which could be generated from a twenty-letter alphabetic system,
is virtually infinite. There is immeasurable difference between this generative and
creative nature of writing as opposed to pictographic writing, which is based on a
one-to-one relationship between the object and its icon. It is only with an
alphabetic system of writing that civilization can easily and efficiently match the
generative and creative nature of human speech.
Similarly, the immeasurable difference in the ancient scale of the
production of stone slabs, clay tablets and papyrus and parchment scrolls
compared to the scale production of modern paper serves as evidence to this
generative trend. Today, the trend is even more generative with the dawn of the
computer age. The electromagnetic technology has revolutionized the concept of
surface of writing as well as the concept of page. “The space of electronic writing
is both the computer screen, where text is displayed, and the electronic memory,
in which memory is stored. Our culture has chosen to fashion these technologies
into writing space that is animated, visually complex and malleable in the hands
of both writer and reader.” (Bolter, 2001: 13). Amazingly, “the information
produced in our time, in one day, exceeds that of the last 300 years” (Nadin, 1997:
17). This computer revolution has virtually made it possible to store the contents a
ten-storey library with millions of books on a single giant computer accessible
directly in a face-to-face contact or indirectly across long distances. Computer
technology and voice recording, generation and recognition will soon make the
culture of paper and pencil old fashioned if not obsolete.
In conclusion, there is ample evidence throughout the history of human
civilization that certain constructs and institutions, especially those with a social,
cultural and linguistic bent, which through evolution they display characteristics
that distance them gradually from their original physical and concrete structure in
the direction of more abstract representations and functions. Human language and
culture are two social constructs that embody themselves through a wide variety
of systems according to time and place. When an old construct or system is
challenged by a newly emerging one, the old one is not immediately and suddenly
driven out of circulation. The two systems or constructs compete with each other,
until Darwin’s natural law of survival and survival for the fittest applies. Until the
rule takes effect, there is usually a long period of coexistence for the two systems
during which the old will be gradually losing status and circulation, whereas the
new one will be gaining firmer status and greater circulation until the old one
succumbs and disappears. We are already very familiar with the terms of
bilingualism or multilingualism when the contest is between languages, and
biculturalism or multiculturalism when the systems involved are cultures. This
study sheds more light on additional parallel cultural and linguistic structures that
also experience periods of coexistence. If the coexistence period is between
writing systems it is called biliteracy or multiliteracy, if it is between writing
mediums it is called bimedium and multimedium and if is between writing tools it
is called biimplement and multiimplement.
The mediums and implements of writing have undergone repeated cycles
of transformations along the progression from the manual age to the mechanical
to the electric and finally to the present electronic age.
3.11 Bibliography
Blackwell Encyclopedia of Writing (1996). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Bolter, Jay David (2001). Writing Space. Mahwah/ New Jersey: Lawrence
Elbaum Associates Press.
Bottéro, Jean (1987). Mesopotamia: Writing, Reasoning and the Gods. Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press.
Cooper, Jerrold S. (1996). Sumerian and Akkadian. The World’s Writing Systems.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Coulmas, Florian (1989). The Writing Systems of the World. London: Basil
Blackwell.
DeFrancis, John (1989). Visible Speech: the Diverse Openness of Writing
Systems. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press
Driver, G.R. (1976). Semitic Alphabet: from Pictograph to Alphabet. London:
Durant, Will (1942). The Story of Civilization: our Oriental Heritage. New York:
Simon and Schuster.
Finegan, Edward and Bosnier, Niko (1989). Language: its Structure and Use.
New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Fromkin, Virginia and Rodman, Robert (1998). An Introduction to Language.
Gaur, Albertine (1984). A History of Writing. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Gelb, I. J. (1963). A Study of Writing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Hawkes, J.F. (1973). The First Great Civilizations. New York: Alfred Knopf.
Healey, John F. (1990). The Early Alphabet. Reading the Past: Ancient Writing
from Cuneiform to the Alphabet (J.T. Hooker, ed; pp. 197-257). London:
The British Museum Publications.
Heim, Michael (1987). Electric Language: a Philosophical Study of Word
Processing. New Haven: Yale University Press.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Book (2006),
Jackson, Donald (1981). The Story of Writing. New York: Taplinger Publishing
Company
Jean, Georges (1992). Writing: The Story of Alphabets and Scripts. New York:
Harry N. Abrams
Nadin, Mihai (1997). The Civilization of Illiteracy. Dresden/Germany: Dresden
University Press.
Naveh, Joseph (1982). Early History of the Alphabet. Jerusalem: The Magnes
Press:
Odisho, Edward Y (2002). Bilingualism: A Salient and Dynamic Feature of
Ancient Civilizations. Mediterranean Language Review, Vol. 14.
———. (2004). A Linguistic Approach to the Application and Teaching of the
English Alphabet. New York: The Edwin Mellon Press.
———. (2005). Techniques of Teaching Comparative Pronunciation in Arabic
and English. New Jersey: Gorgias Press.
Ogg, Oscar (1971). The 26 Letters. New York: Thomas Crowell Co
Postgate, J.N (1992). Early Mesopotamia: Society and Economy at the Dawn of
History. London: Routledge.
Robinson, Andrew (2002). Lost Languages. New York: McGraw-Hill).
Rogers, Frances (1960). Painted Rock to Printed Page. New York: Lippincott
Company.
Saggs, H.W.F (1989). Civilizations before Greece and Rome. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
The Random House College Dictionary (1975). New York: The Random House
Inc.
Walker, C.B.F. (1990). Cuneiform. Reading the Past: Ancient Writing from
Cuneiform to the Alphabet (J.T. Hooker, ed; pp.15-73). London: British
Museum Publications.
Chapter 4
Arab/Muslim Scientific Heritage: A Mono or

Multi-Ethnic/Religious Enterprise?
Many books of history in the East and the West oftentimes carry the claim
that the scientific achievements of the Arab [Muslim] civilization were the
foundation upon which the European Renaissance was premised. Consider the
following excerpt from Dallal:
“It has long been recognized that one of the most significant and lasting
contributions of the medieval Muslim world to Christendom was to provide
access for western scholars to the great classics of Greece and Rome by their
translation into Arabic, from which they were rendered into European languages.
Most works of Plato and Aristotle were known to Arab Muslims. Among the
earliest of the translators was the Nestorian Hunayn Ibn IsƫƗq Al-IbƗdƯ” (Dallal,
1999: 333)
A careful scrutiny of the above statement indicates a sense of

contradiction in its wording which, in turn, questions its objectivity. The
statement begins by identifying the contribution as ‘Muslim’ and the language as
‘Arabic’, but it ends by citing Hunayn Ibn IsƫƗq Al-IbƗdƯ who by strict and
objective religious, ethnic and linguistic identification was not a Muslim nor was
he an Arab.
Historical statements and claims about the reality and nature of the
transmission of the Greek heritage to Arabs/Muslims, the enhancement of such
heritage by them, and its re-transmission back to Europe to trigger the European
Renaissance range from being more objective to being less objective in their
content. The accuracy and objectivity in the documentation of those civilizational
interactions are important in assigning the credits of those achievements. Should
they be assigned exclusively to Arabs/Muslims as often is the case or should the
credits be assigned more fairly and squarely to a broad spectrum of different
ethnic/national groups and different religious faiths that were actual actors and
performers in these massive interactions that stretched over centuries?
It should be emphasized, right at the outset, that the issue here is not
whether the Arabs/Muslims contributed to human scientific heritage through
translation or innovation or not because they really did contribute; rather, the
issue is whether the contribution was exclusively Arab and/or Muslim as opposed
to being multi-ethnic in terms of nationality and multi-religious in terms of
religious faiths. Stated differently, what needs a more objective assessment is
whether it is fair to attribute the contribution exclusively to Arabs or present it
more inclusively to incorporate other ethnicities such as Suryanis, Persians and
Turks, among others. By the same token, one may question whether it is equally
fair to recognize the whole process of this massive scientific transmission as
exclusively Muslim as opposed to being multi-religious and assign part of the

credit to other non-Muslim faiths such as Christians, Jews, Mandaeans, among
others.
In order to arrive at a more accurate assignment of credits in this whole
process of the transmission and re-transmission of scientific heritage, it is quite
natural to begin with the Arab/Muslim scientific awareness and progress that
coincides with the initiation of the massive translation movement during the
Abbasid Caliphate and the establishment of the House of Wisdom [ΔϤϜΤϟ΍ ΖϴΑ] and
the innovations and additions that followed during two or three centuries of the
Arab/Muslim rule. In assigning the credits, the following questions seem to be
relevant as criteria to arrive at a more realistic assessment of the scientific,
medical and philosophical interactions between the East and West:
1) When did the actual translation of the Greek scientific, medical and
philosophical heritage into Syriac [Aramaic] and Arabic begin?
2) Is it feasible to distinguish between actors [performers] and sponsors [patrons]

in the whole enterprise?
3) Which of the national/ethnic groups within the jurisdiction of the Muslim

Caliphate was more adept in languages other than Arabic and why?
4) How was the national/ethnic or religious identity of the performers

determined?
4.2 Discussion
Let us now discuss each of the above criteria in as much detail as
necessary.
4.2.1 The Beginning of Greek Heritage Translation
The Arab/Muslim Caliphate was not the first establishment to initiate

translations from Greek heritage. The Aramaic-speaking people of the Fertile
Crescent had already established a reputation in this regard. In the following
excerpt from Hitti, the reputation of the Syriac-speaking in the promotion of
science and medicine had already been established through translation and/or
innovation during the Sassanid era.
“For two centuries before the appearance of Islam, Syrian [i.e., Syriac] scholars
had been translating Greek works into Syriac…These people who had opened the
treasures of the Greek science and philosophy to the Persians [i.e., Sassanids]
were now doing the same to the Arabs. The same people who before Islam were
instrumental in cultivating the main elements of Greek culture, spreading them
eastward and propagating them in the schools of Edessa and Nisibis, Harran and
Jundi ShƗpǌr were now busily engaged in passing those elements on to the
Arabic-speaking world.” (Hitti, 1951: 548).
Arab/Muslim Scientific Heritage: A Multi-Ethnic/Religious Enterprise 53
There is plain evidence of work done at Edessa in the later fourth century
in translation from Greek into Syriac (O’Leary, 1979). During the reign of the
Sassanid King Khusraw I [531-578], a science academy was established in Jundi
ShƗpǌr after the example of the great Greek academy in Alexandria (ibid). The
academy or school of Jundi ShƗpǌr became the greatest intellectual center of the
time. Within its walls Greek, Jewish, Nestorian, Persian and Hindu thought and
experience was freely exchanged. But the Nestorian teachers were the most
prominent and influential because the teaching was done largely in Syriac from
Syriac translation of Greek texts (Whipple, 1967:16). For a more accurate dating
of the beginning of translations into Syriac, one has to take into consideration
what Brock, who is the most authoritative living scholar in Syriac studies,
concludes:
“By the late eighth century, when the translation movement under the Abbasids
first got under way, there had already been some five hundred years of
experience of translating Greek texts into Syriac, whereas there was as yet no
experience at all of translating written literary texts from Greek into Arabic
(Brock, 2004: 3)
Thus, the early translations from Greek were into Syriac. However, after
the Islamic conquest of Iraq and part of Persia, Jundi ShƗpǌr was captured in 636.
With the gradual transfer of the Caliphate seat to Baghdad during the Abbasid
reign, Baghdad became the center of science and medicine. Some of the most
distinguished doctors, instructors and translators resettled in Baghdad where a
new era of Greek translation directly to Arabic began largely by the Nestorian
Christians. Thus, they became the chief transmitters of Greek medicine to the
Arabs (Whipple, 1967: 19). These early relocations of Syriac-speaking
physicians, scholars and scientists were followed by additional relocations from
different parts of the Muslim Caliphate. The most renowned among such
Nestorian Christian scholars was Hunayn Ibn IsƫƗq Al-IbƗdƯ who was originally
from the town of HƯra on the Euphrates River southwest of Baghdad. He was
lured to Baghdad and soon became the most active scholar in Bayt Al-Hikmah
both as translator and author. The most active period of translation was between
750 and 850.
4.2.2 Performers or Sponsors?
Hitti, the eminent scholar of Arabian history, points out that “the Arabian
Moslem brought with him no art, science or philosophy and hardly any literature;
but he did bring along from the desert a keen intellectual curiosity a veracious
appetite for learning and a number of latent talents” (Hitti, 1951:548). Hitti’s
statement is very consistent with what the great Ibn Khaldǌn had emphasized
much earlier on in that genuine Arabs played only a small part in the original
development of Islamic science and most of the credit must go to Persians,
Christians and Jews (cited in Plessner, 1974: 427). Along the same line of
thought, Luttikhuizen states that “the Islamic conquerors were inferior to their
conquered subjects in culture.” (2005: 7) It is because of this impoverished
intellectual condition of the Arab Muslims at the early stages of their Caliphate,
they “acted only as patrons [sponsors] who ordered, and paid for, translations
done by more or less professional translators” (Rosenthal, 1975: 6). Dallal
elaborates on such patronage by saying that the translations were frequently
produced at the request of patrons who commissioned and financed them. In
addition to such rulers as al-Ma’mǌn, these patrons included government officials
and civil servants as well as scientists and physicians often employed by members
of the political elite.” (Dallal, 1999:159-160).
Fortunately, professional translators were available among the minorities
of the Islamic Empire, above all among the Aramaic-speaking Christians (ibid).
Even after Arabization, Islamic science did not remain exclusively in the hands of
Muslims. Christians and Jews continued to make active contribution (Plessner,
1974: 427). Stated more specifically, “The Arabians knew no Greek and had at
first to depend upon translations made by their subjects, Jewish, heathen and more
particularly Nestorian Christians.” (Hitti, 1967: 310). Hourani, concurs with
Hitti’s statement by saying that “as Islam developed, it did so in a largely
Christian environment, and Christian scholars played an important part in the
transmission of Greek scientific and philosophical thought into Arabic.” (Hourani,
1991: 187).
It is, therefore, quite evident that the Arab Muslim rulers were the patrons
of the massive scientific and cultural transmission of the Greek heritage, whereas
the real actors or performers were largely the non-Arabs, especially the Syriac-
speaking Christians and the Jews and Mandaeans. In general, this conclusion is
consistent with Gutas’ view in that “The Syriac-speaking Christians contributed
much of the indispensable technical skill for the Graeco-Arabic translation
movement, but the initiative, scientific direction, and management of the
movement were provided by such a context created by early Abbasid society”
(Gutas, 1998: 22). However, Gutas’ statement requires more specific wording
because it does not precisely define and delimit the scholarly role and the
administrative or managerial role of each side. It sounds unfair to confine the role
of the Syriac-speaking to the ‘technical skills’ because any academic translation,
especially in the domains of medicine, science and philosophy, goes beyond the
technical skills of language proficiency and the art of translation. No efficient
translations in those areas could be achieved without academic scholarship in
those disciplines. Consequently, Gutas’ ‘technical skills’ should really be replaced
by ‘scholarly and technical proficiencies’. Besides, to assign the ‘scientific
direction’ of the translation movement to the early Abbasid Caliphate amounts to
an over-assignment of credits since the early Abbasid Caliphate was barely
exposed to science, medicine and philosophy. Even if the Abbasids had provided
the ‘scientific direction’, it undoubtedly would have been with the guidance and
assistance of the Syriac-speaking medical and scientific gurus.
4.2.3 Adeptness in Foreign Languages
There are two relevant aspects to the role of this parameter in the process
of translation, in general, and scientific progress, in particular. The first aspect is
related to the overall knowledge competency in non-Arabic languages, especially

Greek, Syriac, Latin, Hindi and Persian. The second is related to the lexical and
terminological richness of a given language, especially in the domain of medicine,
science and philosophy.
With regard to the first aspect, the Arabs, who were introduced to the
Fertile Crescent after the Muslim conquests, were monolingual because of their
isolation in the Arabian Peninsula. Moreover, after their domination of the Middle
East, in general, and the establishment of their Caliphate in Syria and Iraq
consecutively, their population rapidly grew through greater migrations as well as
through religious conversion to Islam– of Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians,
Mandaeans etc… – as well as the linguistic conversion to Arabic language and
culture. Eventually, Arabs and/or Arabic-speakers became the majority. This
majority status automatically placed the Arabs in a situation where they felt they
had no need to develop proficiency in other non-Arabic languages, because the
non-Arab populations, especially the minorities, were rapidly acquiring Arabic for
daily communication purposes, better professional advancement and greater
socio-economic mobility and status. This condition of monolingual linguistic
self-satisfaction of the majority population is not an uncommon phenomenon
because, sociolinguistically, it is the minorities that are obliged to learn the
majorities’ languages. Moreover, if a majority coexists with several minorities,
the linguistic law that governs in such situations is that the smaller the minority
the more languages it has to learn and vice versa. However, most importantly, the
majority develops a sense of self-sufficiency and becomes numb and passive to
the acquisition of other languages.
Consequently, throughout this whole enterprise of translation, it is very
rare to find literate Arabs or even Arab scholars, who were adept in foreign
languages, especially Greek, Latin, and Hindi, partly because they rarely came
into direct contact with those languages and partly because they did not feel
obliged to learn them since Arabic became wide-spread and dominant enough to
satisfy their intellectual needs. This is why some commentators on the Greek
heritage translation and transmission have noticed that the outstanding Muslim
philosophers of the Middle Ages– notably Al-KindƯ, Al-RƗzƯ, Al-FƗrƗbƯ and Ibn
Rushd– all were ignorant of Greek and relied completely on translations rendered
for the most part by Nestorian and Jacobite Christians (Dallal, 1999: 334).
Rosenthal further elaborates on the lack of foreign language proficiency among
the Muslim scholars. He specifically states that “the famous representative of
Greek knowledge among the Muslims of the ninth and tenth centuries, Al-KindƯ
[died after 870], his pupil Al-SarakhsƯ [died 899], Al-FƗrƗbƯ [died 950], Abu
SuleimƗn Al-ManiqƯ AssajistƗnƯ [died ca. 985], Al-’ƖmirƯ [died 991] and of
course, all those of later times, knew neither Syriac nor Greek” (1975: 6).
Consider, for instance, the case of Al-KindƯ, who some bias Muslim and Arab
authors claim that he was proficient in Greek (http://www.muslimheritage.com,
2006) and was, therefore, not only a philosopher and astrologer, but also a
translator (Wiet, 1971: 70). After further scrutiny of this claim about Al- KindƯ’s
status as a translator, one comes across some seriously contradictory claims.
Consider, for instance, the following excerpt from Goodman:
“A beneficiary of the first phase of translating activity was the Arab prince Abu
Yusuf Yaqub b. IsƫƗq al- KindƯ, called the philosopher of the Arabs. He
employed two Christian translators, Astat (Eustathius), who translated for him
most of Aristotle’s Metaphysics, and Ibn Naima al-HimsƯ, who rendered the
enormously influential pseudo-Aristotelian Theology of Aristotle.” (Goodman,
1990: 490)
The discrepancy between the two statements of Wiet and Goodman raises some
serious doubts regarding the proficiency of Al- KindƯ in Greek to qualify him as a
translator.
Very much unlike the Arab majority literates and scholars, the scholars of
the minorities of the Islamic Caliphate, above all the Aramaic-speaking
Christians, had a long history of cultural, religious and intellectual interaction
with the Hellenic civilization. At the time of the Arab conquest of the Fertile
Crescent, the intellectual legacy of Greece was unquestionably the most precious
treasure at hand. Cities such as Edessa, the principal center of Christian Syrians;
Harran, the headquarters of Sabians; Antioch one of the many ancient Greek
colonies; Alexandria, the meeting place of occidental and oriental philosophy; and
the numberless cloisters of Syria and Mesopotamia, where not only ecclesiastical,
but scientific and philosophical studies were cultivated, all served as centers
radiating Hellenistic stimuli (Hitti, 1967: 309-310). It was through their language
proficiency in Greek that the scholars of the non-Muslim and non-Arab minorities
introduced the Arabs to science, medicine and philosophy. In three-quarters of a
century after the establishment of Baghdad as a center of Muslim administration
and scholarship, the Arabic-reading world was in possession of the chief
philosophical works of Aristotle, of the leading neo-Platonic commentators, most
of the medical writings of Galen and Hippocrates, the mathematical compositions
of Euclid and the Geographical masterpieces of Ptolemy as well as of Persian and
Indian scientific works (Hitti, 1951: 548; 1967:306-307). These treasures were all
made available to Arabs primarily through the efforts of hundreds of Syriac-
speaking scholars and translators who began their translation endeavors in Jundi
ShƗpǌr at least some three centuries before the founding of the House of Wisdom
academy in early Abbasid Caliphate.
The other aspect of the linguistic adeptness is related to the very nature of
the Arabic language as a medium of science, medicine and philosophy. With the
advent of Islam and its spread throughout the Middle East, Arabic was only a
language of poetry and after Muhammad mainly a language of revelation (Hitti,
1967: 316). It took Arabic at least one century to become the official language of
state, bureaucracy and diplomacy either completely replacing other languages or
coexisting with them as the universal language of communication within the
Muslim Empire (Dallal, 1999: 158). Actually, it took Arabic more than one
century to become the medium of expressing scientific thought and conveying
philosophical ideas of the highest order. In the earliest translations, some of the
technical terms were simply transliterations of Greek words for which the
translators were unable to find the Arabic equivalents such as the words in table
4/1, below (after Versteegh, 1997: 62; Hitti, 1951: 552):
English Arabic
Greek Word Meaning
Transliteration Rendition
ǶȜȘ HayǌlƗ ϪϟϮϴϫ Matter
ĭȜȑȖȝĮ Bulghum ϢϐϠΑ Phlegm
ȈĲȠȚȤİȓȠ Usuquss βϘτγ΍ Element
ĭȚȜȠıȠĳȓĮ Falsafah ΔϔδϠϓ Philosophy
īİȦȖȡĮĳȓĮ JighrƗfiya Δϴϓ΍ήϐΟ Geography
ȂȠȣįȚțȒ MǌsƯqa ϰϘϴγϮϣ Music

Table 4/1. Examples of words coined from Greek through transliteration
Another systematic approach to coin the needed neologisms was to use the
standard morphological patterns derivable from existing Arabic roots. In this
regard, it is noteworthy that Hunayn was not only the Sheikh of translators [ Φϴη
ϦϴϤΟήΘϤϟ΍], but he also was the innovator in coining the necessary terminology in
both Syriac and Arabic (Versteegh, 1997: 62; Goodman, 1990: 489). Notice, for
instance, in his terminology of the skins of the eye, Hunayn transformed the
ending “–eidés” in Greek words into “–iyya” in Arabic counterpart coinages as in
table 4/2 below (Versteegh, 1997: 62):
English Transliteration of
Arabic Rendition Meaning
Greek Words
Keratoeidés qaraniyya Cornea
Hualoeidés ZujƗjiyya corpus vitreum
Rhagoeidés inƗbiyya Uvea
Amphiblèstroeidés shabakiyya Retina

Table 4/2. Hunayn’s systematic approach in coining Arabic counterparts of Greek
words.
He also used the pattern <fu’Ɨl> = <ϝΎό˵ϓ>, based on Arabic roots, as an innovation
to coin names of illnesses as in table 4/3, below:
Arabic Word Transliteration Meaning
ϡΎϛ˵ί ZukƗm Catarrh; Common Cold
έΎϔ˵λ ufƗr Jaundice
ω΍Ϊ˵λ ǌdƗ’ Headache
έ΍ϭ˵Ω DuwƗr Dizziness
ϝΎΤ˵σ uƫƗl Infection of the Spleen

Table 4/3. The Arabic pattern <fu’Ɨl> used to coin names of illnesses.
Thus, Hunayn, the Nestorian Christian, had the most outstanding and
unique role in this whole enterprise of Greek heritage transmission both as a
translator and as scholar to whom Arab science owes so much and who is
unanimously acclaimed as the father of Arab medicine (Wiet, 1971: 69). To
evaluate the importance of Hunayn’s role as a transmitter of knowledge, it is
important to know that Arabic scientific knowledge, until Hunayn’s time, was not
only meager but also lacked the terminology which is so essential for the
transmission of thought (Isaacs, 1990: 344)
After this discussion pertaining to foreign language competency, there is
clear evidence that native Arabs seem to have had minimum to no competency in
this particular domain. This situation is primarily attributed to what might be
called the ‘majority language syndrome’ which implies the lack of social and
pragmatic impetus on the part of the majority language speakers– in this case
Arabic– to learn other languages. This condition is not, in any way, exclusive to
Arabs; it is, rather, a universal sociolinguistic phenomenon; simply, within the
boundaries of country, union of countries or empires it is the minorities who
acquire the languages of the majorities on a large scale and the condition is rarely
reversed. This, undoubtedly, accounts for the almost total absence of native Arab
translators from Greek, Syriac, Persian and Hindi. On the contrary, it was the
natives of those languages, especially the Syriac and Persian speakers, who
acquired Arabic, the language of the majority, and became bilingual or
multilingual and carried the burden of the massive translation movement.
4.2.4 How was the National/Ethnic Identity of Translator/Scholars

Determined?
After the speedy invasion of the Middle East by Arabs, they encountered
peoples that were different from them linguistically, religiously, culturally and
even environmentally. Foremost of those peoples were the Syriac speakers who
constituted the majority in the Fertile Crescent countries, especially Syria and
Iraq. Those Syriac speakers were far more advanced than the invading Arabs in
overall literacy as well as in education, science, medicine and philosophy. The

Syriac people had long-lasting contacts with Greek and Roman civilizations and
were well-versed in their languages. With relevance to the Christian religion, it
was embraced by peoples with a broad spectrum of ethnic and national diversity.
Consequently, religion became a more encompassing umbrella of identity
compared to ethnic and nationalist identities. For example, the ancient peoples of
Mesopotamia and Syria including Assyrians, Babylonians, Arameans, among
others, were generically and collectively identified as Christians rather than in
terms of their specific ethnic/national identities. A very similar development
happened with the spread of Islam. Although the Arab ethnic/national identity
began to overwhelm the Middle East through conversion, acculturation and
assimilation, the Islamic identity was even more overwhelming. As a result of
these massive religious, ethnic and nationalist cross-contacts, the religious and
ethnic identities began to be used very loosely in identifying the peoples of the
Middle East. It became very difficult to ethnically distinguish between Arab
Muslims and non-Arab Muslim. For instance, SƯbawayhi, the author of the first
comprehensive Arabic grammar, was easily identified as an Arab although he was
a native of Balkh in modern Afghanistan (Hoyland, 2001: 247). This looseness in
naming ethnic/national identities became a reality with “the growth of a new class
called MawƗlƯ which stood for any Muslim who was not a full member by descent
of an Arab tribe. Thus, the MawƗlƯs included Persians, Aramaeans, Egyptians,
Berbers and other converts to Islam (Lewis, Bernard, 1966: 70). For instance,
scholars and scientists such as Al-KhwƗrizmƯ, Al-RƗzƯ, Al-FƗrƗbƯ, Ibn SƯnƗ,
among many others, were known collectively as Muslims to avoid highlighting
their non-Arab descent since none of them was genuinely Arab (Hitti, 1967: 367;
http://en.wikipedia.org, 2006) In fact, in the history of Arab civilization, the Arab
identity is so excessively, loosely, indiscriminately and often unjustifiably used
that it is bestowed on very many distinguished Christians poets, scholars and
scientists who would qualify more as non-Arabs– such as Suryanis and Persians
etc – rather than Arabs. There are at least three reasons that led to such loose
identification, or even misidentification, of ethnic/national entities which are: a)
Arabization through linguistic conversion; b) Disregard to the primary principles
of national/ethnic identity; c) Involuntary assignment of national/ethnic identity.
4.2.4.1 Arabization through Linguistic Conversion
The Arab minority that led the conquests gradually but steadily increased
in number to become a majority, both religiously and linguistically, that acquired
strong autonomous and self-confident intellectual and spiritual life (Hourani,
1991: 187). The victory of the Arabic tongue over the native languages of the
subjugated peoples was a major stage in the linguistic conversion of the region
(Hitti, 1967: 361). Arabic gradually replaced Aramaic and deeply influenced
Persian. Although most of the translators were Aramaic-speaking and became
bilingual and trilingual by learning Greek and Arabic, the Aramaic-speaking
population gradually began to lose contact with Greek, and in the course of time
their native Aramaic was lost in competition with Arabic; they finally had to
reconcile themselves to living with the Arabic language (Rosenthal, 1975: 6).
Thus, Arabic steadily became the lingual franca of the Peoples of the Middle East
and the dominant medium of academic and scientific knowledge dissemination as
well as the medium of daily communication. Many of the scientists who wrote in
Arabic were not themselves Arab…In the history of Arabs, references to Arab
scientists does not necessarily designate ethnic Arabs or even Muslims; rather,
these references are to scientists who adopted Arabic as a language of scientific
expression and communication (Dallal, 158). With this trend in linguistic
development, it would be quite ‘natural’ to identify Hunayn as an Arab although
he was a native Syriac-speaking ‘Nestorian’ Christian. Thus, an important change
was taking place in the ethnic connotation of word ‘Arab’ itself “which ceased to
be a closed hereditary caste and became a people, ready to accept, by a sort of
naturalization, any Muslim [or even non-Muslim, my insertion] speaking Arabic
as an Arab (Lewis, 1966: 93).
4.2.4.2 Disregard to Basic Parameters of National/Ethnic Identity
Some of the most common and basic parameters of national and ethnic
identity of a people are language, religion and culture. In establishing the ethnic
identity of the significant scholars and translators in the Muslim/Arab civilization,
those basic parameters have often been disregarded. Take for instance, the case of
identifying the national/ethnic identity of Hunayn ibn IshƗq,. He has been
identified differently such “Christian Arab scholar”, (Martin, 1982), “an Arab”
(http://www.salaam.co.uk, 2006), “a Nestorian Christian Arab” (Dallal, 1999:
160). Moreover, in an article titled ‘Muslim’s Contributions to Medieval
Medicine and Pharmacology, one of the works cited is Hunayn’s who was not a
Muslim. The following excerpt from O’Leary gives a far more accurate
identification of Hunayn’s ethnic and religious background:
“In Hira these Arabs, of the Lakhmid clan, formed the ruling aristocracy;
[however,] the bulk of the population was Aramaic … and already Christian. It
appears that those Arabs who accepted Christianity embraced Nestorian doctrine,
accepted ministrations of Syriac-speaking Nestorian clergy, and used Syriac as
the liturgical language. As yet there were no books in Arabic, no Arabic version
of scriptures, and no Arabic liturgy. It appears that Hunayn ibn IsƫƗq, who was a
native of Hira, had to learn Arabic later in life, the humbler classes of Hira being
Syriac-speaking.” (O’Leary, 1979)
With a grain of objective assessment of Hunayn’s national/ethnic identity,

he would fail to qualify as a genuine Arab simply because he was Christian and
Nestorian and, above all, Syriac [Aramaic] was his native language. How could a
native speaker of Syriac be an Arab? However, further elaboration in item (c)
below may shed some light on either stretching the concept of ethnic identity
beyond its reasonable limits, or enforcing one unjustifiably.
4.2.4.3. Involuntary Assignment of National/Ethnic Identity
Although, generally speaking, the massive enterprise of translation and

scientific awakening was sponsored by Islam, as a religion, and by Arabs, as a
nationality or ethnic group, in reality, there is ample irrefutable evidence the
actual execution of the enterprise was multi-religious and multi-ethnic. The multi-
religious aspect of it is more readily definable than its multiethnic one. Multi-
religiously, the early actors were initially, almost exclusively, Christians [of
various denominations], Jews, Zoroastrians and Mandaeans which were later
joined by converts from all those faiths into Islam. The rapid spread of Islam
through conviction, enticement or coercion created three spheres of identification:
Muslim, Arab and non-Muslim/non-Arab. The Muslim sphere of identification
became the most prevalent and encompassing to the extent that many people,
especially scholars, translators, scientists who were non-Arabs were
overwhelmingly identified as Muslims to conceal their ethnic identity, as
Persians, Central Asians or Indians some of whom were already mentioned earlier
on such as Ibn Al-Maqafa’, Al-KhwƗrizmƯ, Al-KindƯ, Al-RƗzƯ, Al-FƗrƗbƯ and Ibn
Rushd, Ibn SƯnƗ, among many others, and render it secondary to their Muslim
identity. Next in dominance was the sphere of Arab identity. This was more
relevant to those minorities which were non-Muslims and their non-Muslim
identity had to be obscured by the more generic Arab identity. Leading among
such scholars and translators were Hunayn Ibn IsƫƗq, ThƗbit Ibn Qurra, and
Hunayn’s son IsƫƗq and his nephew Hubaish and ThƗbit’s son SinƗn.
Although the treatment of non-Muslim translators and scholars ranged
from being fair to being good, there were, however, instances of pressuring them,
especially by the Caliphs, to convert to Islam. Many of them did convert for
multiple reasons such as easier access to knowledge and endowment (Bat Ye’or,
1996: 233). In addition to this occasional intolerance of non-Arabs and non-
Muslims minorities, there was a simultaneous trend of concealing the
ethnic/national identity of those minorities by broadening the scope of the Arab
identity. Soon after the consolidation of Islam as a religion and Arabic as a
language, the term ‘Arab’ assumed a second meaning: It came to denote all the
peoples who fell under the rule of the Arab Muslim Caliphate. In reality, this
trend amounts to a prejudiced and chauvinistic philosophy of national identity that
still persists even in modern times among certain ultra-nationalistic Arabs when
defining Arab nationalism. Numerous Arab scholars usually include one or more
of the following criteria in their answer to the question of “Who an Arab is?”:
Arabs are those who speak Arabic; those brought up in Arab culture; those who
live in an Arab country etc… (Patai, 2002: 45). In fact, many 20th century Arab
educators and ideologues of Arab nationalism, such as Al Husri, seem more bias
and radical in describing the Arab identity as in the statement below:
“Every Arabic-speaking people is an Arab people. Every individual belonging to

one of these Arabic-speaking Peoples is an Arab….Every individual who belongs
to the Arab countries and speaks Arabic is an Arab… Arabness is not restricted
to those who can trace their origin back to the Arabian Peninsula, nor is it
restricted to Muslims alone. It encompasses every individual who belongs to the
Arab countries: whether he is Egyptian, Kuwaiti, or Moroccan; whether he is

Muslim or Christian; whether he is Sunni, Shi’ite or Druze; and whether he is
Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant etc…”(cited in Suleiman, 2003: 133).
Not all Muslims favored the translation movement and the scientific
awakening primarily because it was led by the infidels; however, some of those
who did support it justified it by claiming that the translators worked on behalf of
Islam and within its sphere of influence, thereby acquiring the right of citizenship
in Islam. (Rosenthal, 1975: 6) In both cases, there seems to be some discomfort
with either the translation from Greek or the religious faith of the translators.
Nevertheless, the translation enterprise went on and those non-Muslim actors
were generically identified as Arabs; similarly, the non-Arab Muslims were
generically identified as Muslims. In both cases, the ethnic/national identity of the
non-Arabs was relegated to a secondary status at best and to concealment at
worst.
4.3 Conclusions
It is true that the Arabian Muslims started with little science, philosophy,
medicine and literature of their own, but they had a keen sense of intellectual
curiosity and an appetite for learning (Hitti, 1967: 306). It is also true that the
Arabic language in early conquests was not rich enough to cope up with the
complex and diversified terminology needed for science, philosophy and
medicine. It is equally true that the early translation and scientific awakening
movement began among non-Arabs, non-Muslims, neo-Muslims and heretical
Muslims (Goodman, 1990: 477). All the above does not deny Arabs their original
contributions to human knowledge and world civilization. Their long and fruitful
age of translation under the Abbasids was followed by one of original
contribution (Hitti, 1967: 316).Their contributions did, in fact, spark the scientific
awakening and civilizational renaissance later in Europe. However, what is not
exactly true is to label the transmission of knowledge to Europe as exclusively
Arabian and/or Muslim. This trend is not only noticed among Muslim and Arab
historians, but also among some non-Arab and non-Muslim historians and
scholars from different parts of the world. The latter trend may be attributed to
several factors: a) Lack of intimate knowledge of the facts and restricted
bibliographical pursuit; b) Lack of care in the precise use of descriptive language;
c) Lack of care in citing other references and scrutinizing the information cited.
Notice the following statement by Plessner:
“Islamic science was of course not the only factor that led to the revival of
Western science; the classical scientific tradition had not entirely perished amid
the upheavals of the migration era. It is true, however, that a new impetus was
given to Western science by Islamic scientists; above all, it was materially
enriched to an unprecedented degree both by Arab translations from the Greek
and by the independent work of the Muslims themselves” (1974: 426).
A careful look at the wording of the statement, one will notice the use of
the descriptive terms ‘Islamic’ for science and ‘Arab’ for translations. As noticed
earlier on in our discussion, there were hardly any genuine Arabs who conducted
translations; consequently, it is unfair to label those translations as exclusively
‘Arab’. If the intention of the author had been a reference to translations into
Arabic language, then the attribute should have been ‘Arabic’ implying
translations into Arabic language from Greek, Syriac, Persian or Indian. Indeed,
some translators were Persian Muslims but they were not Arabs. In other words,
Arabs were not involved as true actors or performers in the translation enterprise;
they were merely sponsors. As for the term ‘Islamic science’, it is equally
unrepresentative of the facts, because many of the early scientists and doctors
were not Muslims. To avoid the exclusive religious identification of the scientific
contribution, the term ‘Middle Eastern science’ as opposed to ‘Western science’
would have been more appropriate, realistic and inclusive of the real facts since
the contribution was more inter-religious and inter-ethnic in nature and structure.
However, Plessner soon subconsciously realizes that the attribute ‘Islamic’ may
be too exclusive to be appropriate; instead, he states that Islamic science did not
remain exclusively in the hands of Muslims, even after its ‘Arabization’.
Christians and Jews continued to make active contributions (427). The reality of
the ‘Eastern Renaissance’ triggering the Western Renaissance lies between the
claim of its exclusivity as an Arab/Muslim feat and its denial or minimization of
being so as portrayed by Ibn Khaldun who often stated that genuine Arabs played
only a small part in the original development of Islamic science, and most of the
credit must go to Persians, Christians and Jews (cited in Plessner, 1974:427).
In conclusion, the colossal translation movement, especially during 750-
850 A.D., from Greek, Syriac, Persian, Indian languages etc…to Arabic [which
for convenience will be called Foreign-to-Arabic] complemented by a period of at
least one century of original contributions to the development of science,
medicine and philosophy and concluded with a movement of reversed translation
movement in Europe from Arabic to the Europeans languages [which for
convenience will be called Arabic-to-Foreign] have not been an exclusive Arab
and Islamic accomplishment and should not be so described because the
following facts and realities do not support the exclusiveness:
1) The Foreign-to-Arabic translation was predominantly non-Arab and non-

Muslim. The Muslims who conducted translations were almost exclusively
non-Arabs. Consequently, the movement should more realistically and
objectively be described as a multi-ethnic and multi-religious.
2) The original contribution to the development of science, medicine and

philosophy was also not exclusively Arab because there were many non-Arabs
such as Arameans [Suryanis], Persians and Central Asians. Reference to many
scientists, doctors and scholars who were known as Arabs were not
necessarily ethnic Arabs [or even Muslims]; rather, they were so identified
because they adopted Arabic as medium of scientific expression and
communication (Dallal, 1999: 158). Additionally, a large number of the
scholars known as Arabs were not necessarily Muslims because many of them
were Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Mandaeans etc… or were new converts
to Islam. Consequently, the original contribution should more realistically and
objectively be described as a multi-ethnic and multi-religious.
3) The Arabic-to-Foreign translation movement which started in in Spain was

obviously handled by non-Arabs and non-Muslims– primarily Christians and
Jews.
4.4 Bibliography
Brock, Sebastian P. (2004). Changing Fashions in Syriac Translation Technique:
The Background to Syriac Translations under the Abbasids. Journal of the
Canadian Society for Syriac Studies, Vol. 4.
Dallal, Ahmad (1999) Science, Medicine and Technology: The Making of a
Scientific Culture. The Oxford History of Islam (ed. John L. Esposito).
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goodman, L. E. (1990). The Translation of Greek Materials into Arabic. Religion,
Learning and Science in the ‘AbbƗsid Period (eds. M.J.L. Young, J.D.
Latham and R.B. Serjeant). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gutas, Dimitri (1998) Greek Thought, Arabic Culture: The Graeco-Arabic
Translation Movement in Baghdad and Early ‘AbbƗsid Society. London:
Routledge)
Hitti, Philip K. (1951) History of Syria. London: Macmillan & Co
———. (1967). History of the Arabs. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Hourani, Albert (1991). A History of the Arab Peoples. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Hoyland, Richard G. (2001) Arabia and the Arabs. London: Routledge
http://en.wikipedia.org, 2006
http://www.muslimheritage.com, 2006.
http://www.salaam.co.uk, 2006.
Isaacs, Haskell, D. (1990). Arabic Medical Literature. Religion, Learning and
Science in the Abbasid Period (eds. M.J.L. Young, J.D. Latham and R.B.
Serjeant). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lewis, Bernard (1966).The Arabs in History. New York: Harper & Row,
Publishers
Luttikhuizen, Frances (2005). Early Eastern Christianity and its Contribution to
Science. Christianity and Society, Vol. XV, No.1.
Martin, Richard C. (1982) Islam: A Cultural Perspective. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice-Hall, Inc.
O’Leary, De Lacy (1979). How Greek Science Passed to the Arabs. Chicago:
Ares Publishers Inc.
Patai, Rafael (2002). The Arab Mind. New York Hatherleigh Press
Plessner, Martin (1974) Science. The Legacy of Islam (eds. Joseph Schacht and
C.E. Bosworth), p.425-460.
Rosenthal, Franz (1975). The Classical Heritage in Islam. Los Angeles:

University of California Press
Suleiman, Yasir (2003). The Arabic Language and Identity: A Study in Ideology.
Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Versteegh, Kees (1997). The Arabic Language. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Whipple, Allen O. (1967). The Role of the Nestorians and Muslims in the History
of Medicine. The Iran Foundation Inc.
Wiet, Gaston (1971). Baghdad: Metropolis of the Abbasid Caliphate. Norman:
University of Oklahoma Press
Ye’or, Bat (1996). The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam. London:
Associated University Press.
Chapter 5
A Comparative Study of Petnames in English

and Assyrian
Names are part of the identity of people all over the world; they are also a
distinctive feature of their culture. Thomas Fuller, cited in Dunkling (1977:11),
wrote, “A name is a kind of face.” (Fuller, cited in Dunkling, 1977:11) Hanks and
Hodges see a person’s given [first] name as a badge of cultural identity (1990:
vii). They further state that the names that people bear are determined in large by
the culture they belong to (ibid). The latter statement would have been more
realistic, comprehensive and accurate if language had been added to culture as
another factor that determines the nature and type of the names people bear.
In his 1982 very impressive study of the Neo-Aramaic dialect of the
village of Aradhin, Krotkoff includes a short list of names and nicknames used by
the villagers of Aradhin. This short list was so interesting that it inspired the
present writer to further expand and investigate the topic of naming among the
speakers of Aramaic with special emphasis on what Krotkoff calls ‘nicknames’.
The onomastic materials in this study are based on what is common among
Assyrians as opposed to Chaldeans and Syrians: however, despite this specificity,
the materials are generally valid for all the Christian speakers of Aramaic.
The initial intent of this paper was to employ the term ‘nickname’ as a
rubric under which more names of the type incorporated in Krotkoff’s list would
be included. However, after further readings in the domain of naming, it became
evident that the term is too broad and loose to specifically and definitively stand
for the type of names targeted in this study. Franklyn states that everybody knows
what a nickname is, but few could define it. He further states that even Oxford
English Dictionary has a chink in its armor (Franklyn, 1962:xii). He then cites
OED’s definition of nicknames as “a name or appellation added to, or substituted
for, the proper name of a person, place, etc., usually given in ridicule or
pleasantry.” Etymologically, a nickname is derived from the Middle English ‘an
ekename’ meaning an added name (Encyclopedia Americana, 1990:320;
Franklyn, 1962:xii). It can be a diminutive name such as <Will> for <William>. It
can also be descriptive reflecting physical features and character traits such as
‘Shorty’ and ‘Honest Abe’, respectively (Encyclopedia Americana, 1990:320). A
nickname can also be an ‘incident’ name which arises from a chance remark, a
slip of the tongue or sometimes from a favorite expression (Dunkling, 1977:31).
This means that although a nickname is often applied fondly, it may also be
derisive (Encyclopedia Americana, 1990:320).
Of the above three categories of naming that fall under the rubric of
nicknames, only the traditional category of diminutive names applies to the type
of ‘nicknames’ in Krotkoff’s list because the contents of the list do not represent
descriptive or accidental nicknames. Consequently, the types of nicknames
included in Krotkoff’s would better be labeled as ‘petnames’. Dunkling strongly

argues in favor of such a term as a more appropriate one and defines it as a variant
form of the first name which is used in informal circumstances (1977:80). The
term ‘hypocoristic’ has also been used to stand for petnames, but Dunkling
hesitates to adopt it because the term hints at baby-language as a reason for such
names (1977:77). Dunkling’s position is readily justifiable because petnames are
not the exclusive creation of baby-language. Pet-naming seems to be an
onomastic device that is more commonly practiced by adults rather than simply
being a coinage of baby-language. No doubt, baby language is a factor in coining
petnames, but it is not the only one.
Pet-naming is more of a linguistic device practiced by adults in a fashion
similar to contractions and abbreviations. It is simply a trend in the economical
use of language to serve the function of intimacy, informality and, perhaps,
endearment.
Regardless of the somewhat misleading nature of the term ‘petname’, due
to its other connotation associated with domestic animals, it is adopted here to
designate a common socio-linguistic practice of shortening names without
necessarily being hypocoristic, descriptive, accidental, humorous or derisive.
In this study pet-naming in English and Assyrian [Aramaic] is compared
with an attempt to find out the patterns of petname formation, the rules that
dominate those formations and whether the underlying morphological rules of
English and Assyrian do have any relevance in this regard.
For the purpose of conducting this study, 200 given names [selected at
random] and their petnames are examined with one hundred names from each
language equally representing male and female names. The names from each
language are meant to represent some of the most commonly used ones (Ashley,
1989; Dunkling, 1986). Obviously, the Assyrians as Christians have adopted
many Anglo-Saxon names through contact with Europeans especially, the British.
Those loan-names, however, are not expected to interfere with the objectivity of
the overall assessment of facts because most of them have been naturalized [i.e.
Assyrianized] in both pronunciation and syllabic structure.
The tables below include first names [names, henceforth] and petnames
followed by a digit indicating the number of the syllables in each item. For
English, the names are written with traditional spelling, whereas for Assyrian they
are broadly transcribed in a manner that renders them readable. Occasionally, the
International Phonetic Alphabet symbols are inserted for more accurate
pronunciation. For instance, since in Assyrian the palatal plosives rather than the
velar plosives are dominant, the IPA symbols [Ì] and [E] are consistently used
where appropriate. In a previous study (Odisho, 1990:30) the author did point out
that some investigators tend to transcribe the above pair of plosives as /g/ and /k/,
respectively, either because they are not aware of the palatal nature of those two
Assyrian plosives or because they prefer the more familiar symbols of /g/ and /k/.
In either case, the substitution may be very misleading for anyone who is not
familiar with the language.
There may be more than one variant for the petnames of certain names in
both English and Assyrian, but for the sake of neatness and concentration, a
A Comparative Study of Petnames in English and Assyrian 69
minimum number of those variants are cited. This minimum number was decided
upon after ascertaining that the absence of the rest of the variants will in no way
interfere with the accuracy of the results. There are also a few items in English for
which it is difficult to agree on the exact number of the syllables involved.
Although they are too few to lead to spurious results, either syllable count is taken
into consideration.
In the phonetic transcription of the Assyrian names certain conventions
have to be clarified. Firstly, stress is not marked because it is predominantly
penultimate. Secondly, if an item is emphatic but it does not contain a traditional
emphatic sound such as / / ‘Sade’ or / / ‘eth’, emphasis is marked either by
the use of an / a / vowel instead of / a /, or by placing a dot under another
consonant. Thirdly, all items in Assyrian are initialed with a consonant; in the
absence of an initial consonant a Hamza [glottal stop] is assumed; thus <awwi>
stands for <!awwi>. Fourthly, vowels are long when stressed and in an open
syllable.
Names Syllables Petname Syllables

Albert 2 Al 1
Anthony 3 Tony 2
Arthur 2 Art 1
Benjamin 3 Ben 1
Charles 1 Chuck 1
Christopher 3 Chris 1
Clayton 2 Clay 1
Clinton 2 Clint 1
Daniel 2/3 Dan 1
David 2 Dave 1
Donald 2 Don 1
Edward 2 Ed 1
Ernest 2 Ernie 2
Eugene 2 Gene 1
Franklin 2 Frank 1
Geoffrey 2 Jeff 1
Gustav 2 Gus 1
Henry 2 Hank 1
Irving 2 Irv 1
James 1 Jim 1
Jerald 2 Jerry 2
Jonathan 3 John; Jon 1
Joseph 2 Joe 1
Kenneth 2 Ken 1
Lawrence 2 Larry 2
Marcus 2 Mark 1
Matthew 2 Matt 1
Maxwell 2 Max 1
Melvin 2 Mel 1
Michael 2 Mike 1
Mitchell 2 Mitch 1
Nicholas 3 Nick 1
Norman 2 Norm 1
Patrick 2 Pat 1
Peter 2 Pete 1
Phillip 2 Phil 1
Raphael 3 Ralph 1
Raymond 2 Ray 1
Richard 2 Rich; Dick 1
Robert 2 Rob; Bob 1
Ronald 2 Ron 1
Samuel 2/3 Sam 1
Sheldon 2 Shel 1
Stanley 2 Stan 1
Steven 2 Steve 1
Timothy 3 Tim 1
Theodore 2/3 Ted 1
Thomas 2 Tom 1
Victor 2 Vic 1
William 2/3 Will; Bill 1
Table 5/1 English Male Names and Petnames
Names Syllables Petnames Syllables

Abigail 3 Abby; Gail 2/1
Alexandra 4 Sandra 2
Amanda 3 Manda; Mandy 2
Argentina 4 Tina 2
Barbara 3 Barb; Barby ½
Belinda 3 Linda 2
Beverly 3 Bev 1
Carolyn 3 Carol 2
Catherine 3 Cathy 2
Cassandra 3 Cass; Cassie ½
Cecelia 3 Celia 2
Christine/a 2/3 Chris 1
Cleopatra 3/4 Cleo 2
Constance 2 Connie 2
Cynthia 2/3 Cindy 2
Deborah 2/3 Debbie 2
Delores 3 Lola 2
Dorothy 3 Doll; Dolly ½
Edith 2 Edie 2
Edwina 3 Win; Winnie ½
Elizabeth 4 Liz; Betsy ½
Emily 3 Emmy 2
Eugenia 3 Genia 2
Faith 1 Faye 1
Florence 2 Flo; Flora ½
Geraldine 3 Gerry 2
Gertrude 2 Trudy 2
Gwendolyn 3 Gwen 1
Helena 3 Lena 2
Hildegard 3 Hilda 2
Jacqueline 2/3 Jackie 2
Josephine 3 Josie 2
Margaret 2/3 Meg; Maggie 1/ 2
Martha 2 Marty 2
Matilda 3 Mattie; Tilda 2
Pamela 3 Pam 1
Penelope 3 Penny 2
Priscilla 3 Cilla; Prissie 2
Prudence 2 Prue; Prudie 2
Rachel 2 Ray 1
Rebecca 3 Becky 2
Roberta 3 Bobby 2
Sabina 3 Bina 2
Susan/a 2/3 Sue 1
Shirley 2 Sherri 2
Theresa 3 Tess; Tracy ½
Valerie 3 Val 1
Victoria 3 Vicky 2
Virginia 3 Ginny; Ginger 2
Table 5/2 English Female Names and Petnames

Amanuwwil 4 Ammo/i 2
Andriyyus 3 Ando/i 2
Aprim 2 Appo/i 2
Atniyyil 3 Attu 2
Awiyya 3 Awwi/o/u 2
awshalim 3 Awsho 2
Aziz 2 Azzu 2
Barcham 2 Bachcho 2
Binyamin 3 Binni/o 2
Daniyyil 3 Danno 2
Daryawish 3 Daryo/u 2
Dawid 2 Dodo 2
Dinkha 2 Dikhkho; dIkko 2
Hormiz 2 Homme 2
Iliyya 3 Illo 2
Inwiyya 3 Inno/u 2
Iskhaq 2 Iqqo; Ichcho 2
Jibrayil 3 Jibbo 2
ÌiwarÌis 3 ÌaÌÌo; Gaggo; Jajji 2
Ìoriyyil 3 Ìawwo; Ìiyye 2
Khamis 2 Khamcho 2
Khasqiyyil 3 Khasq(k)u 2
Khoshaba 3 Shaba/e; chaba/o 2
Lazar 2 Jajo/u 2
Mishayil 3 Misha/u; Mishsha 2
Mikhayil 3 Mikha/u 2
Napilyon 3 Nappo 2
Nathniyyil 3 Nato/u 2
Nikola 3 Niko; niqa 2
Nimrud 2 Nimmo 2
Odisho 3 Dishshe 2
Orahim 3 Oro; Icce 2
Pithyun 2 Pithyo/u/u 2
Pilipus 3 Pillo/u 2
Pnuwwil 2 Pinno; puwwi 2
Polis 2 Polu/a 2
Purus 2 Pitto 2
ankhiru 2 ankho 2
Sargon 2 Saggo 2
SarÌis 2 Sagga/i 2
Shawi(u)l 2 Shawwu 2
Shimshon 2 Shishsho/u 2
Shlimon 2 Cemo 2
alya 2 allo 2
Wilyam 2 Willo/u 2
Yonan 2 Nanno; Manno 2
Yosip 2 Osii; Chopa/e 2
Yuram 2 Yuura 2
Yukhanna 3 Canna/o/i; Nanna 2
Table 5/3Assyrian Male Names and Petnames

Aglantina 4 Ajji; Ego 2
Agnis 2 Ego; Aggo 2
Asmar 2 Achche 2
Badriyya 3 Badre 2
Bahija 3 Bijje 2
Batishwa 3 Battu; Batu 2
Citrina 3 Cite; Citro 2
Dalila 3 Dallo 2
Fabroniya 4 F/Pabbo 2
Gladis 2 Gado 2
Grazilda 3 Gazzi 2
Helane 3 Nane 2
Iilishwa 3 Iishsho/u 2
Ilizabet 4 Zabo; zabet 2
Ingrid 2 Inje 2
Istir 2 Itte 2
Jaklin 2 Jakko 2
Juliyya 3 Juli/o 2
Khanzade 3 Khazzu 2
Khizzeme 3 Meme 2
Klemantin 3 Chema 2
Layya 2 Tayya/o 2
Lilyan 2 Lille 2
Ludiyya 3 Ludi/o 2
Lusiyya 3 Siyya; luse 2
Madlen 2 Maddi 2
Margret 2 Maggi/o 2
MarÌanita 3 MaÌÌo; Majje 2
Marlin 2 Manni 2
Marta 2 Batta 2
Maryam 2 Mayyi/o 2
Melina 2 Melo 2
Miscinta 3 Misku 2
Nahren 2 Nahhi/o 2
Najiba 3 Najjo 2
Nanajan 3 Nano 2
NarÌis 2 NaÌÌo 2
Rabqa 2 Chaqqo 2
Rejina 3 Rejo 2
abriyya 3 abbo 2
Sulane 3 Sule 2
Shammiran 3 Shammo 2
Susan 2 Susi 2
Toris 2 Toze 2
Wardiyya 3 Warde/u 2
Warjiniya 4 Wajjo; Warjo 2
Wailet 2 Wayo 2
Wiktoriya 4 Wakko; Iktu 2
Yasmine 3 Yasme 2
Yuliyya 3 Yulo 2
Table 5/4 Assyrian Female Names and Petnames
5.2 Results
Before the results are surveyed, it is necessary to point out that the syllable
is used here as a generic yardstick of measurement regardless of the syllable size
[i.e. how many segmental elements are involved]. Since both English and
Assyrian enjoy a wide variety of syllable sizes, the variety evens out any specific
differences in syllable sizes.
The mean length of male names in English is 2.16 syllables, whereas for
petnames it is 1.08 syllables implying that names are reduced to half size [i.e. by
50%]. The mean length of female names in English is approximately 2.83
syllables and for petnames it is 1.75 syllables implying that petnames are reduced
by approximately 38% which in actual size is identical with 1.08 syllables
reduction as in the case of male names.
The above figures indicate that on average female names are longer than
male names by 0.67 of a syllable which is exactly the same difference between
the female and male petnames [i.e., 283 -2.16 = .67 for female and 1.75 - 1.08 =
.67 for male].
As for Assyrian, the mean length of male names is 2.52 syllables, whereas
for petnames it is an absolute 2 syllables, implying that names are reduced by 0.52
of a syllable. The mean length of female names is 2.70 syllables as opposed to an
absolute 2 syllables. These figures indicate that on average female names for
Assyrian are longer than their male counterparts by 0.18 of a syllable which is
less than in English.
The absolute two syllable mean length for all male petnames in Assyrian
implies that the Assyrian petnames are almost twice as long as their English male
counterparts. This is further substantiated by a 92% monosyllabic male petnames
in English against a 100% di(bi)syllabic petnames in Assyrian. However, female
petnames in Assyrian are longer than their English counterparts only by 0.25 of a
syllable.
Turning to another aspect of the comparison, nearly 60% of the English
male petnames are of a monosyllabic CVC [Consonant-Vowel-Consonant]
syllable pattern. Some less common syllable patterns are CV, VC, VCC, CCVC
and CVCC. In case of the English female petnames, it is difficult to conduct the
description in terms of syllable patterns since approximately 72% of them are
disyllabic. A more appropriate description would be in terms of the overall
syllabic structure of the petnames. It seems that there does not exist one
predominant syllabic structure; however, a CV.CV structure tends to be more
common.
In Assyrian, there is a much greater neatness and systematicness in the
syllabic structures of the petnames. The predominant syllabic structure for both
male and female petnames is the CVC.CV structure. Approximately, 75% of the
male petnames and 60% of the female petnames comply by the above syllabic
structure. The C.C in the middle indicates abutting consonants1 which are

1
Abutting consonants is a combination of consonants that spread over two syllables such as in the
word <catfish> which has a <tf>combination of two consonants, but it is not a cluster because the <t>
belongs to the first syllable and <f> belongs to the second. Consonant clusters or the so-called
frequently geminated [doubled consonants as in <dikko>, <danno> and <pitto>;

however, non-identical abutting consonants are also familiar such as in <daryo>,
<sankho> and <khasku>. The second popular syllabic structure is the CV.CV
such as in <dodo>, <soro> and <shabe>.
Both CVC.CV and CV.CV syllabic structures imply that petnames in
Assyrian are consistently initiated with a consonant [a glottal stop being assumed
for any item that is initiated without a consonant] and closed with a vowel.
Another interesting observation is pertinent to the process by which the
petnames are formed. For convenience the process is called here truncation which
simply means cutting off a section of the name. Although truncation is active in
both languages, the manner in which it applies, the extent of its application and
whether it is combined with other processes may vary.
Truncation seems to apply in two different formats. At times, the anterior
section of the name is truncated such as in the English examples of <Eugene> and
“Anthony” when reduced to <Gene> and <Tony> and in the Assyrian examples
of <khoshaba> and <yukhanna> when reduced to <shabe> and <nanna>,
respectively. This format is described as front truncation in opposition to back
truncation in which the posterior section of the name is truncated such as in the
English examples of <Donald> and <Raymond> when reduced to <Don> and
<Ray> and in the Assyrian examples of <yuram> and <yasmine> when reduced
to <yura> and <yasme>, respectively. Back truncation is undoubtedly more
pervasive in English than front truncation.
Truncation is also active in Assyrian. Similar to English, back truncation
is more active than front truncation; however, in Assyrian truncation does not
seem to operate in the same, more or less, mechanical manner that it operates in
English, i.e. cutting off a section of the name. There is clear indication that in
Assyrian truncation tends to be heavily subject to a major constraint which is
labeled here as root identity retention [RIR]. This is realized through the retention
of at least two major consonants of the 3 or 4 consonants [radicals] of which the
root/stem consists. As a further reinforcement of the RIR constraint, one of the
consonants is often geminated. In fact, approximately 65% of the Assyrian
petnames do have a geminated consonant.
In considering the segmental [consonants and vowels] sound structure of
the petnames, English hardly undergoes phonetic changes. Unlike English, in
Assyrian there are several instances of segmental phonetic changes which do not
have a direct representation in the original names. The <ch> in <chuwwe> for
<shmuwwel>, <Ichcho> for <iskhaq> or <khamcho> for <khamis>; and <ch> in
<chaqqo> for <rabqa>; <k> in <dikko> for <dinkha>; <j> in <jajo> for <lazar>
and <b> in <batta> for <marta> all represent major phonetic changes. What is
interesting, however, is that there may exist some underlying phonetic affinity
between the newly emerging sounds and the original radicals. The phonetic
affinity may assume the form of manner or place of articulation. For instance, the
pairs /m/ and /b/ and /k/ and /x/ = <kh> in the examples cited above are related in
the place of articulation.

consonant blends is a combination of consonants structurally belong to one syllable and is pronounced
as one intact piece such as the /bl/ in <blend> (for details see Odisho 1979; 2003).
5.3 Discussion
As indicated above, the syllable is treated in this study as a generic
yardstick [unit] of measurement regardless of the syllable size. This position is
adopted because what is targeted is the word length or more accurately the name
length. In light of such a decision, the English female names are longer than their
male counterparts by 0.67 of a syllable. This is a relatively sizable difference and
it seems to result from the frequent addition of a female suffix such as <a>, <ine>,
and <ia> as in <Edwin/Edwina>, <Joseph/Josephine> and <Victor/Victoria>. The
trend is that with the addition of such suffixes an additional syllable emerges.
Interestingly enough, in our randomly selected names, exactly the same difference
is maintained between the female and male petnames. This latter difference is
implicitly related to the original addition of a female suffix to the male names as a
distinctive feature. Explicitly, however, nearly 60% of the female petnames end
with suffix /i/ [graphically represented with <y> or <ie> as in <Abby>, <Sandy>,
<Cathy>, <Connie>, Debbie>, and <Jackie>]. It is mainly due to the absence of
such a marker in the male petnames that the overwhelming majority of them are
monosyllabic.
The picture in Assyrian seems to be different. Although the female names
are also longer than their male counterparts, the difference is minimal and only
about 0.2 of a syllable. This minimal difference cannot be accounted for in any
terms other than being accidental and nonessential. In general, though the first
names in Assyrian are slightly longer on average than in English, their reduction,
however, is much more restricted. The only reason for this is the two-syllable
length constraint imposed on the formation of petnames in Assyrian. It is assumed
here that this constraint constitutes the major distinguishing factor in the
formation of petnames in the two languages.
Assyrian being a Semitic language tends to strictly retain the characteristic
role of the consonants in the construction of the morphological identity of words.
Krotkoff highlights such a relationship by stating that the concept of a
consonantal root, so prominent in all Semitic languages, is a corollary of the
existence of strict morphological patterning (1982:19). The consonantal radicals
and the sequence in which they are arranged does not only signal “the general
meaning of a root” (Bergstrasser 1983:5), they also signal its formal identity. In
other words, there is more weight for the consonants in signaling the generic
semantic and formal identity of lexical items in the Semitic languages including
Assyrian. Certainly, in this study, meaning is not pertinent, but formal identity is.
The absolute two-syllable constraint on the formation of petnames in Assyrian
implies the presence of a minimum of two consonants which in turn implies a
strong trend towards the retention of as much of the consonantal root identity as
possible; it was this trend that was referred to earlier on as RIR, i.e. root identity
retention.
A monosyllabic pattern of petnames in Assyrian would be highly
incompatible with and uncharacteristic of the Semitic languages. Monosyllabic
structures in such languages are rare. Aside from some pronouns and general
particles and some disyllabic words, the great majority of bases/roots appear to be
trisyllabic (Gray, 1971:34; Bergstrasser, 1983:6). Unlike in Assyrian, in English,

an Indo-European language, the concept of the consonantal root/base is less
powerful in determining both the semantic and formal identity of the linguistic
items. This characteristic of English is, perhaps, the primary reason behind the
greater variety in the syllabic structures of petnames in English and greater
freedom in implementing the truncation process.
The rules of petname formation in Assyrian appear to be more powerful.
They are operating very rigidly and consistently even with loan-names regardless
of their source. For instance, <Edward>, <Napoleon> and <Alfred> strictly
adhere to the CVC.CV syllabic structure and become <iddo>, <nappo> and
<app/ffi>, respectively. Besides this strong naturalization tendency, which is an
indication of consistency in petname formation, uniformity is further portrayed
through the absolute validity of the two-syllable structural constraint, the vocalic
ending of the items and their predominant CVC.CV syllabic structure.
As for the greater segmental phonetic discrepancy between the Assyrian
names and petnames, it may be attributed to a greater baby-language [baby-talk]
influence in Assyrian than in English. Apparently, such a hypocoristic influence
in Assyrian is realized through phonetic changes within the segmental structure of
the items concerned, whereas in English it is frequently realized through
suffixation as in <Jimmy> for <Jim>, <Freddie> for <Fred> and <Tommy> for
<Tom>.
5.4 Conclusions and Implications for Future Research

Petnaming appears to be a very common and pervasive sociolinguistic
phenomenon in both English and Assyrian. The preliminary investigation tends to
recognize it as a widely common phenomenon in most languages and cultures.
Perhaps, it may turn out to be a universal feature of human culture. However, a
final judgment in this respect should depend on further and more exhaustive
research.
This limited comparative study reveals some similarities and differences
in the manner in which petnaming is functioning in English and Assyrian. A
major similarity is displayed through the use of truncation which may not seem
valid or equally valid for other languages. For example, in Arabic, petnames may
be generated through internal restructuring without any change or deletion in the
consonantal radicals such as converting <jami:l>, <kari:m> and <sali:m> into
<jmayyil>, <krayyim> and <slayyim>, respectively. Arabic may also introduce
different petname variants for the above three names in the form of <jammuli>,
<karrumi> and <sallumi>, respectively. It may also resort to some sort of
truncation as in <hamad> and <yaas> from <muhammad> and <ya:si:n>, but
truncation is very uncharacteristic of Arabic. Most likely, the rarity of truncation
in the formation of petnames in Arabic is attributed to the fact that Arabic names
are overwhelmingly derived from verb roots and bear well-defined meanings.
This direct association of the Arabic names with the meaning and the form of the
roots/bases could be the primary reason why petnaming through truncation is very
rare. Such an interpretation is reminiscent of what was hinted at earlier on when
RIR constraint was introduced for the formation of petnames in Assyrian, another
Semitic language.
As for the major differences between English and Assyrian, they reveal
themselves in the greater rigidity and consistency for the latter. Such a difference
is attributed here to the underlying and grossly different morphological rules of
word formation that Assyrian, as a Semitic language, and English, as an Indo-
European language, have.
Finally, to pass more definitive judgments in this area of study requires
further comparative studies and further investigation. For instance, one needs to
account for the greater permissibility of truncation in Arabic loan-names in
Kurdish, such as in <muhammad>, <ahmad>, <maji:d>, <cabdalla> becoming
<Hama>, <aHa>, <maja> and <caba>, respectively. Questions of this nature will,
hopefully, be targeted in future.
5.5 Bibliography
Ashley, L.R.N.(1989) What’s in a Name? Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co.
Bergstrasser, G. (1983) Introduction to the Semitic Languages. (trans. P. Daniels).
Winona/Indiana: Eisenbrauns.
Dunkling, L. A. (1977). First Names First. Detroit: Gale Research Company.
———. (1986). The Guinness Book of Names. London: Guinness Books.
Dunkling, L. A. and Gosling, W. (1983). The Facts on File Dictionary of First
Names. New York: Facts on File Publications.
Encyclopedia Americana. (1990) Nicknames. Vol., 20.
Franklyn, Julian (1962). A Dictionary of Nicknames. New York: British Book
Center.
Gray, L. H. (1971). Introduction to Semitic Comparative Linguistics. Amsterdam:
Philo Press.
Hanks, P. and Hodges, F. (1990). A Dictionary of First Names. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Krotkoff, Georg (1982). A Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Kurdistan. New Haven/
Connecticut: American Oriental Society.
Odisho, Edward Y. (1979). Consonant Clusters and Abutting Consonants in
English and Arabic. System, Vol. 7, 205-210.
———. (1988). The Sound System of Modern Assyrian(Neo-Aramaic).
Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
______. (1990). Phonetic and Phonological Description of the Labio-palatal and
Labio-velar Approximants in Neo-Aramaic. Studies in Neo-Aramaic. (ed.
Wolfhart Heinrichs)
______. (2003). Techniques of Teaching Pronunciation in ESL, Bilingual and
Foreign Language Classes. Munich: Lincom Europa.
Chapter 6
The Role of Aspiration in the Transliteration of

Loanwords in Aramaic and Arabic
At the very outset, there are several points that should be clarified. First,
although the title of this study is aspiration, the bulk of the discussion will center
around nonaspiration in certain sounds and the impact of that on their
transliteration in Aramaic and Arabic. However, because an overall description of
the phenomenon of aspiration is inevitable, using the term aspiration will be more
inclusive and more convenient. Second, Aramaic and Syriac are used
interchangeably because they are variants of the same language. Third, aspiration
is defined in terms of the latest findings with regards to the phonetic nature of this
phenomenon. Finally, therefore, it should not be confused with what some
traditional Semitists (Stoddard, 1855: 10; Maclean, 1901: 4; Arayathinal,
1957:27, among others) have used the descriptive term ‘aspiration’ for. They used
it to stand for the articulatory processes of qushƗya [hardness] and rukƗxa
[softness] which represent the transformation of stops into fricatives known in
modern phonetic jargon as ‘spirantization’ (Hyman, 1975: 62-3; Ohde and Sharf,
1992: 205). Nöldeke also uses the attributes ‘aspirated’ and ‘unaspirated’ in the
context of his discussion of qushƗya and rukƗxa. However, elsewhere, Nöldeke
makes it quite clear that he is aware of the specific meaning of aspiration. He does
this precisely when he is describing the nature of the differences and similarities
between the Greek t, k and Aramaic , (1904: 15). His use of the attributes in
connection with qushƗya/rukƗxa is only a casual citation of other writers’
descriptive terms. More recent studies of Aramaic, both classical and modern,
distinctly identify qushƗya/rukƗxa as spirantization (Tsereteli, 1978: 33; Odisho,
1983: 15; Kiraz, 1995: 2). It is, therefore, important to stress the fact that this
study attempts to explain some cross-language orthographical transformations to
which loanwords are vulnerable and are associated partly with the presence or
absence of aspiration. A typical case is the frequent appearance of or ϕ ρ in
the orthographic rendition of Greek loanwords in Aramaic and Arabic,
respectively, representing sounds or letters which are not their phonological and
orthographic cognates. The main purpose of this study is to explain the underlying
causes of the above changes and transliterations.
6.2 Historical Background

In the Middle East, historically Aramaic emerged as a significant language
since the eleventh century BC. It remained in active circulation as a popular
language of communication, administration and scholarship for over a
millennium; in fact, it was the dominant language, at least, until the seventh
century AD. Because of its popularity and pervasiveness, scholars have repeatedly
labeled Aramaic as the lingua franca of the Middle East (Toynbee, 1947: 19;
Robinson, 1962: 1; Frye, 1963: 99; Diringer, 1968: 200; and Rosenthal, 1974: 6;
Versteegh, 1997: 9). Only Arabic, with the advent of Islam in the seventh century,
was capable of competing with Aramaic and gradually supplanting it. However,
even after the spread of Arabic as an important language of civilization, Aramaic
remained a very significant language of scholarship and academic pursuit. Very
specifically, it served as the first serious conduit for the exposure of, first, the
natives of Aramaic and then the natives of Arabic to the Greek civilization and
language.
The earliest significant exposure of the Aramaic speakers to the Greek
civilization and language goes back to the Hellenic invasion of the region by
Alexander the Great around 331 BC (O’Leary, 1979: 6; Zuntz, 1994:26; Drijvers
and Healey, 1999:32). Militarily and politically, the Greeks were a dominant
occupation power until 65 AD. However, their religious and academic influence
continued much longer after that. The Greeks were one of the earliest ethnic
groups, besides the Aramaic speakers, to adopt Christianity as a religion. The
influence of their language stretches from being regarded as the original language
of the New Testament, either wholly or partially, to being a primary ecclesiastical
and academic language besides Aramaic. This linguistic connection between
Greek and Aramaic in the early centuries of Christianity continued, but was even
further enhanced through greater civilizational interaction as the Aramaic
speakers developed unlimited scholarly interest in Greek medicine, philosophy
and sciences. It was this scholarly interest that later made Aramaic serve as a
bridge between Greek and Arabic. In the long run, this academic connection
between the three languages led to one of the most extensive translation
movements in the history of human civilizations. There is evidence that one of the
early works of translation from Greek into Aramaic was done at Edessa in the
later fourth century (O’Leary, 1979: 51). In other words, the Aramaic speakers
had seriously embarked on the translation of the Greek scientific heritage much
earlier than the Islamic conquest and the establishment of the Arab caliphate.
However, the translation was massively expanded during the Caliphate of Harun
al-Rashid, 786-809 AD (Whipple, 1967: 24; O’Leary, 1979: 69; Gutas, 1998: 20).
The peak of this movement came during the Caliphate of his son al-Ma’mun who,
at the suggestion of the Nestorian physician Jibra’il Bakhtishu, founded the
academy which was called Beit al-Hikmah, House of Wisdom. Incidentally, it is
also interesting to note that there is unanimous agreement among all historians
that the majority of the translators were Nestorian Christians (Whipple, 1967;
O’Leary, 1979), a fact which has its own historical significance that is beyond the
domain of this study.
6.3 Salient Sound Differences between Greek and Aramaic/Arabic

Greek as an Indo-European language has some major phonetic and
phonological differences from Aramaic and Arabic both of which are typical
Semitic languages. Of specific interest in this regard is the fact that in the Semitic
languages, the number of sounds whose primary or at least the secondary place of
The Role of Aspiration in the Transliteration of Loanwords 81
articulation is in the posterior section is relatively much higher than most of the
languages of the world. For instance, phonologically, in the rear section of the
vocal tract, especially in the post-velum area, Arabic has seven phonemes /˰ϫ ,˯ ,ω
,Ρ ,ύ ,Υ ,ϕ / with the primary place of articulation and four more phonemes / ν ,υ
, ι ,ρ / with a secondary place of articulation in the same area of the vocal tract.
The generation of the above phonemes involves phonetic processes such as
emphasis, uvularization and pharyngealization all of which are subsumed here
under the term gutturalization for brevity and convenience. Aramaic in its
classical versions has had most of those phonemes of Arabic. Although
throughout history, Aramaic lost or modified some of its guttural or gutturalized
sounds, it has still maintained a strong core of such sounds. Because of this
abundance of sounds in the rear section of the vocal tract, the section is the source
of the most salient feature that shapes and colors the phonetics/phonology of such
languages. In reality, it is this salient gutturalization feature of the Semitic
languages that constitutes a major component of the articulatory setting of the
Semitic languages (for details see Odisho, 1973, 1996, 2000). The term
articulatory setting was first coined by Honikman (1964) and described as “The
overall arrangement and maneuvering of the speech organs necessary for a facile
accomplishment of natural utterance. Broadly, it is the fundamental groundwork
which pervades and, to an extent, determines the phonetic character and specific
timbre of a language.” (73). Since then, this phonetic phenomenon has been
further described and elaborated on (Laver, 1980). The impact of gutturalization
on shaping the articulatory setting of the Semitic languages does not only affect
the phonological realization and production of the sounds of other languages; it
affects their orthographic rendition, too. For Arabic, the orthographic
gutturalization of loanwords has been outlined in an earlier study (Odisho, 1996)
in which a brief reference was made to the role of aspiration in the overall
gutturalization process and the orthographic rendition of loanwords. Because the
focus here is on a better understanding of the role of aspiration, some explanation
of its nature and a survey of its domain in a variety of languages including Greek,
Aramaic and Arabic are inevitable.
6.4 Aspiration/Non-Aspiration in Greek, Aramaic and Arabic

Traditionally, aspiration has been identified and defined as a ‘puff of air’
which follows the release of certain sounds, especially plosives. This way of
identifying aspiration is true, but it is quite superficial and does not reflect the
underlying supraglottal and glottal articulatory, aerodynamic and phonatory
conditions that lead to the presence or absence of the ‘puff of air.’
After a series of very stimulating papers, Kim succeeded in developing a
theory of aspiration (1970) which is now widely accepted. In those papers, he
defines aspiration as the “function of the glottal opening at the time of the release
of the supraglottal stricture.” (Kim, 1970:111) In other words, “if a stop is ‘n’
degree of aspiration it must have ‘n’ degree of glottal opening at the time of the
release of the [supraglottal] closure” (Kim 1967:269). Thus, Kim identifies
aspiration as the outcome of the articulatory, phonatory and aerodynamic
adjustments and synchronizations between the glottal and supraglottal activities

and apertures. The above synchronizations are equally accurately captured by the
term voice onset time [usually abbreviated as VOT] (Ladefoged, 1982:259;
Odisho, 1988: 48). There are three common patterns of VOT: before the release
of closure, with the release of closure and after a noticeable delay. Sounds
produced in terms of those synchronizations are described as voiced unaspirated,
voiceless unaspirated and voiceless aspirated, respectively. (Ladefoged, 1982:259;
Catford, 1988:58-9) In terms of distinctive features, the three patterns of VOT
may be distinguished as: [+ voiced, – delayed], [– voiced, – delayed] and [–
voiced, + delayed], respectively. (for further details, see also Chapter 14).
As a phonetic phenomenon, aspiration is quite common in many
languages of the world; phonologically, however, its function might be viewed in
three different forms. First, there are languages such as Korean, Thai, Vietnamese
and Sindhi, [a sub-continental Indian language] in which the presence and
absence of aspiration is a contrastive feature and triggers semantic differences. In
Vietnamese, for instance, [t*] and [t] are in contrast and trigger the difference
between the lexical items [t*in] “silent” and [tin] “smart” (Avery and Erlich,
1997: 41). Second, there are other languages in which aspiration occurs
autonomously [i.e., not as a contextual variant], but it does not constitute a
phonological contrast with a cognate sound or set of sounds of the same place and
manner of articulation. The plosive sounds of Spanish and French and Greek tend
to be unaspirated, but they have no unaspirated counterparts. Aspiration may also
be simply rendered redundant and its contrastive function assigned to another
feature. The relationship among certain sounds in Arabic is typical of the latter
condition. For example, / Ε /, a voiceless aspirated plain alveolar plosive, has
always been contrasted with / ρ /, a voiceless unaspirated emphatic alveolar
plosive, on the basis of emphasis ϢϴΨϔΘϟ΍ and that aspiration has never been invoked
as a contrastive feature. As for /ϕ/ a voiceless unaspirated uvular plosive, because
it does not have any cognate plosive to which it is contrasted, its unaspirated
nature as a feature is rendered redundant. Third, in some languages, aspiration and
its absence may be contextually triggered and it is hardly ever consciously
recognized. The situation of aspiration/nonaspiration in English is a typical
representative of this group (Avery and Erlich, 1997). Only in stressed syllables,
especially in word-initial positions, the / p, t, k / of English are fully aspirated.
Elsewhere, they are either weakly aspirated or fully unaspirated. An instance of
the latter is consistently observed in word-initial stressed syllables when / p, t, k /
are in consonant cluster formations with / s / as in < spit, stick, skin >. Due to
articulatory and aerodynamic conditions of such clusters, the plosives are fully
deaspirated (Gimson, 1970: 67; Roach, 1983: 30). In light of the above grouping
of languages with regards to aspiration, any attempt of relating Greek, Aramaic
and Arabic to those groups should take into consideration their contrastive
phonological systems at the time when the linguistic contact and exchange among
the three languages had been most intensive. Concerning Greek, research shows
that there had been phonological contrasts based on aspiration/nonaspiration i.e.,
[p t k] Vs [p* t* k*]; however, there is no doubt that, as modern Greek shows, the
aspirated plosives did eventually change to fricatives in the form of [ĳ ș Ȥ] (Allen,
1968: 20). Allen places this change during the period from the second century BC
to the first century AD with the latter being a more accurate date (1968: 21). This
dating of the replacement of the aspirated plosives with fricatives [spirants] is of
extreme significance because it coincides with the beginning of the most serious
contacts of Aramaic with Greek. With the disappearance of the aspirated
cognates, aspiration in Greek remained an autonomous feature, but with no
contrastive weight. According to such specifications, Greek belongs to the second
group of languages. In Arabic, both classical and standard, there is no historical
evidence that it ever had contrasts of cognate plosives based solely on aspiration.
Although Arabic has had unaspirated sounds, there is no indication, whatsoever,
even in the oldest available linguistic descriptions of Arabic that aspiration versus
nonaspiration had been cited or singled out as the basis for phonological contrast.
In fact, the failure to even acknowledge the presence of this feature might be the
only explanation for some of the inaccuracies in the phonetic description of some
sounds by the most prominent Arab grammarians including Ibn Jinni and
Sibawaihi. It has been strongly argued that one of the main reasons why they
misplaced the sound / ρ ϕ / in the voiced category ΓέϮϬΠϣ instead of the voiceless
category ΔγϮϤϬϣ was because those grammarians failed to recognize the absence of
aspiration in such sounds (Odisho, 1988a: 88; see also Chapter 14). Consequently,
the failure made those grammarians think that / ϕ ρ / were voiced rather than
voiceless unaspirated (Odisho, 1977/a: 63; 1988: 87). The role of aspiration in
Aramaic is quite identical with its role in Arabic. There has been no historical
evidence of any linguistic contrasts based solely on aspiration in Old Aramaic.
The only distinct nonaspiration, much like Arabic, is in the case of / /. What is
typically unlike Arabic is the pervasive nature of aspiration in some of the modern
dialects of Aramaic. In the Urmi variety of Assyrian Aramaic and the Iraqi koiné
Assyrian (Odisho, 1988), there is ample evidence of the contrastive nature of
aspiration/nonaspiration. In fact, it is so pervasive that it extends to cover two of
its three affricates in addition to all the plosives (Osipov, 1913; Odisho, 1975,
1977a, 1977b, 1979).
6.5 Orthographic Evidence

In Aramaic, there are numerous examples of loanwords in which the
letters representing [t*] or [t] and [k*] or [k] sounds have been frequently assigned
the letters / / instead of / / in spite of the fact that the latter pair is of
greater historical and orthographical affinity and relevance to the letters of the
loanwords. The conversion of those pairs of letters is best portrayed by the
transliteration of the Greek / Ĳ ț/ letters as the Aramaic / / in a wide variety of
Greek loanwords including religious, philosophical and scientific terms as well as
personal and geographical names most of which have been incorporated into
Aramaic just before and after the advent of Christianity. List, 6/1 below is a
collection of randomly selected Greek words and names which typically manifest
a strong trend of phonetic and orthographic gutturalization of the non-guttural
Greek sounds /ț/ and /Ĳ/ and rendering them as / / and / / in their Aramaic
linguistic environment.
GìÁàÎíD ȐĲȠȝȠȢ; ȐĲȠȝȠȞ Atom

GìQÁàÎóìÅDì ĮȞĮĲȠȝȓĮ Anatomy
GìàÎoìD ǱıȦĲȠȢ Prodigal
GìpcàÎóoôD ıĲȠȚȤİȓȠȞ Element
GìºÁàÎóoôD ıĲȩȝĮȤȠȢ Stomach
Kì¾óoôD ȈĲȠȜȒ long robe
GìQÉàÎ½àÍlóoôD ĮıĲȡȠȜȠȖȓĮ Astrology
GìQÁàÎÅàÍlóoôD ĮıĲȡȠȞȠȝȓĮ Atronomy
Kì¾Êé ÅûlóoôD ıĲȡȠȖȖȣȜȩȢ Estrangelo
R¶QóìÁùÔPkìD ĮȡȚșȝİĲȚțȒ Arithmetic
Gì±àÎ¶pô±Eí ¹kíD ĮȡȤİʌȓıțȠʌȠȢ Archbishop
ÈàÎ¶ìÏhô¹kíD ĮȡȤȚįȚȐțȠȞȠȢ Archdeacon
GìÆ¶ìÏâh±í ÎéÖ ȣʌȠįȚȐțȠȞȠȢ Subdeacon
GìpØâÎ ȉȪʌȠȢ Example
GìÂQ ȉȚȝȒ Price
Gìpdí ȉȐȟȚȢ Ritual
DúlóQ½ ȁȓĲȡĮ weight (pound)
GìóÙæÅ ȃȐĳșĮ naphtha (oil)
GìÅàÎóo ȈĲȣȜȠȢ Pillar
G÷óoàÎ¶÷óÆí± ʌİȞĲȘțȠıĲȒ Pentecost
GìQÅàÎ½àÎµ ȀȠȜȦȞȓĮ Colony
ràÎÅéhÅûÎµ÷ țȓȞįȣȞȠȢ Danger
ràÎ¾µàÎµ ȀȪțȜȠȢ Circle
Gì¶P¾µ țȜȘȡȚțȩȢ Clegyman
§ì Ðì¾µô ȀȑȜȜĮ Cell
qQp²ô¾µ ȑțȜİȚȥȚȢ Eclipse
ßPhÆíµ ȀĮȞįȒȜĮ Candlestick
GìÅàÎÆìµ ȀĮȞȫȞ Canon
GõºÆíµ ȀȩȖȤȘ sanctuary (church)
ÈàÍE÷¾²ì µ÷ țİĳȐȜȚȠȞ Chapter
GìpÐílíµ ȋȐȡĲȘȢ chart (certificate)
Kì¾ ì lôµ țȐȡĲĮȜȜȠȢ large basket
R¶Q½àÍÔù µì țĮșȠȜȚțȒ Catholic
ÈàÍlíDÓ÷ ĬȑĮĲȡȠȞ Theatre
Table 6/1.Greek loanwords in Aramaic with Greek <Ĳ ț> transliterated as < >
In Arabic, the transliteration of loanwords, without / ϕ ρ / sounds, with / ϕ

ρ / is even more pervasive than in Aramaic. This trend in transliteration is clearly
evidenced in Classical Arabic, Modern Standard Arabic [MSA] and almost all the
modern dialects of Arabic. List, 6/2 below is a diversified token representation of
such orthographic conversions from Greek and other foreign languages.
ȆȜȐĲȦȞ ϥϮσϼϓ΍
ȈȦțȡȐĲȘ ρ΍ήϘγ
ǱȡȚıĲȠĲȑȘȢ Ϯτγέ΍
ȀĮȚıĮȡ ήμϴϗ
ȂĮțİįȠȞȓĮ ΔϴϧϭΪϘϣ
ȀȪʌȡȠȢ ιήΒϗ
ȀȦȞıĲĮȞĲȚȞȠȪʌȠȜȚȢ ΔϴϨϴτϨτδϗ
ȂĮȜĲĮ ΎτϟΎϣ
ǿĲĮȜȓĮ ΎϴϟΎτϳ΍
TĮȡıȩȢ αϮγήσ
ȀȫȜȠȞ ϥϮϟϮϗ
ȀȑȞĲȡȠȞ ΓήτϨϗ
ȀȓıĲȠȢ αΎτδϗ
ȀȜȓȝĮ ϢϴϠϗ΍
ȀĮȡȣȩĳȣȜȜȠȞ Ϟϔϧήϗ
ȀȠȞįȒȜĮ ϞϳΪϨϗ
ȆȑĲȡȠȢ αήτΑ
ȂȐȡțȠȢ κϗήϣ
Table 6/2.Greek loanwords in Arabic with Greek <Ĳ ț> transliterated as <ρ ϕ>
6.6. Discussion
The absence of the / ϕ ρ , / sounds in the native forms of loanwords
and their distinct presence in their Aramaic and Arabic renditions has no
reasonable and convincing interpretation other than in terms of the phonetic and
phonological rules of naturalization of loanwords imposed by the articulatory
settings of Aramaic and Arabic. Furthermore, the imposition seems to be so
powerful that it permeates their orthographic renditions. However, there may be
other underlying phonetic conditions that exist in the lender and borrower
languages which also seem to function as catalysts in bringing about the above
phonetic/phonological and orthographic transformations. Foremost among such
conditions that facilitate the appearance of / / and / ρ ϕ / in the above cited
loanwords may lie in the phonetic nature of the original sounds in the lender
languages, especially with regards to the feature of aspiration/nonaspiration or
VOT. The assumption that ‘nonaspiration’ may be the culprit that facilitates the
changes has some strong linguistic support in the background of the languages
involved. For instance, the Greek plosives /Ĳ ț/ are both fully unaspirated. The
Greek / Ĳ / traditionally stands for a voiceless unaspirated alveolar plosive, and its
unaspirated nature gives it an acoustic quality that distances it from the
conventional Aramaic / / and Arabic / Ε / which are voiceless aspirated alveolar
plosives, and makes them more readily associated with / / and / ρ / which share
the Greek / Ĳ / its unaspirated nature. Similarly, the / ț / is phonetically a voiceless
unaspirated velar plosive (Mackridge, 1985: 20). Its unaspirated nature makes its
acoustic and perceptual quality sound more like the Aramaic / / and Arabic / ϕ /
both of which are identical and conventionally represent a voiceless unaspirated

uvular plosive. Such a phonetic and orthographic association between the Greek /t
k/ and Aramaic and Arabic / / and / ϕ ρ / seems to be governed by the
unaspirated nature of the sounds involved rather than by any other phonetic
feature. There is also ample evidence in Andalusi Arabic of a similar trend of
transcribing the unaspirated Hispano-Roman [t] and [k] with the Arabic letters / ρ
ϕ/. (Corriente, 1977: 39-40, 53-54; Torreblanca, 1994: 53) In these
transliterations, even the historical orthographic association between the proto-
Semitic alphabet and the Greek and Latin alphabets, the latter two being historical
extensions of the former, is bypassed. It, thus, goes without saying that if the
aspirated cognates of the unaspirated Greek plosives had not been lost, the
frequency with which the orthographic transliteration of /Ĳ ț/ with / would
have been much less pervasive. Similarly, if the Hispano-Latin’s / t , k / had been
aspirated in nature, they would have not been transcribed with Arabic /ϕ ρ/.
At this juncture of the discussion, there is a need to go back to the three
patterns of plosives which were labeled earlier on as voiced unaspirated, voiceless
unaspirated and voiceless aspirated and marked in distinctive features as [+
voiced, – delayed], [– voiced,– delayed] and [– voiced, + delayed], respectively.
The latter marking indicates that the first and the third patterns are maximally
contrasted, whereas the second pattern [i.e., voiceless unaspirated] is minimally
contrasted. It shares one feature with each of the other two patterns and, hence,
places itself virtually half way on a perceptual/impressionistic continuum between
the other two patterns. This explains the tendency among speakers of many
languages in which aspiration does not enjoy an autonomous [contrastive] status
to interpret unaspirated plosives as voiced (Allen, 1965:12). The zero VOT in the
unaspirated sounds distances them perceptually from the voiceless aspirated
sounds and brings them nearer to the voiced ones. It is this perceptual distance
that gave the Arab grammarians no choice but to place them in the voiced
category of sounds. If the Greek plosives were aspirated in nature, they would
automatically be matched with Aramaic / / and Arabic / Ε ϙ / based on
phonetic similarity and historical alphabetic affinity. However, the misplacement
of the voiceless unaspirated plosives in Arabic explains the failure of the Arab
grammarians in recognizing and reporting aspiration/nonaspiration as a phonetic
phenomenon despite their extensive accomplishments and versatility in other
aspects of phonetic studies. This failure may serve as evidence that nonaspiration
was only intuitively sensed as a phonetic feature, but its phonological role was
overshadowed by emphasis [ϢϴΨϔΘϟ΍]. To put it differently, / Ε /, in Arabic, has
always been exclusively contrasted with / ρ / on the basis of emphasis with no
contrastive weight assigned to aspiration although aspiration can be equally valid
to emphasis in contrastive value. This suspension of the contrastive power of
aspiration may be attributed to the pervasive phonological power of emphasis.
Emphasis in Arabic yields a minimum of four contrasts; in fact, more contrasts
are readily attested in various regional dialects of Arabic.
It is also interesting to notice that orthographic gutturalization, with
nonaspiration as a catalyst, does occur in native Arabic words through a process
of deaspiration. In several triliteral roots that are without a / ρ /, derivations from
such roots undergo certain phonetic changes that result in the emergence of / ρ /
and the further enhancement of gutturalization. For instance, ϰϔτλ΍ is a
modification of ϰϔΘλ΍ from the root ϰϔλ in which the / ι / as a fricative
deaspirates the / Ε / [t*] and transforms it into an unaspirated [t] which, in turn, is
emphaticized under the influence of the emphatic /ι/ and consequently
converted into a / ρ / (for details of this process see Odisho, 1988a). The same
interpretation applies in the case of many other derivations, such as ϊϨτλ΍΍ ΢Ϡτλ΍
ΩΎτλ΍ ήΒτλ΍ from ϊϨλ ήΒλ Ϊϴλ ΢Ϡλ . This deaspiration and concomitant
emphaticization is also observed in loanwords such as ρ΍ήγ Ώϻήτγ΍ ϞΒτγ΍ which
orthographically alternate with ρ΍ήλ Ώϻήτλ΍ ϞΒτλ΍ . A similar, but limited, trend
of deaspiration is attested in some Aramaic loanwords as in <¾ÅåûÓè> or
<¾ÅåûÒ> and <¾ĆàÓè> or <¾ĆàÒ>. A similar explanation of gutturalization in
conjunction with nonaspiration is equally tenable in many instances of loanwords
from other languages. Many loanwords from Spanish, Italian and French have
entered Arabic first with the Arab invasion of Spain and then with the Napoleonic
expedition to Egypt and the subsequent opening of the Arab world to the western
civilization. The manner in which geographic names such as ΎϴϧΎτϳήΑ ,ΎϴϟΎτϳ΍ are
pronounced and orthographically rendered in Arabic is strong evidence that those
names and many other words entered Arabic through the Latin languages rather
than English. It is pertinent to note that in all those Latin languages, the plosives
tend to be unaspirated (Allen, 1965: 12; Zuntz, 1994: 28), a feature quite
reminiscent of the Greek unaspirated plosives and their conversion into / /
and / ρ ϕ/.
6.7 Conclusions
There seems to be ample evidence in support of the assumption that the
rear section of the vocal tract has a very significant role in shaping the articulatory
setting in Aramaic and Arabic. The frequent conversion of non-guttural sounds in
loanwords from Greek and other languages into guttural or gutturalized ones
substantiates the significant role of the articulatory setting beyond any doubt or
controversy (Odisho, 1973; 1996). There is also ample evidence that in Arabic the
gutturalization trend is comparatively more pervasive in influence than in
Aramaic. This may be accounted for as follows. First, Arabic tends to be more
archaic in nature and resistant to hosting loanwords without strictly imposing its
rules of naturalization and indigenization so as to make the loanwords conceal
their etymology. (Chejne, 1969: 9; Beeston, 1970: 114) To state it differently,
Arabic has always been more archaic and prescriptive in nature, perhaps because
of its much stronger intimacy with religion. Second, its archaic nature has helped
the language maintain its systems and structures more intact than Aramaic. For
instance, MSA and most of the Arabic dialects (with the exception of some,
Corriente, 1977; 1997) have maintained almost completely all their uvular,
pharyngeal and emphatic sounds. Third, since the contact of Aramaic with other
languages, especially Greek, had been much earlier than Arabic, it is likely that
Aramaic had, somewhat, set the precedence in transliterating Greek sounds / Ĳ ț/,
and the like in other languages, into / /. Words such as <¾ĆàØÊæø>, <Íæø>
<ûÓæø> <¾éÝÒ> <¾ĆãÙàø> were first admitted and transliterated in Aramaic

prior to their admission and naturalization in Arabic as ϞϳΪϨϗ ϥϮϧΎϗ ΓήτϨϗ βϘσ ϢϴϠϗ΍.
Stated differently, there seems to be some orthographic crossover from Greek to
Arabic through Aramaic. Perhaps, the crossover intensified with the massive
translation movement of the Abbasid period, since many of the Greek treatises in
medicine, science and philosophy had already been translated into Aramaic prior
to being translated into Arabic. It is highly conceivable that many of the Greek
scientific terms were already gutturalized in Aramaic and thus encountered hardly
any resistance when transliterated into Arabic. However, for more definitive
conclusions in this regard, and the overall cross-linguistic phonetic and
orthographic conversion, more comprehensive and supportive evidence is
required. Another interesting dimension of this study is the noticeable role
aspiration plays in the phonetic and orthographic shaping of loanwords. The
unaspirated nature of / or ϕ ρ / seems to be very influential in the manner in
which loanwords are phonologically recognized and orthographically rendered in
their naturalization and transliteration. Their unaspirated nature which has never
been singled out as a primary and contrastive feature of manner of articulation is
so intuitively powerful that it forces foreign sounds drift away from their most
likely expected phonological and orthographic cognates. The alternative is to
match them with others based on another phonetically viable feature which
happens to be nonaspiration in this instance (see Figure 6/1 for a schematic
representation of the expected matching and the actual matching). This implies
that even though nonaspiration has never been recognized as a phonological
[contrastive] feature in the classical and standard varieties of Aramaic and Arabic,
it still seems to have been intuitively sensed by the native speakers of these two
languages. It is, therefore, plausible to conclude that even though nonaspiration
has no contrastive role in the intra-phonetics/phonology of Aramaic and Arabic, it
does have a distinct role in cross-linguistic borrowings, their naturalization and
transliteration.
Finally, in the hierarchical significance of factors governing the
naturalization of loanwords in Aramaic and Arabic, it is the gutturalization-
dominant articulatory setting that is of primary significance. Other factors, such as
aspiration, do play a role, but only as a catalyst and hence of secondary
significance.
Voiceless aspirated alveolar plosive <> = [t*] (Aram)
Voiceless Voiceless aspirated alveolar plosive <Ε> = [t*] (Arab)

Unaspirated
Alveolar
Plosive
Voiceless unaspirated (emphatic) alveolar plosive <> = [] (Aram)
<t> = [t]
Voiceless unaspirated (emphatic) alveolar plosive <ρ> = [] (Arab)
GREEK
Voiceless aspirated velar plosive <> = [k*] (Aram)
Voiceless Voiceless aspirated velar plosive <ϙ> = [k*] (Arab)

Unaspirated
Palatal/Velar
Plosive
Voiceless unaspirated uvular plosive <> = [q] (Aram)
<k> = [c]or [k]
Voiceless unaspirated uvular plosive <ϕ> = [q] (Arab)
Figure 6/1. Schematic representation of expected matching [ ] vs. actual

matching [ ] of alphabetic symbols in the Aramaic and Arabic
transliteration of Greek loanwords
6.8 Bibliography
Akdikmen, Resuhi (1986). Langenscheidt’s Standard Turkish Dictionary. New
York: Langenscheidt.
Allen, W.S. (1965). Vox Latina: The Pronunciation of Classical Latin.
Cambridge: At the University Press.
———. (1968). Vox Graeca: A Guide to the Pronunciation of Classical Greek.
Cambridge: At the University Press.
Arayathinal, Thomas (1957). Aramaic Grammar. Kerala: St. Joseph Press.
Avery, P. and Erlich, S. (1997). Teaching American English Pronunciation.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Catford, J.C. (1988). A Practical Introduction to Phonetics. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Corriente, F. (1977). A Grammatical Sketch of the Spanish Arabic dialect Bundle.
Madrid: Instituto Hispano-Arabe de Cultural.
———. (1997) A Dictionary of Andalusi Arabic. Leiden: Brill.
Drijvers, Han J.W. and Healey, John F. (1999). The Old Syriac Inscriptions of
Edessa and Osrhoene. Leiden: Brill.
Easton, Stewart (1970). The Western Heritage. New York: Holt, Reinhart &
Winston.
Frye, R.N. (1963). The Heritage of Persia. Cleveland: World Publishing Co.
Gimson, A.C. (1970). An Introduction to the Pronunciation of English. London:
Arnold.
Gustas, Dimitri (1998). Greek Thought, Arabic Culture. London: Routledge.

Honikman, Beatrice (1964). Articulatory Settings. In Honour of Daniel Jones.
Abercrombie, D., D.B. Fry, P.A.D. MacCarthy, N.C. Scott (eds.) London:
Longmans.
Hyman, L. (1975). Phonology. New York: Holt Rinehart &Winston.
Kykkotis, I. (1957). English-Greek and Greek-English Dictionary. London: Lund
Humphries.
Kim, C.W. (1967). Cineradiographic Study of Korean Stops and a Note on
Aspiration. Quarterly Progress Report, 86, 259-271.
———. (1970). A Theory of Aspiration. Phonetica, 21: 107-116.
Kiraz, George A. (1995). Introduction to Syriac Spirantization. Nederland: Bar
Hebraeus Verlag.
Ladefoged, P. (1982). A Course in Phonetics. New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich.
Laver, John (1980). The Phonetic Description of Voice Quality. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Mackridge, Peter (1985). The Modern Greek Language. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Maclean, Arthur (1971). Grammar of the Dialects of Vernacular Syriac.
Amsterdam: Philo Press.
———. (1972). Dictionary of the Dialects of Vernacular Syriac. Amsterdam:
Philo Press.
Nöldeke, Theodor (1904). Compendious Syriac Grammar. London: Williams &
Norgate.
Odisho, Edward Y. (1973). The Role of the Rear Section of the Vocal Tract in
Baghdadi Arabic. Unpublished M.Phil thesis, Leeds University.
———. (1975). The Phonology and Phonetics of Neo-Aramaic as Spoken by the
Assyrians in Iraq. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Leeds University.
———. (1977a). Was Sibawayhi Right in Describing Certain Sounds as Voiced?
(in Arabic) Afaaq Arabiyya, 1977, 62-65.
———. (1977b). The Opposition / t / vs. / t* / in Neo-Aramaic. Journal of the
International Phonetic Association, 7, 79-83.
———. (1979). An Emphatic Alveolar Affricate. Journal of the International
Phonetic Association, 9, 67-71.
———. (1983). A Phonetic and Phonological Identification of the Alphabet
Characters in Aramaic. Voice from the East, Vol. 1, 15-18.
———. (1988a). Sibawayhi’s Dichotomy of Majhura/Mahmusa Revisited. Al-
Arabiyya, Vol. 21, 81-90.
———. (1988b). The Sound System of Modern Assyrian (Neo-Aramaic).
Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz Verlag.
———. (1992).Transliterating English in Arabic. Journal of Arabic Linguistics,
Vol. 24, 21-34.
———. (1996) Emphasis: A Salient Feature of the Articulatory Setting of Arabic.
Manuscript.
———. (2000). The Role of Gutturalization in the Transliteration of Loanwords

in Aramaic. Paper presented at The 8th International Congress for Syriac
Studies. Sydney, Australia.
Ohde, R.N. and Sharf, D.J. (1992). Phonetic Analysis of Normal and Abnormal
Speech. New York: Merrill.
O’Leary, De Lacy (1979). How Greek Science Passed to the Arabs. Chicago:
Ares Publishers Inc.
Osipov, S. (1913). Siriæk, Le Maitre Phonétique, 28, 79-80.
Pring, J.T. (1982). The Oxford Dictionary of Modern Greek. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Roach, Peter (1988). English Phonetics and Phonology. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
Robinson, Theodore (1962). Paradigms and Exercises in Syriac Grammar.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Harrassowitz.
Steingass, F. (1994). A Learner’s Arabic English Dictionary. Gauvar Publishing
House.
Stoddard, D.T.(1855). A Grammar of the Modern Syriac Language. New Haven.
Torreblanca, M. (1994). On Hispano-Arabic Historical Phonology: Latin and
Romance Evidence. Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics VI (eds. Eid,
Cantarino and Walters). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing
Company.
Toynbee, Arnold (1947). A Study of History [abr. D.C. Somervell]. Oxford:
Tsereteli, K.G. (1978). The Modern Assyrian Language. Moscow: NAUKA
Publishing House.
Versteegh, Kees (1997). The Arabic Language. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Whipple, Allen O. (1967). The Role of the Nestorians and Muslims in the History
of Medicine. American Schools of Oriental Research.
Zuntz, Günther (1994). Greek: A course in Classical and Post-Classical Greek
Grammar from Original Texts. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic.
Chapter 7
Recent Demographic Changes in Aramaic-

Speaking Population of Iraq: Return of some
Phonological Features of Classical Aramaic
As a native speaker of Neo-Aramaic [Syriac], I am not simply interested
in the history of Syriac language and its role as a medium of Middle Eastern
civilizations and Eastern Christians faiths, liturgies and literatures; I am equally
interested in its actual survival today and in its success in overcoming any threats
to its survival. As far as the teaching of Syriac and the promotion of its status as a
live language is concerned, I have focused my attention during the last decade on
the founding and progress of the Syriac schools in the north of Iraq. Equally
importantly, I have focused attention on the on-going linguistic changes incurred
as a result of dialect mixing among different speakers of Syriac resulting from the
demographic changes and population intermingling. Concurrently with my
observation of those schools and the on-going demographic reshuffling, I have
tried in a series of articles (Odisho, 2001; 2004) to document both the progress of
language teaching and population reshuffling and their impact on the survival
status of Syriac. However, to highlight some of the most important points, a brief
review of events leading to the demographic reshuffling during the last four
decades is indispensible.
7.2 Historical Background of Events

The Kurdish revolt against the central Iraqi government in 1961 did not
only trigger a series of military and political upheavals; indeed, it had a far-
reaching domino effect on the demographic and linguistic situation of all dwellers
of the Kurdish region, especially the Kurds themselves and the Assyrian Chaldean
Suryani People identified hereafter, for brevity, as Aramaic-speakers or Syriac-
speakers. With regard to Kurds, the two most significant demographic and
linguistic changes were the following: a) Massive movement of population from
the Kurdish villages to the Kurdish urban areas and, in turn, equally massive
relocation of population from Kurdish urban areas to the Arabic-speaking urban
areas, especially Baghdad and Mosul. b) For those Kurds who stayed in their
region, especially those who were involved in the revolt and the subsequent long-
lasting guerrilla fighting, they underwent wide scale of linguistic leveling of their
dialects, especially of Bahdinani [Duhok province and part of Nineveh province]
and Sorani [Suleimaniya and Erbil provinces] dialects. In the context of this
study, linguistic leveling technically denotes the ‘movement toward greater
uniformity in variations among dialects” (Fromkin and Rodman, 1998: 524). It is
of significance to point out that linguistic leveling is not a process that is always
imposed; rather, in many instances, it evolves gradually through dynamic and

large scale forces such as population intermingling assisted by a public
educational system. With respect to Kurdish, it was clear that the greater
uniformity that emerged between the two major dialects of Kurdish, Bahdinani
and Sorani was not forced; rather it emerged as a consequence of greater
intermingling between the two varieties and the dominance of Sorani due to its
strong literacy history and potential. The linguistic leveling was effected as a
result of: a) considerable intermingling between the speakers of the two major
dialects; b) greater opportunities for a burgeoning literary movement and
publications especially during the intermittent peaceful intervals throughout
almost thirty (30) years of on/off guerrilla fighting; c) the gradual and eventual
institution and consolidation of almost complete cross-curriculum Kurdish
language schooling system in the Kurdish region. The latter was implemented to a
large extent in terms of Sorani dialect simply because it was more consolidated
and standardized medium of education. Most of the text-books were authored by
distinguished and experienced Sorani writers with the help of some Bahdinani
writers.
Almost identical demographic and linguistic changes seem to have forced
themselves on Aramaic speakers. They, too, underwent massive relocation from
their northernmost villages in the Kurdish region to more southerner ones and/or
from their villages to the larger urban areas especially of Baghdad, Mosul, Kirkuk
and Basrah. Similarly, for Aramaic-Speakers their relocation within the Kurdish
region created massive opportunities for intermingling of the so-called speakers of
tribal dialects [Mclean’s, Ashiret dialects e.g., Upper and Lower Tiari etc…
usually dwellers of more mountainous areas] with the Southern dialects [e.g.
Mclean’s, Plain of Mosul dialects such as Alqosh, Telesquf, Telkepe, Baghdede,
Keremlis and Zakho to their north]. In addition to this forced relocation of
various speakers of Aramaic, the creation of the so-called Safe Haven zone in the
Kurdish region after the second Gulf War (1991) resulted in even greater
intermingling and brought the remaining speakers of Aramaic dialects in greater
intimate contacts. All this intermingling of diverse dialects of Aramaic seems to
have gradually led to tangible linguistic leveling which, in turn, seems to have
been further dynamically reinforced by the creation of an official cross-
curriculum schooling system through the medium of Aramaic [Syriac]. This large
scale promotion of literacy in the native tongue and the equally large scale social
interaction among the learners and speakers of different dialects of Modern
Aramaic resulted in considerable leveling of Aramaic dialects especially with
some salient phonological characteristics that distinctly mark its overall
pronunciation. The rest of this study will highlight those salient phonological
features.
7.3 Demographic Reshuffling of Aramaic-Speaking Population

As pointed out earlier on, the Aramaic-speaking community in Iraq has
been in a state of continuous movement, displacement and resettlement since
1961. During those four decades or more, many catastrophic events have taken
Recent Demographic Changes in Aramaic-Speaking Population of Iraq 95
place including the Gulf War I [Iraq-Iran War], which lasted eight years followed
by Gulf War II [Iraq-Allies War]. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 created the worst
living conditions for the Aramaic-speaking community in Iraq. During those four
decades almost 50% of the population of Aramaic speakers left their villages in
the north of Iraq and migrated southward mostly to Baghdad. Many of those
Aramaic speakers who had already been in the urban areas such as Baghdad,
Kirkuk, Mosul and Basrah were already actively engaged in a massive
immigration movement overseas to the countries of Europe, North America and
Australia. For a general representation of the above population displacement,
movement and reshuffling notice the schematic diagram in figure 7/1, below.
Figure 7/1. An approximation of Syriac-speaking population concentration

between 1961 and present time.
In order to better understand the general linguistic map of the Aramaic-

speaking population of Iraq especially during the second half of the 20th century,
one can identify the major linguistic varieties as follows:
1. Koiné #1 [mainly Assyrians in urban Areas].
2. Ashiret [mainly Assyrians in rural areas].
3. Nineveh Plain [mainly Chaldeans & Suryanis in rural areas].
4. Koiné #2 [recently emerging variety resulting from linguistic leveling of

Ashiret and Nineveh Plain varieties]
5. Arabic-Aramaic Code-Switchers [mainly Chaldeans & Suryanis in urban

areas, especially Baghdad and Mosul].
As the focus is on the first four varieties, it suffices to say that the last
variety labeled as ‘Arabic-Aramaic Code-Switchers’ refers to those speakers of
Nineveh Plain who have settled in large urban areas such as Mosul, Baghdad and
Barsah for more than two (2) generations. The third generation of this group has
lost its Aramaic and converted predominantly into Arabic as the medium of daily
communication, while the second generation practices very distinctly a mixing of
Arabic and Aramaic. In other words, it is an Aramaic that is laden with Arabic
lexical items as well as with some Arabic morphological and syntactical devices.
The other four varieties need some brief characterization of their classical
phonological features under discussion in this paper.
7.3.1 Koiné #1
According to Odisho (1988: 23), Koiné#1 is a lingua franca dialect that

gradually emerged after the settlement of the Assyrian refugees from Turkey and
Iran in Iraq after World War I. In its linguistic structure, Koiné#1 is an entity that
is influenced by the Urmia region dialects where the missionaries inaugurated a
modern literacy medium for a wide range of local and tribal Assyrian dialects. It
took at least two generations for Koiné#1 to establish itself as the dominant
variety of Modern Aramaic spoken by the Assyrians in the urban areas of Iraq.
Phonologically, Koiné#1 has three major sound features that are common with
Urmi dialect, but different from Ashiret and Plain dialects (Tsereteli, 1978: 30-31;
Krotkoff, 1982: 3; Odisho, 1988: 57-61). These features are:
Word Koiné Pronunciation Ashiret/Plain Pronunciation

Silver [UKÖOC] [UGÖOC]
Head [TKÖ5C] [TGÖ5C]
Wolf [FKÖYC] [FGÖYC]
Year [5KÖVC] [5GÖVC]
Table 7/1. Two variant renditions of zlƗma in Koiné and Ashiret/Plain.
1. The traditional (Old Aramaic) zlƗma yarƯxa (¾Ćãß [GÖ]) has moved upward
(closer) to occupy the XwƗsa <¿÷ÂÏ> [KÖ] vowel slot. In other words, zlƗma
yarƯxa and xwƗa in Koiné#1 have now identical phonetic values. For
example, the words in table 7/1, below represent the two variant pronunciation
patterns of Koiné#1 vs. Ashiret or Plain dialects.
2. Parallel to the above shift, there has been a twin shift in Koiné#1 vs. Ashiret
or Plain in the form of the frequent replacement of the traditional RwƗxa
(<¾Ï> [QÖ]) with RbƗsa (<¿÷Á> [WÖ]) as in the examples in table 7/2, below.

Brother [!C:WÖPC] [!C:QÖPC]
Son [DTWÖPC] [DTQÖPC]
Murderer [SCWÖNC] [SCQÖNC]
person’s name [!KÖ5W] [!KÖ5Q]
Table 7/2. Two variant renditions of rwƗxa in Urmi/Koiné #1 vs. Ashiret/Plain
3. In the realm of consonants, the interdental pair of /7/ and /'/, so typical of Old
Aramaic, has disappeared in Koiné#1 and it has been systematically replaced
by the alveolar pair of plosives /t/ and /d/, respectively, as in table 7/3, below.

String [gda:la] [g'a:la
Fly [didwa] [di'wa]
Book [kta:wa], [k7a:wa]
House [be:ta] [be:7a]
Table 7/3. The replacement of interdental pair of /7/ and /'/ with /t/ and /d/.
7.3.2 Ashiret
Typically, of the dialects that fall under the rubric of Ashiret group are the
Upper Tiari, Lower Tiari, and Tkhuma etc…. Probably because of the isolation of
such dialects originally in Hakkari mountains of Turkey in pre-World War I and
in the North of Iraq after World War I, they have retained some of the most
archaic features of Aramaic, especially the classical [traditional] zlƗma [GÖ], rwƗxa
[QÖ] and the interdental pair /7/ and /'/. For example, in Ashiret dialects, the
words <silver>, <son>, <string> and <book> are still consistently pronounced as
[se:ma], [bro:na], [g'a:la] and [k7a:wa] not as in Koiné’s [si:ma], [bru:na],
[gda:la] and [kta:wa], respectively.
7.3.3 Plain
The Plain group is also collectively identified as the Alqosh dialects

spoken in the plain of Mosul (Maclean, 1971: xiv) equally known as Nineveh
plain where a large cluster of historically significant Syriac-speaking towns and
villages are located. Generally, the dialectal varieties in this group have the
following characteristics: a) Retention of traditional zlƗma [GÖ] and rwƗxa [QÖ]; b)
Retention of the interdental pair of /7/ and /'/; c) Additionally, they also manifest
a tendency to retain the pharyngeal fricative pair of /Ò/ = /Ρ/ and /¸/ = /ω/. Unlike
the other dialects of Neo-Aramaic almost all of which lost the pharyngeal
fricatives, their retention in Plain group is most likely attributed to the adjacency
of the settlements of these speakers to the Arabic-speaking communities in the
city of Mosul and its neighboring towns.
7.3.4 Koiné #2
Koiné #2 is a newly emerging variety of modern Aramaic whose life span

is a mere three decades which coincides with the beginning of the armed struggle
of the Assyrian Democratic Movement [ADM] that began as a small group of
political activists and guerilla fighters which gradually snowballed into a broad-
based political movement whose leadership and rank-and-file were predominantly
speakers of Ashiret and Plain varieties. Many of the originally Ashiret speakers
have lived in urban areas and became familiar with Koiné#1; however, because
with the guerilla war they retreated to the Ashiret towns and villages in the
Kurdish region, their Ashiret dialect was reinforced and a new era of
bidialectalism began through their exposure to the Plain dialect. The rest of this
study will focus on the circumstances that led to the emergence of Koiné #2 as
well as its early most characteristic phonological features.
7.4 Linguistic Implications of the Demographic Changes

For a systematic discussion of the linguistic implications of the
demographic changes three factors have to be considered:
1. The linguistic makeup of the Aramaic-speakers who left Iraq, especially

between 1961 and 1991 versus those who remained behind.
2. The prevalence of security and stability among the Ashiret and Plain speaking
populations residing in the Kurdish Safe Haven region since 1991 and later
becoming the Kurdistan Regional Government [KRG].
3. The founding of the Syriac-based educational system in the Kurdish region

and later, and to a lesser scale, in Mosul and Kirkuk.
7.4.1 Linguistic Make-up of 1961-1991 Aramaic-speaking Migrants
In discussing the first point, it would be more practical to address the

immigrating masses in terms of their specific identities as Assyrian, Chaldean and
Suryani and identify their Aramaic proficiency and the variety of Aramaic they
used. The majority of the urban Assyrians who left Iraq were Koiné #1 speakers.
In contrast, the majority of immigrating urban Chaldeans and Suryanis, especially
those in Baghdad, Mosul and Basrah for more than two generations, were Arabic-
dominant with nominal proficiency in Aramaic. It was this group that was
identified earlier on as ‘Aramaic-Arabic code-switchers’ However, those
Chaldeans and Suryanis who moved from north of Iraq to the Arabic-speaking
urban areas in Iraq or left Iraq still used Aramaic, albeit loaded with Arabic. This
strictly implies that a large percentage of those Aramaic speakers who remained
in Iraq, especially in the autonomous Kurdish region were predominantly
speakers of Ashiret and Plain varieties and used Aramaic as their primary means
of home and community interaction.
7.4.2 Dominance of Ashiret and Plain Population in Kurdish Area
With regard to the prevalence of stability and social openness in the

Kurdish region from 1991 onwards, it gave the Ashiret and Plain speakers of
Aramaic some sense of security and stability for a while. All those social and
political circumstances helped them think inwards and reflect more consciously
on their ethnic and national identity, especially in matters pertinent to their history
as the indigenous people of the region and their native Aramaic language which
has long been the medium of Christianity and the tool of civilization in the Middle
East for over a millennium. Most important of all, they initiated serious
involvement in the political life of KRG as well as the political and armed
opposition to Saddam Hussein’s regime. In the midst of this political struggle they
cultivated their own social, educational and linguistic uniqueness as a People with
a well-defined ethnic identity different from the Arabs and Kurds.
7.4.3 Founding of Syriac-based Educational System
As part of the above educational and linguistic identity, they pursued the
founding of the Syriac-based educational system. It is worthwhile drawing an
outline of the nature and size of the educational system. The RKG granted the
ethnic minorities, coexisting with the Kurdish population, some significant
linguistic and cultural rights including the right to assist in the planning and
administration of complete educational programs in their native languages. Thus,
the Syriac schooling system began to operate with a few schools which gradually
increased into scores of them; besides, the schooling system is now complete with
1st through 12th grades with approximately more than 8,000 students involved.
In order to assess the linguistic weight of this Syriac schooling system,

one has to understand the political and the nationalistic philosophy behind the
founding of the schooling system. The philosophy could be outlined as follows:
1. Native language maintenance and revitalization are of the highest political,
nationalistic and cultural priority.
2. Maintenance and revitalization of what has been identified as the Standard

Written Language [for further details on SWL see Odisho, 1988]. This is the
formal written language that began emerging and developing after the
European missionaries’ attempt at Syriac [Assyrian] language revival and
standardization early in 19th century.
3. Any attempt at SWL maintenance and revitalization should benefit from the
richness of the Old language and be, as much as possible, in linguistic
interaction with it, especially with regard to the lexical revival and its
enrichment. (Syriac Education, 2000: 25).
4. For the sake of national, linguistic and cultural unity and uniformity, any
maintenance and revitalization of SWL should seriously take into
consideration all the varieties [dialects and accents] of Syriac and use any
positive linguistic enrichment they can offer.
5. Any attempt at language leveling [i.e. minimizing the differences among

different dialects and enhancing their similarities] should be guided by the
principle that each language dialect [variety] has its own linguistic merits in
the overall process of language leveling and standardization.
With the above political and nationalistic principles, promoting a more

linguistically uniform variety of Syriac is of the highest pragmatic priority. It is
also distinctly evident that the uniformity has different sources foremost of which
is the alignment of Modern Syriac with Classical Syriac as much as possible and
in line with modern linguistic guidelines. Also Modern Syriac should enrich itself
with the linguistic treasures, especially in the domain of vocabulary, of various
dialects in order to promote Syriac as the medium of literacy in schools, churches
and other social institutions. Such vital steps are not imposed; rather, they are
promoted, publicized and supported through actual interaction among the masses
of the people whether at home, in schools and in community at large.
With continuous 18 years of solid teaching of Syriac in those schools and
with approximately 8,000 learners thus far, a new literate generation of Syriac
speakers is emerging in whose pronunciation the traditional [classical] zlƗma and
rwƗxa and the interdental fricative pair of [7] and ['] constitute very salient
phonological features. In fact, even the pharyngeal fricative pair of /Ò/ = /Ρ/ and
/¸/ = /ω/ seems to be slowly, but steadily making its way into active intellectual
and academic interactions as well as in social daily communication. Also the
extensive and diverse opportunities for the intermingling of the speakers of the
Ashiret and Plain dialects are actively leading to the leveling of these two
varieties. The early pronunciation and lexical [vocabulary] indications, especially

in the language of the younger generation who attended the Syriac schooling
system point in the direction of the emergence of a leveled dialectal variety with
two characteristic features: first, the return of the above classical phonological
phoneme pairs; second, extensive exchange of lexical cognates and synonyms
specific to each variety and their circulation in both daily and academic usage
such as the use of the synonyms <¿ÿâÊÙø> ‘morning’ and <úÁ> ‘catch’ of
Ashiret side-by-side with <Àûñ> and <Àûî> of Plain interchangeably.
7.5 Conclusions
Concerning the demographic reshuffle of the Aramaic-speaking people in
Iraq, in general, the number of the speakers of Ashiret-Plain dialects as opposed
to the speakers of Koiné#1 became proportionately much higher than before 1961,
the beginning of the Kurdish revolt. This rise in the number of the speakers of the
former group is the direct outcome of the fall in the number of the speakers of the
latter group due to immigration. This latter observation implies that some of the
more archaic/traditional [i.e. more compatible with the Old language]
phonological features, associated with Ashiret/Plain varieties, are gradually
receiving higher circulation and, hence, enjoying better linguistic stability.
Among such pronunciations are those related to the vowels of zlƗma and rwƗxa,
and the inter-dental voiceless/voiced fricative pair /7, '/. There are also some
early indications that the pharyngeal fricative pair of /Ò/ = /Ρ/ and /¸/ = /ω/ is
making some headway back into circulation. This trend in the retrieval of those
three major phonological features is a diametric reversal of the trend that
overwhelmed after the 19th century missionaries’ attempt at literacy revival
among Aramaic speakers based primarily on Urmi dialect which, in turn, led to
the emergence of a Koiné #1 dialect in Iraq. The above phonological reversal
seems to be the early indication of the emergence of a Koiné #2 as the outcome of
a merger of Ashiret and Plain varieties.
The future progress, stability and maintenance of Koiné #2 may be
determined by the following two factors. Firstly, maintain the linguistic
philosophy of keeping Modern Aramaic as much as possible consistent with
Classical Aramaic and the infusion of such consistency in the curricula of the
Aramaic language schooling system. Secondly, retain the Aramaic-speaking
population concentration as much as possible in the areas where the Ashiret and
Plain speakers dwell (i.e., Kurdish region). No doubt, the validity of the above
two factors hinges on the overall security and stability in Iraq and on the genuine
adoption of the Kurdistan Regional Government [KRG] of a democratic stand
with respect to other non-Kurdish minorities in the region, especially with regard
to the promotion of their native languages in education. Recently, there have been
several covert and overt political and economic indices pointing to a gradually
diminishing tolerance of KRG of the free will of the ethnic minorities in planning
their political future and consolidating their ethnic identities.
7.6 Bibliography
Fromkin, V. and Rodman, R. (1998). An Introduction to Language. New York:

Harcourt Brace.
Krotkoff, Georg (1982). A Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Kurdistan. New Haven,
Conn.: American Oriental Society.
Maclean, A.J. (1971). Grammar of the Dialects of Vernacular Syriac.
Philo Press.
Aramaic).Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
———. (1989). The Vowel System in Modern Assyrian. Journal of the Assyrian
Academic Society, Vol. 3, P. 2-19.
———. (2001). ADM’s Educational Policy: A Serious Project of Assyrian
Language Maintenance and Revitalization. Journal of Assyrian Academic
Studies. Vol. 15:1, P. 1-28.
———. (2004). The Second Koiné of Modern Syriac (Aramaic). Mediterranean
Language Review, Vol. 15, P. 48-62.
Syriac Education in the North of Iraq: Facts and Figures (2000). San
Diego/Calif.: Friends of Syriac Language.
Tsereteli, Konstantin G. (1978). The Modern Assyrian Language. Moscow:
NAUKA Publishing House.
Chapter 8
Aspiration, Spirantization and Approximation

in Neo-Aramaic: a more Refined Identification
In developing very accurate and refined identification and description of
human sounds and sound systems within and across languages, encoders [writers]
and decoders [readers] in this field encounter some inconsistencies and
misinterpretations which may interfere with the conveyance of a targeted phonetic
and/or phonological code that, in turn, may interfere with the semantic rendition
of the overall message. Some such inconsistencies may be attributed to four major
reasons foremost of which are the following. Firstly, the encoder and decoder may
belong to different language schools and linguistic orientations. Many researchers
in the field still use the traditional transcription of Semitists in which diacritical
marks are prevalent, especially in marking the qualitative and quantitative
characteristics of vowels. This transcription style, common among Semitists, is
drastically different from the style used by linguists who have been trained in the
tradition of IPA [International Phonetic Alphabet], a tradition which favors using
minimum diacritical marks. IPA distinctly states: “diacritical marks should be
avoided, being trying for the eyes and troublesome to write”(Handbook of the
International Phonetic Alphabet, 1999, p. 196). Take for example, the symbols
commonly used by Semitists and Arabists to indicate the glottal stop [ϩΰϤϫ
Hamza] and the voiced pharyngeal fricative [Ϧϴ˴ϋ]. They are marked by raised and
reversed commas: [’] for ϩΰϤϫ and [‘] for Ϧϴ˴ϋ. These symbols do not only reduce
major consonants into diacritics, but they also act as a major source of visual
confusion. Moreover, IPA’s style and conventions of shunning diacritics seriously
protect the reader from unwanted complex vertical and horizontal eye movements
needed for decoding. Traditionally, the Latin alphabet and its script tend to be
mono-dimensional along a horizontal line, whereas the Arabic alphabet and its
script– when fully marked– create so much visual density that is only decodable
through additional vertical and horizontal eye movements. Notice the following
demonstration in Figure 8/1, below. It is clear that the English word <embezzled>
has only one layer of representation which requires only horizontal eye
movement, whereas its Arabic rendition <͉ΰΘ˴ Α·>, when fully marked, demands
complicated horizontal and vertical eye movements. In reality, the fully marked
<͉ΰΘ˴ Α·> represents six layers of symbols: one at the baseline, three above the
baseline and two below it. The visual density can truly be very demanding on
native children as well as non-native adults learning the Arabic script.
<Embezzled> = V C C V C C C V C = 1
ΰ͉ Θ˴ Α˸ ·
v
c v
. . º
C C C C
. c
v

º

Figure. 8/1. Indicates complexity of eye movements in Arabic due to the
abundance of diacritics (reproduced, Odisho 2004).
Secondly, the encoder may be using a different phonetic transcription

system with which the decoder is not familiar. For instance, a voiceless post-
alveolar affricate may be represented differently such as [], [tš] or [þ], among
others. Similarly, the emphatic sounds of Arabic may be transcribed differently
such as [], [T], [] and [VÏ]2 depending on the transcription tradition adopted.
Thirdly, there may be new developments in the descriptive accuracy of a given
phonetic phenomenon that requires either the coinage of a new term or the
redefinition of an old one. The term approximant is a relatively new one.
According to Abercrombie (1967), Ladefoged was the first one to suggest the
term as a substitute for the unsatisfactory terms of semivowel and frictionless
continuant. In other words, it was meant to cover both the glides and liquids [L, Y,
N, ]. By definition, the term is so appropriate and comprehensive that sounds
other than just the traditional glides and liquids can be subsumed under its rubric.
The recent history of this term is substantiated by its absence in the early versions
of the principles of the IPA. Beginning with late 1970s, major changes have been
brought about in the IPA chart and its conventions including the elevation of click
sounds from the peripheral notation on the chart to the very core of the chart as
well as the introduction of other descriptive terms such as the ‘approximant’ to
function as primary classificatory labels for the manner of articulation. This all
seems to have happened when Ladefoged, who was one3 of the most innovative
modern phoneticians, was a member of the IPA executive committee or its chair.
In Odisho (1988b; 2003) the approximants were introduced to include the nasals
in addition to glides and liquids. It is, therefore, only those phoneticians who are
familiar with the works of Abercrombie, Ladefoged and the IPA principles and

1
C = Consonant marked ; V = Vowel marked ; c = non-dot diacritic [superscript or
subscript] marked ; . = any dot diacritic marked . ; v = vowel diacritic marked ; º = absence of
vowel diacritic.
2
It is [] with a tilde [~] superimposed on it.
3
Passed away recently.
Aspiration, Spirantization and Approximation in Neo-Aramaic 105
conventions tend to use the term approximant as a descriptive label. Finally, the
encoder and the decoder may not be thoroughly trained in the field of phonetic
sciences resulting in some generic and unsystematic description and identification
of the targeted phonetic phenomena. For instance, some may know the plosive
[stop] consonants only as sounds in which the airflow is completely obstructed
and then suddenly released. Thus, such consonants are called either stops because
the airflow is stopped completely, or are called plosives because after the
stoppage the air is suddenly released with a plosion. Those phoneticians who have
undergone extensive articulatory, aerodynamic and acoustic exposure to the
formation and production of plosive consonants understand them in a more
refined manner. For such phoneticians, a stop has many more production phases
beginning with stricture formation [closing gesture], pressure buildup, transient
[indicating release of stricture], frication [generation of strong turbulence noise]
followed by aspiration [generation of milder noise]. For the sake of descriptive
simplicity and brevity, the phases of ‘transient, frication, aspirated’ are
traditionally collapsed together under the generic label of ‘aspiration’. However,
phoneticians with the above phonetic sophistication are very much eager in
identifying those plosives as ‘aspirated’ or ‘unaspirated’ since the absence or
presence of this feature may be phonetically and phonologically significant. If it is
phonologically distinctive it will not only contribute to a change in meaning, but it
will also cause a phonetic accent. If, however, it is not phonologically significant,
it certainly will be the source of phonetic accent in cross-language acquisition and
learning of sounds.
As a peripheral objective of this paper, an invitation will be made for the
adoption of the IPA style in sound transcription which is gradually gaining ground
among most linguists and scholars working in the field of languages. However,
the primary objective of this work is the propagation of more accuracy and
consistency in the identification and description of some phonetic and
phonological phenomena in Syriac, in general, and Aramaic, in particular. Among
such phenomena are aspiration, spirantization and approximation which will be
elaborated on below.
8.2 Aspiration
Aspiration technically defined in terms of the latest findings in the field of
phonetic sciences stands for the “function of the glottal opening at the time of the
release of the supraglottal stricture (Kim, 1970:111). More commonly, aspiration
is identified as the puff of air that immediately follows the release of a plosive.
Unfortunately, some traditional Semitists have used the descriptive term
‘aspiration’ to label a totally different phonetic phenomenon (Stoddard, 1856: 10;
Arayathinal, 1957:27; Maclean, 1971; 1972). They associated the use of the term
‘aspiration’ for the articulatory process of transforming plosive [stop] consonants
into ‘fricative’ consonants commonly known as S75CÖLC [hardness = qushaya]4
and T7M*CÖ:C [softness = rukaxa]. Such a phonetic transformation is known in

4
qushaya and rukaxa will be used for ease of transcription.
modern phonetic jargon as ‘spirantization’ (Hyman, 1975: 62-3; Ohde and Sharf,
1992: 205). With regards to Neo-Aramaic, Tsereteli was the first to recognize this
transformation as spirantization (1978:33). Subsequently, the term was used by
Odisho (1983: 16) and Kiraz (1995). Later, (Odisho, 1990: 31) briefly noted that
the qushaya rukaxa conversion may not exclusively be a process of
spirantization; it may involve what is to be called ‘approximation’, which will be
one of the focal points of this study. Approximation is meant to stand for the
conversion of stops into approximants.
Nöldeke uses the attributes ‘aspirated’ and ‘unaspirated’ in the context of
his discussion of rukaxa and qushaya (1904:15). His use of the two attributes in
connection with rukaxa/qushaya seems to be only a casual citation of other
writers’ descriptive terms. However, elsewhere in the book, Nöldeke makes it
quite clear that he was aware of the specific meaning of aspiration. In his
description of the Syriac and Arabic sounds of [S ϕ] and [ ρ], he points out that
they share the feature of the absence of aspiration as is the case with the Greek
plosives [Ĳ = t] and [ț = k] (1904: 4). Even though Kiraz’s description of the
process of spirantization (1995: 8) and his use of the phonetic symbols to identify
the rukaxa sounds are accurate and phonetically compatible with IPA style (p.6),
his transcription of rukaxa in the context of words with a superscript [*]5 marking
rukaxa sounds (p.8) may be a source of confusion; in reality, its use may mislead
the reader [decoder] into thinking that Kiraz confuses aspiration with
spirantization. If Kiraz were to avert rendering his transcription vulnerable to
confusion, he should have avoided mixing the traditional Semitist style of
transcription with that of IPA or any systematic phonetic style associated with
IPA. See table 8/1, below, for specimens of Kiraz’s style of transcription
compared to that of IPA.
Kiraz’s Rukaxa IPA Kiraz’s Rukaxa IPA

Symbols in Isolation Symbols Symbols in Context Transcription
X X ƗD*â #ÖX# or #ÖY#
Ƥ ¢ Uy Ɨ I*â Uy #Ö¢#
& & UǌTƗF*â sWÖr #Ö&#
Z Z OaM*TG\ O#:T+\
H H yaƯR* â yaKÖH#
6 6 ˵ Ɨ V*â !#Ö6#
Table 8/1. Confusion of different styles of sound transcription.
All the sounds that Kiraz has marked with a superscript [*] to indicate their
Rukaxa nature [i.e., spiratization] would strictly phonetically be interpreted as
aspirated sounds; thus his phonetic transcription would have been far more

5
[*] which is linguistically the typical marker of the feature of aspiration.
accurate and more compatible with IPA if [b*], [g*], [d*], [k*], [p*] and [t*] had
been transcribed as [X/w], [¢], [&], [:], [H], and [6]. Marking the Rukaxa with a
superscript [*] gives the impression of a traditional interpretation of this phonetic
phenomenon as ‘aspiration’ rather than ‘spirantization’.
Aspiration is attested in all Neo-Aramaic dialects. The reason why this
general statement is made is because all those dialects do have the sounds of / ,ϕ
/ and / ρ / = [S], [], respectively, which involve the absence of aspiration as
opposed to other sounds. However, the difference is whether its presence or
absence is of phonetic or phonological relevance. Phonetic relevance simply
implies that its presence or absence in two lexical items does not result in
semantic change. Let us take an example from English. In English, the plosives
/RVM/ are usually aspirated in non-cluster formation as in <pot, till and kin> =
[R*bV, V*+N, M*+P] , but when they are preceded by an /s/ as in <spot, still and
skin>, they lose their aspiration [are deaspirated] and should, therefore, be
transcribed as [URbV, UV+N, UM+P], respectively. However, when learners of
English as a Second Language [ESL] mispronounce the latter cluster formations
with aspiration [UR*bV, UV*+N, UM*+P], their mispronunciation does not result
in a change of meaning. Such a mispronunciation is what I have recently labeled
as ‘phonetic accent’ as opposed to phonological accent when the
mispronunciation results in a change of meaning as in Thai language where [VC+]
means ‘kidney’, while [V*C+] means ‘a citizen of Thailand’.
To go back to Neo-Aramaic, further elaboration is needed. Take, for
example, the case of / ρ /. It is often mistakenly thought that / ρ / is the
direct emphatic counterpart of / Ε / implying that they are solely distinguished
by the feature of emphaticness [ϢϴΨϔΘϟ΍]. This is untrue because / ρ / is different
from / Ε / in two features: emphaticness and aspiration (1988a). In other words,
/ Ε / is plain and aspirated, whereas / ρ / is emphatic and unaspirated. Notice
the feature distinction between the two sounds in table 8/2, below.
Features
Sound Voice Alveolar Aspiration Emphasis
/ ρ / - + - +
/ Ε / - + + -
Table 8/2. Features that distinguish / ρ / and / Ε /.
Consequently, if a foreign learner of Neo-Aramaic or Arabic wants to produce a

genuine / ρ / sound, he has to master both features: deaspiration and
emphaticness. Both features are significant for a native or near-native articulation
of / ρ /; however, if a foreign learner of Arabic faces difficulty in the
articulation of / ρ / it is more important for him to master the deaspiration
process because it is more significant to set it perceptually apart from / Ε /.
Thus, in the case of / ρ / and / Ε / aspiration does seem to play a phonological

role in setting them apart as two phonemes (Odisho, 1981: 277).
By the same token, / ϕ / is different from / ˰ϛ/ in two features: the
unaspirated nature and the uvular place of articulation for the former vs. the
aspirated nature and the palatal/velar place of articulation for the latter as
demonstrated in table 8/3, below (Odisho, 1977:343). If a learner fails to notice
the unaspirated articulation of / ϕ /, he is seriously vulnerable to mispronounce
it and subsequently fails to distinguish it from / ˰ϛ/
Features
Sound Voice Aspiration Place
/ϕ/ - - Uvular
/ ˰ϛ/ - + Velar
Table 8/3. Features that distinguish / ϕ / and / ˰ϛ/.
Obviously, the extent of aspiration goes beyond the / ρ / and / ,ϕ /. For

instance, in the Urmia dialect of Neo-Aramaic and the so-called Koiné Neo-
Aramaic dialect of Iraq, the feature has been established as phonologically
significant (Odisho, 1988b:41). In fact, the aspiration-based contrast in those two
dialects is not confined to the plosives [stops] /R, V, M/ as it is commonly attested
in linguistic studies; rather, it spreads to a pair of affricates– namely // vs. /*/
(Odisho, 1977b; 1988b).
8.3 Spirantization and Approximation

The term ‘spirant’ is a less common synonym for a ‘fricative’ sound
(Fromkin and Rodman, 1998: 230). The only rationale for using it here is the
convenience of deriving the process noun of ‘spirantization’ from ‘spirant’, which
is already coined and used rather than coining another one from the term
‘fricative’. A fricative sound is the one in which a narrow constriction [stricture]
is formed somewhere along the vocal tract through which the airflow is forced
resulting in noisy turbulence which a salient feature of fricative sounds. However,
when the airflow is completely stopped to build up the needed oral pressure and
the pressure is suddenly released, the resulting sound is known as a ‘stop’ or
‘plosive’. In this study, the term spirantization is used to label the process of
transforming stops into fricatives, which is a common phonetic process across
many languages. For instance, although the Spanish words <saber> ‘to know’,
<nada> ‘nothing’ and <lago> ‘lake’, are written with <b, d, g>, they are not
pronounced as stops, but rather as fricatives [spirants] [$, &, (], respectively
(Hyman,1975: 62). Spirantization has been, and still is, a salient feature of
Classical Syriac and Modern Syriac (Neo-Aramaic). Traditionally, it has been
repeatedly pointed out that the overall transformation of qushaya sounds to rukaxa
is a process of spirantization. In fact, Kiraz has devoted a complete and interesting
book on this phenomenon titled Introduction to Syriac Spirantization (Kiraz,

1995). When dealing with the two categories of sounds, Kiraz affirms that all hard
letters of [qushaya, my insertion] are plosives and all soft letters of [rukaxa, my
insertion] are fricatives (p.12). It is true that all qushaya sounds < >
= / D, R*, V*, F, k*, g / are plosives, but those of rukaxa < N N N N N N >
may not necessarily all be fricatives. This latter statement may be too
controversial to let it pass without further elaboration. However, this study does
not aim at raising an extremely radical controversial issue with relevance to
spirantization. It simply aims at focusing the study on Neo-Aramaic and
highlighting the observation that not all Neo-Aramaic qushaya stops are rendered
exclusively rukaxa fricatives. There is enough phonetic evidence that at least, in
the case of qushaya plosive /D/ its transformation to rukaxa does not necessarily
render it a /v/ = [X] sound i.e., a voiced labio-dental fricative; it is certainly the
case in the so-called Assyrian Neo-Aramaic in which this particular rukaxa sound
is realized in different phonetic variants including [w] a labio-velar approximant,
[8] a labio-dental approximant, or [Ä] a labio-palatal approximant. In fact, after
conducting some impressionistic assessment of the rukaxa version of the qushaya
[D] pronounced by some speakers of Western varieties of Neo-Aramaic, I did not
recognize a fricative [X]; instead, it was more of an approximant [Y]. Thus, if [D]
does not become a [X] then the qushaya transformation to rukaxa cannot be
labeled spirantization in totality. In other words, the uniformity of the
transformation is breached.
In Neo-Aramaic dialects, there is a wide range of phonetic realizations for
the rukaxa version of [D], ranging from fricatives to approximants. Due to the
recent introduction of the term ‘approximant’ as a descriptive label, some further
description of it is inevitable. From the stricture point-of-view, compared to a
fricative, the stricture of an approximant is wider and is more precisely labeled as
‘open approximation’. Compare the two strictures in Fig. 8/2, below. The wider
stricture allows for a smooth and mellow flow of air without causing any
turbulence noise as is the case with fricatives
1) ΔϴϛΎϜΘΣϻ΍FricativesHX6&U\5<Z(:¯ÍJ
2) Δϴϧ΍ΪΘϤϟ΍ApproximantsOP08NLYÄ
Figure 8/2. Stricture size and shape for fricative vs. an approximant categories
with examples of both categories
For Koiné dialect, it was reported that /Ä/, a voiced labial-palatal

approximant, is the dominant sound and that /Y/ is only an emphatic [ϢΨϔϣ]
allophonic variant of it. Besides, the alphabet letters <> and <>render
N the same
sound in non-emphatic contexts. In most of the Iranian Neo-Aramaic dialects the
pronunciation of <> or <>isN realized in different phonetic variations including
[X, Y, 8, Ä] the first of which is a fricative, while the rest are approximants. Table
8/4 below provides systematic description and identification of the variants
involved in terms of the most recent version of IPA symbols and descriptions.
Sound Phonetic Description

X Labio-dental fricative
8 Labio-dental approximant
Y Labio-velar approximant
Ä Labio-palatal approximant
Table 8/4. Phonetic symbols and descriptions of various realizations of <> and
<>
N in Neo-Aramaic dialects.
The above approximant realizations are so prevalent in many of the Neo-

Aramaic dialects, especially those spoken by Assyrians, they distinctly color their
foreign language pronunciation and constitute a salient feature of their overall
accent. For instance, the word <warda> “flower”, may have different
pronunciation variants including [ÄCTFC], [YCTFC], [8CTFC], and [XCTFC]. In
their pronunciation of English, native speakers of Aramaic often render the
English phrase <very very good> as [Ä'T+ Ä'T+ I7F].
Consequently, it is safe to say that the qushaya rukaxa rule in Syriac, in
general, is not necessarily an exclusive transformation of stops into fricatives
because in the case of the qushaya sound [b] the transformation is not necessarily
into a fricative; rather, its transformation into one of the following approximant
sounds [Y, 8, Ä ] is more realistic and authentic. Thus, the qushaya rukaxa
transformation should be looked at as a combination of spirantization and
approximation– obviously, stronger spirantization than approximation.
8.4 Linguistic and Instructional Conclusions

The above refined observations and descriptions are not meant to be
academic only; rather, they are meant to serve some instructional objectives
foremost of which are: a- Accuracy in reporting phonetic materials; b- Accuracy
in learning and teaching those phonetic materials. The two objectives are
complementary to each other. When phonetic materials are reported to the
interested public, the accurate mastery of those materials is more likely. For
instance, to report and transcribe the rukaxa version of qushaya /b/ only as [v]
does not only imply that the reporting is not necessarily accurate because it also
implies that the interested reader [decoder] will also try to learn and pronounce it
as [v], although in reality the sound may be a [Y], [8]or [Ä]. Accuracy in encoding
and decoding of sounds is inevitable if accuracy in learning and teaching is the

target. I have previously brought to the attention of researchers in the field of
Syriac and Neo-Aramaic dialects that some of such dialects do not have velar
stops [M, I]; instead, their stops are palatal and they, therefore should be
transcribed as [E, Ì]. Any replacement of [E, Ì] with [M, I] represents inaccuracy
in phonetic rendition and, hence, encourages inaccuracy in learning in the form of
phonetic accent [change of sound without change in meaning] or even, at times, a
phonological accent [change of sound as well as change in meaning].
As a trained phonetician working in the field of Semitic languages,
especially Neo-Aramaic dialects, I have always tried to adhere to IPA style and
conventions of transcription. At this stage, I do not want to be among the
minority, I am, therefore, calling upon my colleagues to adopt IPA and promote
it. Its adoption and promotion will serve many purposes such as:
1. Create uniformity among all researchers in the field of Semitic studies, in

general, and Neo-Aramaic studies, in particular, in both encoding and
decoding.
2. Enhance uniformity among all linguists and language specialists regardless of

the cross-language texts targeted.
3. Access a wider range of symbols with well-defined phonetic values.
4. Promote the principle of one symbol for one sound as adopted by IPA.
5. Avoid too many diacritics in the form of superscripts and subscripts. As

pointed out above, diacritics in general are trying to the eye because they
demand more eye movement as indicated in figure 8/1, above.
8.5 Bibliography
Abercrombie, D. (1967). Elements of General Phonetics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh
University Press.
Arayathinal, Thomas (1957). Aramaic Grammar. Kerala: St. Joseph Press.
Fromkin, V. and Rodman, R. (1998). An Introduction to Language. New York:
Harcourt Brace.
Handbook of the International Phonetic Alphabet (1999). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Hyman, L. (1975). Phonology. New York: Holt Rinehart & Winston.
Kim, C.W. (1970). A Theory of Aspiration. Phonetica, 21: 107-116.
Kiraz, George A. (1995). Introduction to Syriac Spirantization. Nederland: Bar
Hebraeus Verlag.
Jovanovich.
Maclean, Arthur (1971). Grammar of the Dialects of Vernacular Syriac.

Philo Press.
Nöldeke, Theodor (1904). Compendious Syriac Grammar. London: Williams &
Norgate.
Odisho, Edward Y. (1977a). Arabic /S/: a Voiceless Unaspirated Uvular Plosive.
Lingua, 42, 343-347.
———. (1977b) The Opposition / / vs. /*/ in Neo-Aramaic. Journal of the
International Phonetic Association, 7, 79-83.
———. (1981). Teaching Arabic Emphatics to the English Learners of Arabic.
Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics, 13, 275-280.
———. (1983). A Phonetic and Phonological Identification of the Alphabet
Characters in Aramaic. Voice from the East, Vol. 1, 15-18.
———. (1988a.). Sibawayhi’s dichotomy of ‘Majhura’ and ‘Mahmusa’
Revisited. Al-arabiyya, 21, 81-90.
———. (1988b). The Sound System of Modern Assyrian (Neo-Aramaic).
Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz Verlag.
———. (1990). Phonetic and phonological description of the labio-palatal and
labio-velar approximants in Neo-Aramaic. Wolfhart Heinrichs (ed).
Studies in Neo-Aramaic. Atlanta, Georgia: Scholars Press.
———. (2002). The Role of Aspiration in the Transliteration of Loanwords in
Aramaic and Arabic. Werner Arnold and Hartmut Bobzin (eds.) Spricht
doch mit deinen Knechten aramäisch wir verstehen est: Festschrift für
Otto Jastrow zum 60 Geburstag. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz Verlag,
pp.489-501.
———. (2003). Techniques of Teaching Pronunciation in ESL, Bilingual and
Foreign Language Classes. München/Germany: Lincom Europa
English Alphabet. New York: The Edwin Mellen Press.
Ohde, R.N. and Sharf, D.J. (1992). Phonetic Analysis of Normal and Abnormal
Speech. New York: Merrill.
Stoddard, D.T.(1856).A Grammar of the Modern Syriac Language. New Haven.
Tsereteli, K.G. (1978).The Modern Assyrian Language. Moscow: NAUKA
Publishing House.
Chapter 9
The Destiny of Modern Syriac

I have attended the last three International Congresses for Syriac Studies
(Symposium Syriacum VIII, IX, X) and will plan to attend the forthcoming
Symposia partly because I am a linguist with interest in Syriac language and
partly because Syriac, which I consider now a potentially endangered language,
happens to be my native tongue. Interestingly, most of the presentations during
the Symposia tend to be about the past states, forms and achievements of the
language as if Syriac is fossilized in the past. Only few and occasional studies
tend to relate to its present status. Obviously, there is a significant difference
between Syriac as a linguistic entity of the past and between its status as a live
language through potentially endangered.
This study aims at highlighting several points, foremost amongst which
are: a) Modern varieties of Syriac are still in daily circulation as the native
language of over a million people in the Middle East and elsewhere in the
countries of diaspora.; b) Peoples, cultures and languages do not disappear as a
result of genocides; it is acculturation and assimilation that eliminate their
identity; c) Present and future chances for its maintenance and survival; d) The
inappropriateness of the term ‘Arab Christians’ as an ethnic identification for all
Christians in the Arab world; and e) Need for more linguists and Semitists to
focus on the endangered status of Syriac and strive to create better conditions for
its maintenance by attracting the attention of local governments, international
organizations and other concerned individuals to rise to the occasion.
The discussion in this study is conducted in terms of human rights and the
right of Peoples and ethnic groups to identify themselves in terms of the
linguistic, religious, cultural and historical parameters which are most realistic
and pertinent to their identity. The discussion is kept away from any bias to or
against any ethnic, religious or nationalistic entity. From the ethnic perspective,
the primary fact this study aims at highlighting is that no majority has the right to
impose its identity on the minorities and no minorities should be forced into a
situation where they have no choice but to affiliate themselves ethnically with the
majorities. The Syriac-speaking people, whose origin is traced back to the
Assyrians, Babylonians and Arameans, have coexisted with Arabs for millennia
and have shared with them much of their history and culture, but ethnically each
people retains its own ethnic identity. It is the free adherence to the autonomous
identity that determines the course of the discussions below.
9.2 Historical Background: Syriac the Descendant of Aramaic

Aramaic began to appear as a distinct language in the Middle East since
the 12th century B.C. By 8th century B.C., it was the lingua franca of the Greater
Middle East including Palestine, Israel, Mesopotamia, Syria and Lebanon in the
core region, and Iran, Egypt and the Arabian Peninsula in the periphery. It became
the medium of the Christian religion not simply because Jesus spoke it, but also
because it was the most common language that the masses of the people in
Palestine and Israel spoke as their daily language as opposed to Greek which was
the language used primarily by the urban elites (Wessels, 1995: 46; Brock, 1999: I
149). Aramaic had remained the unrivalled medium of literacy and civilization for
a period of at least one millennium stretching from the 8th century B.C. to 7th
century A.D. when Islam with its Arabic language dominated the Middle East.
With the rise of Arabic, Aramaic began to recede and dwindle in influence,
domain and number of speakers. The erosion of Aramaic in the face of Arabic has
continued unabated since then and it seems it is nearing its final stage nowadays.
Undoubtedly, other local Middle Eastern languages besides Arabic, such Turkish,
Farsi and Kurdish, have also contributed to the erosion of Aramaic, especially in
post Mongol Conquest and until this very day.
Because of the long life span of Aramaic, it has undergone several stages
of development and evolution. According to Beyer, the history of Aramaic is best
divided into three main sections: Old Aramaic, Middle Aramaic and the Modern
Aramaic of the present day (1986: 10). Beyer further divides Old Aramaic into
Ancient Aramaic, Imperial Aramaic, Old Eastern Aramaic and Old Western
Aramaic. Middle Aramaic stands for the variety of language associated with the
evolution of Christianity (Beyer, 1986: 43) as a popular faith and the source of
burgeoning liturgy and literature. It is this variety of Aramaic that is usually
identified as Syriac and more specifically as the dialect of Edessa (Trimingham,
1990: 128; Healey, 1991: 12; Brock, 1999: I: 149). Linguistically, it should be
pointed out that it was Syriac that served as the first language [L1] of Christianity
through which it was propagated among the masses. Greek and Latin have always
been restricted to the elite and the upper classes of society. Thus, they actually
functioned as the second languages [L2] of Christianity. Although Aramaic, the
precursor of Syriac had already been a civilizationally affluent language, with
Christianity Syriac it was further enriched and upgraded through the process of
Christianization (Wessels, 1995: 47). Soon after the Christianization of the Fertile
Crescent region, Syriac became the language of medicine, philosophy and science
besides being the language of liturgy and literature. It was through the medium of
Syriac that Arabs were introduced to the Greek medical, scientific and
philosophical heritage.
With the pervasive spread of Arabic as the language of the fast-growing
Islamic religion and Arab administration, the flourishing Syriac civilization and
its powerful language began a trend of gradual deterioration in status until it took
a serious downturn with the Mongol conquest of Mesopotamia which was the
strongest blow to Christianity (Wessels, 1995: 30), Syriac civilization and Syriac
speakers. The following sections will shed further light on the causes, patterns and
outcomes of the deterioration. In sum, Syriac was reduced from a major language
of liturgy, literature and civilization to mere regional and local impoverished
dialects that barely survived until this very day under the name of Modern Syriac.
The Destiny of Modern Syriac 115
9.3 Causes of Deterioration of Syriac

There is a wide variety of causes that triggered and reinforced the
momentum of deterioration. The following are some of the most significant ones.
9.3.1 Absence of a Political Entity
After the downfall of the Assyrian and Babylonian empires and several
Aramean kingdoms, Aramaic speakers did not have powerful political entities in
the form of recognized states over which they had independent political, social,
economic and educational jurisdiction. The so-called states or satrapies of Athǌra
(Rawlinson, 1859; Olmstead, 1948; Herzfeld, 1968; Jouguet, 1928; Cook, 1983),
Adiabene (Crone and Cook, 1977) or Osrhoene (Crone and Cook, 1977;
Trimingham, 1990: 128, 224) were too politically marginal and obscure to stand
as recognized states with complete and free political will. In the absence of such
free political will, it is difficult for an entity to maintain political, social,
geographic and economic borders [markers] to promote its own language and
maintain its survival against another invading language—in this case the powerful
language of Arabic and the prevailing religion of Islam.
9.3.2 Gradual Erosion and Shift in Ethnic and National Identity
In establishing any ethnic or national identity, religion and language are

the most essential premises for that identity. With their adoption of Christianity,
the religious identity of the Aramaic speakers became much stronger than their
ethnic and/or national identities. This centuries-old erosion of their ethnic identity
has made them an easy target of identity obliteration and loss. More recently, it
has opened the door for many Christians to identify themselves ethnically as
Arabs thus coining the terms ‘Arab Christians’ and ‘Christian Arabs’. The former
term stands for Christians who are Arabs in ethnicity and/or nationality as
opposed to Christians who are English, German or Greek in ethnicity. The latter
stands for Arabs who are Christians as opposed to Arabs who are Moslems.
Realistically each term has some sort of relatively clear historical denotation.
‘Christian Arabs’ is indeed an appellation that has historical rationale since there
had been many Arab tribes who were Christians before Islam and remained so for
a while in the post-Islam era. The only precaution invoked in this study is to
guard against any liberal and loose generalization of the two terms. For instance,
the label ‘Arab Christians’1 should be used very cautiously and reservedly
nowadays because of its serious implications with regard to the present ethnic and
national identity of the Christian population in the Arab countries. After all, not
all Christian communities regard their Arab identity in the same way. Some
identify with Arab culture [and ethnicity, my insertion] more than others (Maïla,
1998: 28). The Orthodox communities, for instance, are the most ready to call
themselves Arabs whereas the Lebanese Maronite community has a difficult

1
Fargues (1998: 48), among others, uses the term for all Christian in the Arab world.
relationship with its Arab identity (Maïla, 1998: 28; Wessels, 1995: 4). Although
Maïla does emphasize the fact that some Christians are less willing to accept Arab
identity, he offers them no other ethnic and cultural identity choice other than
Arab. He, perhaps, inadvertently ignores those Christian communities in the Arab
world who do not accept the Arab identity since they feel they have their own
distinct non-Arab ethnic and cultural identity. For instance, all Assyrians
[Nestorians] in their homelands and other countries of diaspora together with an
increasing number of younger generations of Chaldeans, Suryanis and Maronites
claim their own historical ethnic identity regardless of the different appellations as
Assyrian, Chaldean, Suryani, Aramaean, Phoenician or Maronite. Recently, with
the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime, the Syriac-speaking community in Iraq held
a Unity Conference2 in October 2003 one of the primary resolutions of which was
to identify their ethnicity [nationality] as ChaldoAssyrian rather than Arab or
Kurdish ethnicity and their language as Syriac rather than Arabic.
The conceptual approach adopted in this study is that the term ‘Arab
Christians’ should be used only for those Christians who have willingly adopted
an Arab ethnic identity, but it should not be a generic and all-encompassing
identity label for all Christians residing in the Arab countries. Any such
generalization amounts to a violation of the political, ethnic and nationalistic right
to self-identification of ethnic groups who are not Arabs or are reluctant to be
identified as Arab. Unfortunately, there are many Christians who accept the label
without even feeling that they are undergoing a self-imposed, self-induced and
self-inflicted shift [change] of ethnic identification.
9.3.3 Loss of Population
At the birth of Islam in the 7th century, Christianity had become the faith
of the vast majority of the population of the Fertile Crescent and of Egypt
(Fargues, 1998: 49). The stronger the Arabs and Moslems became, the more the
conversion from Christianity to Islam and from Syriac to Arabic accelerated. The
end result of these conversions was the drastic reduction in the population of
Syriac speakers and the linguistic marginalization of Syriac. From the very advent
of Islam and Arabic, there followed steady and massive waves of religious and
linguistic conversions that took different forms. Some were coercive (Ye’or,
1996: 88) and others were the natural consequence of cultural and civilizational
contact in which one side was in a much stronger position than the other.
On the one hand, although after Islam Christians were granted the status of
dhimmƯ, meaning individuals belonging to the category of ‘People of the Book’
who benefit from the physical protection by the Muslims, Islam used direct and
indirect means to proselytize the Christians. The direct means were blunt coercion
and order to accept Islam such as what happened with Banu Tanukh of Aleppo
(Hitti, 1967: 360; Wessels, 1995: 3). Islam is in fact a political and religious
system which can exert pressure when it wants to on non-Muslim groups (Samir,
1998: 72). Besides, the Islamic religious system imposed a regime of limited

2
There were delegations from Lebanon and Syria and other countries of diaspora representing
Suryanis and Maronites.
tolerance of non-Muslims which eroded their communities from the bottom and
the top. There were all kinds of economic, social or political incentives to lure
Christians into Islam (Samir, 1998: 74). Moreover, specific taxes such as that of
jizya [ΔϳΰΠϟ΍ head tax or per capita tax] and kharƗj [Ν΍ήΨϟ΍ land tax] were imposed
on them partly to create sources of income for the Moslem administration and
partly to remind them that they did not belong to the core society. Besides, they
were at times subjected to humiliations which were indicative of their inferior
position in society (Wessels, 1995: 20; Ye’or, 1996: 91; Maïla, 1998: 32). In
order to avoid those taxes many opted to convert to Islam. Around 760, the taxes
on all Christians were doubled which led to a steady stream of conversions [to
Islam] as a form of ‘tax evasion’. This also gave impetus to the 9th century flight
of Christians to Cyprus, including a large group of Maronites” (Wessels, 1995:
21). Distinct instances of mass conversions were common throughout the
different phases of the Islamic Caliphate. After the Arab conquest, a number of
Christianized Arab tribes suffered defeat, enslavement and coercion. For instance,
during the patriarchate of Michael I [744-768] 24,000 Copts in Cairo and the
vicinity accepted Islam and so were exempted from taxation (for more details see,
Wessels, 1995: 21). Similarly, Caliph Mahdi (775-785) used torture to force the
Christian tribes near Aleppo to become Moslem (Ye’or, 1996: 88-9).
As opposed to the dwindling number of Christian population due to
conversions, there was a huge increase in Arab Moslem population due to
continued nomad tribal migrations that spread out over two centuries (Donner,
1981: 94-5; Ye’or, 1996: 44). Commenting on the ratio of Christian population to
Moslems, it is assumed that the balance tipped off in favor of Muslims in the
beginning of the 10th century. Specifically, their population seems to have fallen
sharply around the 14th century mainly under the pressure of the Mamelukes
(Samir, 1998: 82-3; Fargues, 1998: 50). What has happened to the Christian
population in the Middle East beginning with the Moslem Conquest until this very
day amounts to demographic hemorrhage (Bailey and Bailey, 2003: 13).
9.3.4 Domination of Arabic Language and Islamic Rule
Once the Islamic administration was firmly established, Syriac as a native

language was forbidden by Caliph Abdul Malik [685-705] to be used in
administration (Ye’or, 1996: 60); instead Arabic language was fostered by its
universal use as a medium of government, culture and commerce, in general,
(Holt et al, 176) and literacy and education, in particular. This gradually helped a
firmly-established Arab administration to emerge with less dependence on non-
Muslim population and non-Arabic languages, typically Syriac. For instance, in
the early stages of the Greek heritage transmission, the translations were first into
Syriac and then into Arabic; however, in the later stages, especially during the
Abbasid era, the translations were directly into Arabic (Hitti, 1967: 310;
Rosenthal, 1975: 7). In fact, with the founding of KhizƗnat al-ikmah of HƗrǌn
al-RashƯd followed by the larger Bayt al-ikmah of al-Ma’mǌn (Goodman, 1990:
484), Arabic began to secure the upper status and role in translation. Though the
translators clung to their native Syriac language, they, in the course of time, were
unable to resist the pressure of the changing cultural [and linguistic] climate
around them and had to reconcile themselves to living with the Arabic language
(Rosenthal, 1975: 6). One can readily notice the gradual erosion of Syriac and the
dominance of Arabic across generations. For instance, unayn bin IsƗq [died
873] was more proficient in Syriac than his son IsƗq [died 910] and nephew
ubaysh bin Al-asan, both of whom were more proficient in Arabic.
Interestingly, the intergenerational shift in linguistic proficiency and the change in
religious faith are the best indicators of a swing in favor of Arabic language and
Islamic culture and faith. In terms of gradual acculturation and assimilation of
ethnic and religious minorities into the majority, it is not a surprise to find out that
unayn’s son Isaq3 and ThƗbit ibn Qurrah’s [died 901] son SinƗn [a SƗbi’ian]
converted to Islam (Hitti, 1951:552). Equally interesting is the name of unayn’s
nephew which hardly has any linguistic and cultural clues of being a Christian
name; on the contrary, it sounds more Arabic and Moslem. Many such
conversions into Islam of renowned figures in literary and intellectual realms,
such as the poets Abu TammƗm [ca. 804-850] and Al-ButurƯ [ca.820-897] (Hitti,
1951:553-4), had been commonplace. Thus, one can conclude that on the long
run, the loss of population through conversion by coercion, enticement or natural
acculturation and assimilation processes have been the underlying dynamics that
transformed the Syriac-speaking population from a majority into a minority.
At the early stages of the Arab conquest, both the urban and rural areas
were dominated by Syriac speaking population; consequently, it was the new
Arab settlers who learned Syriac [Aramaic] (Morony, 1984: 170; Trimingham,
1990: 224). When the Arabs dominated the urban areas, such as Damascus and
Baghdad, swarms of Christian physicians, translators and other intellectuals
headed to Baghdad (Thomas, 2003: vii). Also many Syriac-speakers of rural areas
began to move to urban areas. The urbanization resulted in the gradual linguistic
Arabization of the elite of Syriac speakers as well as the ordinary populace.
It is quite reasonable to assume that the scholarly and intellectual
enterprises at the early stages of the Abbasid period constituted a renaissance in
Islam (Kraemer, 1992: 4) which began with the founding of Bayt Al-ikmah and
the sponsorship of the massive translation movement. Indisputably, the chief
architects and builders of Bayt Al-ikmah and the executers of the translations
were primarily the Syriac-speaking Christians. Thus if this period may be the
most fluorescent one in the Islamic-Arabic civilization, it is, unfortunately, the
most erosive to the very fabric of the Syriac linguistic, religious and ethnic
identity. Generation after generation, those giant intellectuals gradually slipped
into the Arab and Islamic identity through incentives, temptation, acculturation,
assimilation or coercion. This period represented the peak of the overall linguistic,
religious and demographic change in the map of the Middle East. The whole
period from the Arab conquest to the Mongol invasion embodies a remarkable
example of massive cultural, linguistic and religious transformation of the region.
The transformation began with Arabization and ended with Islamization.

3
There is an unsubstantiated reference that even Hunaun himself and many others converted to
Islam under Caliph Mutawwakil’s persecution (Ye’or, 1996: 233).
Syriac had resisted the pressure of Greek, but it could not withstand the
encroachment of its powerful sister-language, Arabic (Segal, 1953: 143). Segal
gives examples of the extent of linguistic encroachment of Arabic on Syriac
grammar and poetry. He cites Severus bar Shakko’s appeal to Syrians to preserve
their own [linguistic] identity (Segal, 1953: 143, ft. 5).
9.3.5 Schisms within Christianity
The Christological controversies among Christians, especially those

resulting from the councils of Ephesus of 431 and Chalcedon of 451 led to
different schisms, in general, and the separation of the Eastern Churches, in
particular. Besides, the Syriac-speaking Christian population in the Middle East
was politically and geographically associated with different empires, namely
Roman, Byzantine, Persian, Arabian and Ottoman. The vastly incompatible, at
times antagonistic, strategic, political, religious and cultural interests among those
empires created different environments for the theological and philosophical
interpretation of certain beliefs and rites of Christianity which sharpened the
controversies and widened the schisms. Certainly, those schisms have been a
major factor in weakening the Christian population in both religion and language
in the face of Islamic faith and Arabic language. Generally speaking, the
fragmentation of the non-Muslim minorities, especially Christians, and their
dissentions increased their vulnerability and malleability (Ye’or, 1996: 339).
9.4 Patterns of Deterioration

With regard to the religious conversions, the outlines in section 9/3 above
suffice to identify the nature of such religious conversions. Although these
conversions have seriously eroded the Christian community, they have not been
as devastatingly erosive as the linguistic conversions. The gradual erosion and
loss of Syriac language deprived the Christians of one of their most significant
and salient pillars of their ethnic identity be that the Assyrian, Babylonian,
Aramaean or Suryani ethnic identity. It was the loss of language that constituted
the first significant step in the direction of religious conversion. In the process of
acculturation and assimilation, it is usually the linguistic conversion that precedes
the religious one.
The erosion or loss of Syriac within different Syriac-speaking
communities has occurred at different periods of time, some much earlier than
others. Although there is no absolute agreement on the times and dates signaling
the loss, a general timeline is, nevertheless evident. There are ample pieces of
evidence indicating that a decisive turning point in the erosion of Syriac began
during the Abbasid Caliphate more towards the middle and end of it (Hitti, 1967:
361). Interestingly, the erosion, and eventually the loss, has been effected in
different forms such as: a) loss of literacy skills [reading and writing] among
populace prior to oracy skills [listening and speaking]; b) loss of language in
urban areas prior to rural areas; c) loss of language with greater and more direct
contact with competing languages specifically Arabic. In the next sub-sections,
further light will be shed on the above forms of language loss and the approximate
timing of the erosion and loss.
9.4.1 Loss of Literacy Skills among Populace Prior to Oracy Skills
With any live language, the number of literate people tends to be less than
the number of its speakers because the acquisition of literacy requires additional
efforts either through formal education, such as in schools, or informal education
such as in churches and homes, the latter often in the form of private tutoring.
When one uses the term ‘Syriac civilization’, it should not be taken lightly as if it
is an exaggeration. Over the centuries, speakers of Syriac have produced
impressive liturgy, wealthy literature and extensive knowledge in science,
medicine and philosophy. It was the powerful Syriac language that was the
medium of propagating the above achievements of Syriac civilization. Indeed, so
great was the prestige of Syriac poetry in the 5th century that this posed a source
of embarrassment for Greek cultural chauvinism (Brock, 1999: I, 152). The late
Professor Vööbus very assuredly states that the Syriac civilization was the pioneer
in presenting to the world the first Christian university by Mar Narsai around the
year 470 (Vööbus, 1989: 11). Details of the structure and the statutes of this
university have been documented by Vööbus in two of his books: The Statutes of
the School of Nisibis, 1962 and History of the School of Nisibis, 1965. With the
consolidation of the Arab administration and the prevalent use of Arabic as a
medium of education and knowledge, Syriac began to recede in the face of fierce
competition from Arabic.
The loss of literacy skills among the populace usually results in confining
those skills to a few literate individuals and the clergy the latter of whom
administer the religious rites and church services to the populace. More
importantly, when a language ceases to be used in liturgy and church services, the
cessation indicates a very negative turning point in the maintenance and survival
of that language; in fact, it represents the nadir in the level of language
maintenance. This turning point does not only imply that literacy among the
natives of the given language has receded, but it also, most likely, implies that the
natives either retain minimum oral proficiency skills or they have already lost
them completely. The loss of the native language represents one of the strongest
indications that a given people is on the verge of complete acculturation and
assimilation.
Let us consider some of the times and dates of Syriac language erosion
and loss. The Melkites and Syrian Jacobites replaced Syriac with Arabic in
conducting their church sermons from the 10th century. The Maronites showed
more resistance to the replacement (Maïla, 1998: 32). With the Arab occupation
of Syria in 635 and Persia in 644, the majority of the Jacobites became Arabized
over the next three centuries and that their West Syrian dialect survived only as an
ecclesiastical language, while Arabic became the language of commerce and
literature (Wessels, 1995: 87). Although it is impossible at present to indicate
precisely when Syriac ceased to be the vernacular of most of Syrian Christians, it
is reasonably clear that the 9th and 10th centuries saw a rapid decline in the use of
Syriac and that, by the 11th century, Arabic was dominant both in speech and
writing (Haddad, 1970: 15).
9.4.2 Faster Loss of Syriac in Urban vs. Rural Areas
According to the rules of language maintenance and erosion, minority

languages can resist erosion more effectively when they have more well-defined
social, religious, economic and physical borders [boundaries]. In other words,
when minorities have population concentration in a homeland which enjoys
economic, social and religious autonomy, language maintenance is more
conceivable. Generally speaking, such borders are more effective in isolated rural
and/or mountainous areas than urban areas in which the majority language
dominates. For instance, when Baghdad became the capital of the Abbasid
Caliphate and grew larger into the dynamic center of scholarship, it attracted most
of the intellectuals, professionals and top translators to move and settle in it. For
instance, Jibrail bin Bakhtishu was invited by the Caliph Manǌr to come to
Baghdad from Jundishapur to remedy his ailment. He settled in Baghdad
thereafter and his descendants continued to serve as the medical advisors to
several Abbasid Caliphs. Similar professional circumstances made unayn bin
IsƗq move from the rural town of al-Ưrah on the Euphrates and settle in
Baghdad and lead the most extensive and massive enterprise of academic and
scholarly translation in the history of world human civilization.
9.4.3 Faster Loss of Syriac in Direct Contact with other Languages
There are clear indications that the loss of Syriac as a vernacular among
the Melkites in favor of Arabic earlier than other Syriac-speaking communities,
such as the Maronites and the Nestorian Assyrians, was partly attributed to the
concentration of Melkites in urban centers dominated by the Arabic literary
culture of Sunni Islam (Haddad, 1970: 20). On the contrary, the geographic
isolation of the ‘Nestorian’ Assyrians in the rural and mountainous regions of
Turkey was the primary reason for their maintenance of Syriac, in both daily
communication and church services, much better than all of the other Syriac-
speaking communities in the Middle East. It is noteworthy that all parishes of the
[Assyrian] Church of the East, whether in homeland or in diaspora, have never
ceased using Syriac as the only medium of their services.
9.5 Outcomes of Deterioration

The drastic loss in the population of Syriac speakers, from tens of millions
into a couple of millions, the loss of a specific homeland with which Syriac had
been politically associated, the reduction in its status from a lingua franca of the
Greater Middle East to a minority language, the decline in its function as a
medium of a major religion and an instrumental tool of human civilization to a
marginal language all jointly represent a catastrophic worsening in the status of
Syriac. In fact, the worsening puts Syriac in a very precarious situation that
qualifies it for consideration as a potentially endangered language. Linguistically

and civilizationally, the anticipated demise of Syriac will amount to a human
tragedy that the world awaits to see if precautionary measures are not taken to
prop up its maintenance.
9.6 Endangered Status of Syriac

With the 16th century and throughout the 17th and 18th centuries, Syriac
was on the verge of virtual extinction. Its literacy skills were confined to the
clergy and a small selection of individuals and self-educated devotees. The
spoken language was invaded by the local non-Syriac languages to such an extent
that it was practically incapacitated or depleted not only with foreign loanwords,
but also with morphological and syntactical borrowings. In most regions,
especially among the Suryanis and Maronites, the erosion continued to the extent
that Syriac was virtually overwhelmed by Arabic language. The same would have
been true with Syriac speakers of Urmia region of Iran and Hakkari region of
Turkey if it were not for the European missionaries who initiated an extensive
campaign of revitalizing Syriac [Assyrian]. Throughout the 19th century, the
region of Urmia in Iran and parts of Hakkari experienced a serious revitalization
of their native language. A certain variety of Syriac was promoted in education
and writing which by the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th
century developed into a sort of modern Standard Written Language [SWL], the
details of which are documented elsewhere (Odisho, 1988).
The emergence of SWL among the so-called Assyrian speakers of Syriac,
most of whom resettled in Iraq after WWI, has been one of the reasons for the
more active maintenance of Syriac among this particular community of the
Syriac-speaking population. After WWI, the displacement of the majority of
Syriac speakers came as renewed serious blow to Syriac. The displacement
exposed SWL to the danger of collapse since most of its speakers and users were
killed or reduced to homeless and wretched refugees.
Between 1920s and 1950s there were several attempts in all regions where
the Syriac-speaking population resided to pay more attention to the maintenance
of Syriac. Thus Syriac was taught in private schools as well as in churches. Most
church-based schools had one or two hours of instruction in language per week.
Rarely was Syriac used as a medium of education in schools with a complete
curriculum. Although published literature on language maintenance and
revitalization indicates that language, any language, cannot be maintained via
schools alone, nevertheless a school with complete curriculum in Syriac is far
more effective in this regard simply because of additional hours of immersion in
language. More effective language maintenance, however, is the joint and
collaborative function of community, home and school each of which enhances
the role of the other (Odisho, 2004). This triangular approach, which is the most
pragmatic and rational strategy to language maintenance and revitalization, will
be further elaborated on in due course.
From mid 1970s onward, especially in the major urban areas such as
Baghdad and Kirkuk, Syriac has been losing ground4 with such a momentum that
if this trend were to continue the language would face its extinction by the middle
or end of the 21st century. There are several reasons that lead to such sad and
tragic prediction. Foremost among such reasons are the following: a) The
shrinking domain of Syriac circulation; b) Political turmoil in Middle East
resulting in mass immigration of Syriac speakers; c) Accelerated Syriac language
loss in countries of diaspora; and, d) Absence of any constitutional guarantees for
national and political rights of ethnic minorities in the Middle East. Let us shed
light on each of the above reasons.
9.6.1 The Shrinking Domain of Syriac Circulation
The pervasive rise of nationalism among Arabs, Persians and Turks, in

particular, and Moslem fundamentalism, in general, throughout the Middle East
have directly or indirectly promoted their native languages through the extensive
manipulation of the educational systems and media at the expense of all minority
languages including Syriac. In all Middle East countries, where Syriac speakers
live, there are hardly any constitutional or administrative privileges that grant the
ethnic minorities the right to maintain and teach their native languages. The
overwhelming majority of the younger generations of Syriac-speaking people
have been gradually and steadily growing more fluent in their non-native
languages at the expense of losing competency in their native Syriac. This loss of
Syriac is accelerated with the massive migration of Syriac speakers from rural to
urban areas where the dominant languages are Arabic, Farsi or Turkish. Simply,
any urbanization of minority population accelerates the erosion of their native
languages due to total immersion in majority languages. Unfortunately, this has
been the prevalent trend during the last half of a century.
9.6.2 Mass Immigration of Syriac Speakers
A wide variety of reasons including overt religious and ethnic

discrimination [against Syriac speakers and other ethnic and religious minorities],
lack of security and stability [typically represented by the lengthy Lebanese civil
war], coercion by the dominant dictatorial one-party systems [such as in Iraq,
Syria, and Iran] lack of employment opportunities, and worst of all the series of
bloody wars that Saddam’s regime in Iraq initiated have all led to massive
displacement and immigration of Syriac speakers to all parts of the world,
especially to Europe, North America and Australia. As a result of this large-scale
immigration, which still continues unabated, the Syriac-speaking population has
been drastically decimated. In Iraq, Iran and Lebanon more than half of the
population has been lost to immigration. The loss in Turkey has even been worse.
Since the Christian massacres of WW I, the number of Syriac-speaking
population that left the Tur Abdin region exceeded that of the remaining
population (Ishaq, 1990: 189). In 1960s, there were about 100, 000 Syrian

4
Except for the North of Iraq where Syriac was introduced in schools in early 1990s.
Orthodox in the southeast region of Turkey. Now there are only about 5,000
(Jubilee Campaign, 2005: 3). This drastic drop in population in recent years has
been attributed to worsening economic conditions and the on-and-off clashes
between the Turkish government and the local Kurdish population. Without a
radical change in the overall political philosophy of the Turkish administration
towards Syriac speakers, Syriac language in Turkey is doomed to extinction. With
Turkey’s intention to join the European Union, it should seriously redress its
religious and ethnic discrimination against minorities, through a policy of
religious, cultural and linguistic tolerance. Until that policy is implemented,
Syriac in Turkey is a gravely endangered language.
Interestingly, the loss in Syriac-speaking population is less acute in Syria
than in Iraq, Iran, Turkey and Lebanon because of relative stability. Besides, the
concentration of population in one region, that is more rural than urban, has
helped maintain their language better at least in its spoken form.
The colossal drain in Syriac population and its resettlement in foreign
countries immersed amongst highly educated populations with very powerful
national languages expose Syriac speakers to sweeping waves of acculturation
followed by assimilation within three generations of settlement in those countries.
Details of this assimilation process will be the focus of the following section.
9.6.3 Accelerated Syriac Language Loss in Countries of Diaspora
In order to save time and space in our approach to analyze the process of
erosion of Syriac language among the immigrants in the countries of diaspora, the
focus will be on the loss of Syriac in the United States as the location of the
largest concentration of Syriac-speaking immigrants.
Sociolinguistic research on ethnic languages survival in the United States
is replete with evidence to the effect that such languages suffer serious erosion
once they come into direct real-life contact with English. The erosion intensifies
with the second and third generations. With the second generation, most of the
speakers become bilingual in the native language [L1] and the target language
[L2], while with the third generation, usually L2 [English] becomes so dominant
in almost every aspect of life that it functionally replaces the ethnic languages and
becomes the L1 for them (Odisho, 1999: 3). Furthermore, if those ethnic
minorities settle in urban areas and actively interact socio-economically with the
mainstream society, there is a good body of evidence that the shift from L1 to L2
is often so rapid that by the third generation L1 is functionally non-existent
(Baker, 1997: 43; Odisho, 1999: 5; 2001: 5). Without new waves of immigrants
following the old ones, the children of almost all ethnic groups in the
technologically advanced countries with large urban centers will lose their
language with the third generation and sometimes even with the second
generation (Odisho, 1999: 12). L1 erosion becomes faster with smaller ethnic
groups whose settlement lacks population concentration in one place. Usually,
members of the 3rd generation are left with only the ceremonial elements of their
L1, such the greetings, courtesy expressions, names of native foods and festivals
and isolated words embedded in the context of L2 sentence structures. Their
discourse in their native language, if any, is heavily loaded with L2 in the form of
code-mixing and code-switching between L1 and L2.
In light of the above sociolinguistic and ethnic dynamics of language
erosion and loss in diaspora, Syriac is undergoing a very serious threat to its very
existence in the diaspora. Any hope of Syriac language maintenance and survival
is more realistic in the native homelands of its speakers if their human, national,
religious and linguistic rights are constitutionally and administratively guaranteed.
9.6.4 Absence of Guarantees for Human Rights of Ethnic Minorities
With greater growth and awareness throughout the world of the

democratic principles and their implementation by various governments and
administrations around the world, an equally greater attention has been demanded
by various international organizations and conventions to observe, promote and
implement human rights, in general, and more specifically the political, religious,
cultural and linguistic rights for minorities. Amongst the most significant
declarations and conventions pertinent to those rights is the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights (1948) which stresses human right to freedom in decision
making and decent life. The Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to
National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities (1992) of the United
Nations is more to the point with regard to specific rights of national and ethnic
minorities throughout the world. This is a document that in addition to identifying
the specific political, social and economic rights of minorities, it exactly
highlights their linguistic and cultural rights. For instance, item 1 of Article 1 of
the Declaration reads:
“States shall protect the existence and the national or ethnic, cultural, religious
or linguistic identity of minorities within their respective territories, and shall
encourage conditions for the promotion of that identity”.
Item 2 of Article 1 reads:
“States shall adopt appropriate legislative and other measures to achieve these
ends”.
Item 1 of Article 2 further emphasizes the contents of Article 1 by stating:
“Persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities have

the right to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practice their own religion,
and to use their own language, in private or in public freely and without
interference, or any form of discrimination”.
Items 2 and 3 of Article 4 identify the measures that states should take to
guarantee the implementation of the rights.
Item 2 reads:
“States shall take measures to create favorable conditions to enable persons

belonging to minorities to express their characteristics and to develop their
culture, language, religion, traditions and customs, except where specific
practices are in violation of national law and contrary to international
standards”.
Item 3 reads:
“States should take appropriate measures so that, wherever possible, persons

belonging to minorities have adequate opportunities to learn their mother tongue
or to have instruction in their mother tongue.”
None of the Middle East countries abides by the contents and the spirit of
those universal declarations; in fact, none of those countries has the slightest
commitment to the implementation of the declarations. On the contrary, there is
every piece of evidence that those states commit serious violations of the human
rights, especially of the minorities within their jurisdiction.
9.7 What to Do?

Therefore, if Syriac is to be humanely promoted and maintained,
international pressure has to be brought upon those countries to adhere to the
abovementioned declarations and, at least, implement their basics. If, however,
international pressure may be seen by some such states as a form of interference
in their internal affairs then the move should willingly come from such states as
part of an overall package for democratization which they claim to be planning to
adopt. If such countries are willing to move in this direction, their move will be a
good impetus for the native speakers of Syriac to become more proactive in
taking the necessary measures to revitalize their language in its spoken and
written forms. Examples of such measures can be in the form of establishing a
few formal schools approved by the states concerned with instruction in Syriac
not just as a subject in the curriculum, but also as a medium of instruction for a
complete curriculum (Odisho, 2001: 14-15; 2004: 189). The latter means that all
subjects are taught in Syriac except for the majority languages of the country and
regions and other foreign languages. If such measures are adopted, it becomes
incumbent on all churches and social and educational organizations run by Syriac-
speaking population to sponsor native language programs besides their religious,
social and educational programs.
Concentration of population and the growth of population are both of
utmost importance for active circulation of oral communication in the native
tongue. Concentration of population in certain locations may be prompted from
within the community, but it will be hard to achieve without the assistance of the
states concerned. As for the growth of population, the only means to envisage its
realization would be through reversed migration of population in diaspora. It
should be admitted, however, that reversed migration is only conceivable if
stability, security and economic conditions were to be realistic enough to trigger

the return.
9.8 A Model Project for Syriac Language Maintenance

During the last sixteen years, the leadership of the Assyrian Democratic
Movement5 [abbreviated hereafter as ADM] has adopted and initiated instruction
in content areas at both elementary and secondary levels in the Syriac language.
This has been a very important step with far-reaching consequences for a realistic
revitalization and maintenance of Syriac.
With the approval of the Kurdish authorities in the region, ADM has
initiated an educational program in which Syriac is either the primary language of
instruction [cross-curriculum] or only a language item in the curriculum required
by all ChaldoAssyrian students. In the first case, all instruction is administered in
Syriac, while Kurdish and Arabic are taught as the regional languages with
English as a foreign language to facilitate inter-community and cross-language
communication. In the latter case, the instruction is administered in Kurdish,
while Syriac is a language requirement restricted to ChaldoAssyrian students.
This unique situation of granting the ChaldoAssyrians the opportunity to practice
their human rights in conducting the education of their children in the native
language is, hopefully, the result of the growing democratic awareness among the
Kurdish majority in their treatment of the other native and/or ethnic nationalities
coexisting with them. Below are the most salient characteristics of the
Educational Project [abbreviated hereafter as Project]:
9.8.1 Structural Nature of the Project and its Scale
Initially, the project began with the implementation of instruction in

Syriac at the elementary level, which required the preparation of buildings,
teachers and textbooks. As for the professionally qualified teachers, there was a
general shortage, but the deficiency was specifically felt in the linguistic and
professional preparedness of teachers in handling comprehensive instruction in
Syriac covering a wide array of content areas: mathematics, natural sciences,
social sciences and humanities. Faced with this serious language deficiency,
intensive language proficiency courses for the teachers were initiated.6 As for the
textbooks, especially in content areas, they were almost non-existent. Thus, there
was a serious urgency for creating them primarily by translating appropriate
textbooks existing in Arabic for other parts of Iraq. Where and when appropriate,
such textbooks have been properly edited and modified to be in line with the
Assyrian cultural, national and patriotic goals. So with barely convenient school

5
It is the most organized and popular political movement in the modern history of the Assyrians.
In spite of its relatively recent formation in 1979 it has become highly favorable by the masses of
Syriac-speaking population.
6
These courses continue due to the increasing demand for qualified Syriac language teachers. For
details, see Syriac Education in the North of Iraq: Facts and Figures. San Diego: Friends of the
Syriac Education, 2000.
buildings, with continuing teacher preparation and in-service training, and with
modest quality textbooks, the project of Syrianizing the educational curriculum
was practically implemented in 1993. Since then, there has been improvement in
school buildings, in the language preparedness of the teachers and in textbooks
quality and content. Presently, there are more than 50 textbooks in Syriac
covering all subjects included in the curriculum.
One of the most important facts to be known about the Project is that there
are two categories of schools in which Syriac is involved. The first category
involves schools in which Syriac is only taught as a language throughout the
elementary school with a range of 4-6 hours per week. The second category
involves schools in which the whole curriculum is administered in Syriac.
Currently, there are approximately 50 schools with more than 8,000 students.
These schools are all run by the Directorate General of Syriac Teaching,
which is a body in the hierarchy of the Ministry of Education in the Kurdistan
region. The Directorate is responsible for the overall administration, curriculum
design, teacher training, and textbooks preparation for the Syriac language
instruction.
Students admitted to the first grade of the elementary schools in 1992-
1993 finished their 6th grade7 in 1997-1998 and were ready to proceed to the
intermediate school [7th through 9th grades], which had not been established yet.
ADM worked hard to avoid the disruption in the chain of educational progress.
There was reluctance on the part of the regional Kurdish government to approve
the concept of an intermediate school, let alone sponsoring it financially. The
reluctance was partially based on legal grounds in the sense that the law restricted
the instruction in Syriac to the elementary school level only. The legal grounds
were further reinforced, allegedly, on the basis of the deficiency in the educational
cadre required at a higher level of instruction. However, after further
deliberations, a compromise was reached and in December 1998 the Ministry of
Education granted the permission to establish a private intermediate school under
the Ministry’s supervision, but without its financial commitment. Thus, ADM had
to find the ways and means of financing the intermediate school named Nisibin
which later became a High School. Due to the extreme importance of this level of
schooling, the Assyrian Aid Society [AAS], an all-Assyrian public organization
based in the United States, had to assume the full responsibility of running those
schools financially and administratively.8 This was a huge financial and
administrative burden to shoulder by a young organization, which depends
primarily on individual donations from Assyrians throughout the world.
However, the full sponsorship of this intermediate level school and other on-
coming higher levels of Syriac language instruction by the regional government is
a political decision that is contingent on the future enhancement of democracy in

7
The pre-college educational system in Iraq including the Kurdish Regional Government consists
of 6 grades in the Elementary School, followed by 3 grades in the Intermediate School and 3
grades in the High School.
8
Because many students, especially for the Intermediate and Secondary school, come from distant
regions they have to be transported by buses to their destinations; besides many of these schools
have to have boarding houses [dormitories] to accommodate for those who do not commute daily
from house to school. All these are expenses that AAS has to manage.
Kurdistan and its policy towards the ChaldoAssyrians. Strategically, the Kurdish
political parties– both KDP and PUK– should bear in mind that during the last
five decades the ChaldoAssyrians have been the most loyal ally to them in their
struggle for national and political rights. This loyalty should be reflected in any
political decision-making by the Kurds with regard to the ChaldoAssyrians and
their political, linguistic and cultural rights and responsibilities.
9.8.2 Effectiveness of the Project for Language Revitalization
The effectiveness of the project is based on several criteria, foremost of

which are:
1. The Project is unique in that it is the first time instruction in the native
language is administered through a central organ called the Directorate
General of Syriac Teaching, which is a body of the Ministry of Education of
the Kurdish regional government. The Directorate is in charge of designing
and implementing the instructional curriculum.
2. The curriculum is uniformly implemented by native speakers of the language

in all Syriac-speaking areas within the region.
3. Language instruction is authentically contextualized in the triangular

environment of school, home and community, which is the best habitat for the
maintenance of a language through a generative cycle. To further highlight the
significance of this feature, one has to assume that school alone is not capable
of realistic language maintenance without the continuous support of the
community and home. It is the latter two that actually preserve the oral
circulation of a given language. In other words, a realistic maintenance and
revitalization of a language requires the active and complementary
collaboration of three sources of language generation: community, home and
school (see Figure 9/1 below).
School Home
Community
Fig. 9/1: Schematic representation of a generative cycle required for the

maintenance and revitalization of a language.
4. Language usage represents a complete array of communicative and

educational functions in all fields of life [humanities, social and natural
sciences] and knowledge at all formal and informal modes.
5. Females represent almost 50% of the total learners, which is a ratio that has
never been reached in the known history of modern Assyrians. This very high
representation of females in the Project has significant bearing on the
maintenance of the native language because it will lead to a high percentage
of native-language literate mothers a condition which is the most conducive
for children’s acquisition of the oral and literacy skills of the mother tongue.
6. Native language promotion is intimately associated with the promotion of the

native cultural heritage. The Directorate General of Syriac Teaching has a
twin body under the name of the Directorate General of Syriac Culture.
7. Native language instruction is strongly propagated and reinforced through the

mass media that ADM administers in the form of newspapers, magazines,
radio/television broadcasting and most recently electronic media. ADM has
now a major television station [Ashur TV.] in Baghdad in addition to other
local television and radio stations. It also publishes a major newspaper [Bahra]
and several subsidiary newspapers, magazines and newsletters. All those
media outlets use Syriac as a major language besides Arabic.9
8. The Project is a tremendous effort in the direction of dialect leveling which

linguistically implies the reduction of the differences among those dialects
through enhancing their commonality and coherence. This process of dialect
leveling will eventually promote a standard variety of the Syriac language.
This trend of language leveling and standardization is the best linguistic and
cultural service the speakers of a language can afford themselves as a people
to consolidate their nationalistic identity.
9. A more holistic assessment of the effectiveness and objectives of the Project

should realistically be in terms of the cumulative hours it affords for the actual
use of the native tongue in authentic communication both spoken and written.
The generative cycle of school, home and community certainly allows the
project to secure those objectives.
10. The Project in conjunction with other supporting professional training courses
has already managed to prepare hundreds of youth highly qualified in Syriac

9
In 2003-2004, the first class of an all-Syriac high school graduated and some were ready to
complete their university education specializing in Syriac language. As a democratic gesture of
support, the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research authorized Baghdad
University in March of 2004 to establish a Department of Syriac Language within the College of
Languages effective September 2004 (Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research,
authorization No. 1288).
language who will, in turn, lead the promotion of language for the next
generations.
9.8.3 Future Prospects of Project for Language Revitalization

Any prediction made about the future prospects of the project depends
primarily on the geopolitical and political situation in the Middle East, in general,
and in Iraq and the Kurdish region, in particular. The specific political and
working relationships between the Kurds– as the majority in the region– and the
ChaldoAssyrians– as a minority–is of prime significance in this regard. At least
for the last fifty years, the relationship between the Kurds and ChaldoAssyrians
has been very cordial and the coalition has been fairly effective. Certainly,
throughout their long history as neighbors, their relationship had undergone
periods of tension and, at times, even instances of bloody skirmishes. However,
that was in the past and the two peoples and neighbors should earnestly embark
on assessing their present and future relationship. Now is the time when both
sides should begin to plan for the development of a prospective working and
survival relationship that is long-term in duration and strategic in nature. In terms
of suffering, both have been maltreated in the past by ultra-nationalistic majorities
in the countries in which they have been residing- Turkey, Iran and Iraq. All those
common characteristics and long coexistence in the region have allowed them to
share a folkloric culture that is quite similar. The folkloric commonality is best
evidenced through the costumes they wear, foods they serve, lyrics they sing and
rhythms they dance.
As the focus of this study is on Syriac language maintenance, the pivotal
role the Project plays lies in the fact that raising a new generation of young
literates in Syriac will prolong the life of the language up to three future
generations because by the time this new generation departs, its impact will be felt
on at least the next two generations. If democracy prevails in the Middle East and
if the human rights of minorities are preserved, the project can really serve as a
model for all states where Syriac-speakers reside.
9.9 Conclusions
Everywhere around the world, including the native homelands and the
countries of diaspora, the future of Syriac is very bleak; in fact, in diaspora,
Syriac is doomed to extinction in a few generations. The only way to survive a
few generations longer in diaspora is through further draining the remainder of
Syriac-speaking population from the native countries. In both cases, it will be the
doomsday for Syriac which is already a potentially endangered language.
Of all the places where Syriac seems better maintained is in Iraq where the
language is still actively spoken, used in church services and in print and taught at
schools. Up to 1960, the community had population concentration in hundreds of
villages in the North of Iraq and in several enclaves in the large cities and towns
such as Baghdad, Kirkuk, Mosul, Basrah and Habbaniyya. The population
concentration was assisted by the active contribution of several private schools
established between 1920 and 1950s, especially that of Qasha Yousip Keleita
whose school graduated scores of highly literate individuals and whose printing
press published tens of valuable religious and instructional books. Those
graduates served as Rabis [teachers] throughout Iraq until the beginning of 1970s.
In early 1970s, the Iraqi government issued a decree granting the Syriac-speaking
minority certain rights to teach their native language. Although this decree was a
political bubble which soon fizzled, it nevertheless afforded Syriac speakers a few
more years to promote the teaching of their language. From mid 1970s until 1991,
there was a rapid deterioration in the circulation and maintenance of Syriac due to
internal migration from rural to urban areas and the migration to foreign
countries. With 1992-1993 a gleam of hope loomed in the horizon of Syriac with
the initiation of ADM’s Project as described above. Thus far the project has been
able to prepare hundreds of Syriac literate youth who can carry the torch of its
maintenance for much longer. More importantly, if the Project continues for
twenty more years, Syriac will have a sizeable contingent of Syriac language
scholars. Everything hinges on the prevalence of democracy. Democracy helps
civilizations and cultures to burgeon, while dictatorship and radicalism suffocate
them. If, however, democracy prevails, it is likely that it will prepare the
conditions for a reversed migration to the homelands of Syriac which will, in turn,
stop the accelerating erosion and avert a complete loss. Without the prevalence of
democratic governments in the Middle East, Syriac will highly likely face its
demise by the middle or end of the 21st century. One of the strategies to avert
such a gloomy and pessimistic prediction is to promote a sense of Suryani ethnic
and national identity among Syriac-speaking population of the Middle East
countries based on the universal conventions of human and ethnic minority rights
side by side with the Arab, Turkish, Persian or Kurdish rights. The Syriac-
speaking community in Iraq is in the midst of such an ethnic and national
awakening as part of instituting democracy in Iraq. The community is struggling
to promote its ChaldoAssyrian ethnicity as a people and its Syriac language and
Christian religion as two pillars of that ethnicity. Without the latter two a people
and its ethnicity are seriously vulnerable to shift and eventual loss. After all,
peoples throughout history do not disappear as a result of massacres and
genocides; they rather disappear through a slow but steady loss of language and
religion through assimilation which leads into what one can appropriately call
ethnocide. More significantly, if a people or ethnic group, consciously or
subconsciously, readily accepts affiliation or conversion to other ethnic groups, its
action amounts to what could be called ethno-suicide in that it unresistingly
adopts, as well as promotes, another ethnicity. Unfortunately, there are many
historically Syriac-speaking people in the Arab world who accept the label ‘Arab
Christian’ without even feeling that they are undergoing a self-imposed, self-
induced and self-inflicted shift [change] of ethnic identification. The Arab
Christian identification should be a privilege to those who truly believe in their
Arab identity; those who do not should be entitled to practice their human right to
self-identification as Assyrians, Suryanis Aramaeans or Chaldeans. Appellations
do not matter, but unity and survival of Syriac-speakers do matter.
In as much as Syriac language is concerned, if democracy prevails then
ADM’s Project can undoubtedly serve as an excellent model for the maintenance
of Syriac throughout all Middle East countries which are, after all, the historical
homelands of Syriac-speakers.
9.10 Bibliography
Bahra: Official Newspaper of the Assyrian Democratic Movement (2000), No.
141. http://www.zowaa.org/Sub_Pgs/Educational.htm.
Bailey, Betty Jane and Bailey, J. Martin (2003). Who are the Christians in the
Middle East? Grand Rapids/Michigan: Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Baker, Colin (1997). Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism.
Cleveland: Multilingual matters.
Beyer, Klaus (1986). The Aramaic Language. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht
The Cambridge History of Islam (1970). Holt, P.M., Lambton, Ann and Lewis,
Bernard (eds.). Vol. 1. Cambridge: At the University Press.
Brock, Sebastian P. (1999). From Ephrem to Romanos: Interactions between
Syriac and Greek in Late Antiquity. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.
Crone, Patricia and Cook, Michael (1977). Hagarism: The Making of the Islamic
World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious
and Linguistic Minorities (1992). United National General assembly
Donner, Fred McGraw (1981). The Early Islamic Conquests. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Fargues, Philippe (1998). The Arab Christians of the Middle East: A
Demographic Perspective. Christian Communities in the Arab Middle
East: The Challenge of the Future (ed. Andrea Pacini). Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Goodman, L.E. (1990). The Translation of Greek Materials into Arabic. Religion,
Learning and science in the Abbasid Period (Young, M.J.L, Latham, J.D.
and Sergeant, R.B. eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Haddad, Robert M. (1970). Syrian Christians in Muslim Society. Princeton:
Healey, John F. (1991). The Early Alphabet. Berkeley: University of California
Press
Hitti, Philip (1951). History of Syria. London: Macmillan & Co. Ltd.
———. (1967). History of the Arabs. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research, (2004), authorization
No. 1288.
Isaacs, Haskell D. (1990). Arabic Medical Literature. Religion, Learning and
science in the Abbasid Period (Young, M.J.L, Latham, J.D. and Sergeant,
R.B. eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ishaq, Yusuf (1990). Turoyo: From Spoken to Written Language. Studies in Neo-
Aramaic. Harvard Semitic Series 36. Atlanta/Georgia: Scholars Press
Jouguet, P. (1928). Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic World. Chicago: Ares
Publishers.
Jubilee Campaign (2005). http://www.jubileecampaign.co.uk/world/tur2.htm.

Kraemer, Joel (1992). Humanism in the Renaissance of Islam. Leiden: Brill.
Law of Administration for the State of Iraq for the Transitional Period, March 8,
2004
Maïla, Joseph (1998). The Arab Christians: From the Eastern Question to the
Recent Political Situation of the Minorities. Christian Communities in the
Arab Middle East: The Challenge of the Future (ed. Andrea Pacini).
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Morony, Michael (1984). Iraq after the Moslem Conquest. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
Aramaic). Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz Verlag.
———. (1993). Bilingualism and Multilingualism among Assyrians: A Case of
Language Erosion and Demise. Semitica: Serta Philological Constantino
Tsereteli Dicata. (eds. R, Contini, F. Pennacchiette and M. Tosco).
Torino: Silvio Zamorani Editore.
———. (1999) Assyrian Language Maintenance and Erosion in U.S.: A World
War I Family Case Study. Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies, Vol.
13:1.
———. (2001) ADM’s Educational Project: A Serious Project of Assyrian
Language Maintenance and Revitalization. Journal of Assyrian Academic
Studies, Vol. 15:1.
———. (2004). Assyrian [Aramaic]: A Recent Model for its Maintenance and
Revitalization. Schools of Oriental Studies and the Development of
Modern Historiography (eds. A. Panaino and A. Piras). Melammu
Symposia IV. Milano: Universita di Bologna & Isiao.
Olmstead, A.T.E. (1948). History of the Persian Empire. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Rawlinson, G. (1859).The History of Herodotus. New York: Appleton & Co.
Rosenthal, Franz (1975). The Classical Heritage of Islam. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Samir Kh. Samir (1998). The Christian Communities, Active Members of Arab
Society throughout History. Christian Communities in the Arab Middle
East: The Challenge of the Future (ed. Andrea Pacini). Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Segal, J.B. (1953). The Diacritical Points and the Accents in Syriac. London:
Thomas, David (2001). Christians at the Heart of Islamic Rule. Leiden: Brill.
Trimingham, J. Spencer (1990). Christianity among the Arabs in Pre-Islamic
Times. Beirut: Librairie du Liban.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). United Nations General
Assembly.
Vööbus, Arthur (1962). Statutes of the School of Nisibis. Stockholm: Papers of the
Estonian Theological Society in Exile.
———. (1965). History of the School of Nisibis. Louvain: Corpus Scriptorum
Christianorum Orientalium (Subsidia 26).
———. (1988). The Contribution of Ancient Syrian Christianity to West

European Culture. Chicago: Journal of the Assyrian Academic Society.
Wessels, A. (1995). Arab and Christian? Christians in the Middle East.
Kampen/Netherlands: Kok Pharos Publishing House.
Ye’or, Bat (1996). The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam. Madison:
Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.
Chapter 10
Arabic and Spanish: Linguistic and Cultural

Interactions
10.1. Introductory Remarks
Change is a major characteristic of human language; thus, all languages
undergo change and they do so for a variety of reasons foremost of which is the
exchange of influence when languages come in contact with each other. As a
consequence of the contact, borrowing occurs, particularly when the contact is
extensive and large numbers of speakers are involved leading to the emergence of
bilingual or multilingual situations. Although borrowing can affect all
components of language, the lexicon [vocabulary] is typically most affected and
of all parts of speech, nouns are the most frequently borrowed. Essentially, there
are two reasons why nouns are more susceptible to borrowing: a) they tend to
represent things, objects and concepts that the borrower language does not have;
b) of all parts of speech, nouns are the most syntactically and semantically
autonomous.
This study considers the linguistic/cultural contact between Spanish and
Arabic especially with regard to the movement of many Arabic words to Spanish
and their naturalization in their new linguistic habitat.
10.2. Arabic and Spanish Contact

There had been a lengthy contact between Arabic and Spanish after the
invasion of Spain by the Arabs in 711 A.D. (Penny, 1991:13) which lasted some
eight centuries (Burckhardt, 1972:7). It is quite natural during this amply
extensive period to observe considerable cultural and linguistic influence of
Arabic on Spanish. What is interesting, however, is the fact that the influence
seems to be a two-way traffic of cultural and linguistic exchange though more in
the direction of Spanish than in the direction of Arabic. Concerning the latter
direction, it suffices here to cite Glick’s (1979:282) major conclusion in this
regard which highlights “the emergence of a standard, colloquial Spanish Arabic
as a distinct dialect within the Arabic-speaking world”. It is obvious that Glick’s
conclusion is based on Corriente’s major thesis in this regard documented in his
book, A Grammatical Sketch of the Spanish Arabic Dialect Bundle, 1977. A
return to the subject of the extent of the influence of Arabic on Spanish, especially
the linguistic one, Penny (1991:13) points out that the Islamic invasion [of Spain]
had enormous linguistic consequences. He summarizes the major two
consequences as follows: firstly, it brought the Hispanic-Latin into contact with
the language of a culture which was more developed and prestigious than that of
Christian Europe. Secondly, the introduction of Arabic profoundly changed the
dialectal map of Spanish by giving importance to varieties of Romance which
would have remained insignificant and peripheral without the Arabic invasion.
Such an extensive two-way linguistic exchange created a world of bilingualism in

Andalusia [Al-Andalus βϟΪϧϻ΍] the center of the Arabic concentration (Penny,
1991:217; Trend, 1953:56; Entwistle, 1938:127). In fact, Entwistle recognizes
two types of bilinguals, namely the bilingual Mozarabes [the Spanish-speaking
Christians among the Arabs] and the bilingual Moslems whose entity was even
Hispanicized as “moros latinados or moros ladinos” (Entwistle, 1938:127;
Spaulding, 1962:56). Far more precisely, Corriente portrays the linguistic
diversity in Al-Andalus not only as a situation of bilingualism in the form of
Spanish and Arabic, but also of complex diglossia (1977:7). Stated differently, the
linguistic situation represented a complicated fusion of not only languages, but
also of formal and informal varieties of those languages. More specifically, Trend
(1931: 7) states that there were four languages in use in Muslim Spain represented
as follows:
1. Classical Arabic, the language of men of letters;
2. Colloquial Arabic, the language of administration and government;
3. Ecclesiastical Latin, a merely ritual language associated with a particular form

of worship; and
4. A Romance dialect, mainly derived from Low Latin but destined to become
(under the name of Spanish) one of the great international languages in the
world side by side with English and Arabic.
According to Trend, the above situation has emerged as early as the first three
or four generations after the conquest when most Spanish Moslems were
bilingual, both those of Arab descent and those of Spanish Christian origin. This
duration for the emergence and spread of bilingualism is very factual and it bears
high resemblance with today’s situation of immigrants and refuges that settle in
countries such as the United States of America. If there is a reasonable degree of
intermingling between the new comers and the natives, usually the second
generation of the newcomers develops bilingualism; however, if the new comers
are in large numbers such as the movement of Spaniards into South American
countries a two-way bilingual situation arises.
Although the Arabic influence encompassed different language systems:
lexical, phonological, morphological and syntactical, the lexical influence is, by
far, the most conspicuous of all. The eight centuries of Arabic domination “made
it easy the passage of a considerable Arabic vocabulary” (Entwistle, 1938:126).
The diversity of the vocabulary covered primarily the major areas of
administration, weaponry, war tactics, commerce, industry and geographic places
(Entwistle, 1938:127; Trend, 1931: 19-31; 1953:61; Penny, 2002: 266-270). The
examples below of Arabic loanwords in Spanish are cited from the above
references to which the Arabic transcriptions are added as in the tables below.
Obviously, the meaning and pronunciation of many loanwords have undergone
changes from what they were in Arabic to what they became in Spanish.
Arabic and Spanish: Linguistic and Cultural Interactions 139
1. Military and warfare
Spanish Version Meaning Arabic Origin Meaning

Alcazar fortress ήμϘϟ΍ palace
Alfanje scimitar ήΠϨΨϟ΍ dagger
Alarde parade νήόϟ΍ same
Alcaide governor (of) Ϊ΋Ύ˰Ϙϟ΍ leader [military]
fortress
Table 10/1. Spanish military names of Arabic origin.
2. Professions

Albañil builder ˯Ύ˷ϨΒϟ΍ same
Alfarero Potter έΎ˷Ψϔϟ΍ same
Alcalde Mayor ϲοΎϘϟ΍ judge
Albéitar Vet έΎτϴΒϟ΍ same
Table 10/2. Spanish names of professions of Arabic origin.
3. Food items

Alubia Bean ΎϴΑϮϠϟ΍ same
Aceituna Olive ϥϮΘϳΰϟ΍ same
Aceite (olive) oil Ζϳΰϟ΍ same
Azafrán Saffron ϥ΍ήϔϋΰϟ΍ same
Algodón Cotton ϦτϘϟ΍ same
Table 10/3. Spanish names of food items of Arabic origin.
4. Geographic Names
Summarizing this aspect of linguistic interaction between Spanish and Arabic,

Trend states: “Though some of the names [Spanish] are Arabized forms of older
Iberian and Phoenician names, and many are characteristically of mixed origin–
Arabic and Romance–, they form when taken together a striking demonstration of
the mark of which the Arab people left on the Peninsula.” Notice the following
examples
a. ϞΒΟ “Jabal” = [¥CDCN?= “mountain” has produced hybrid geographic

names such as: “Jabalcuz; Jabalcón; Jabaloyas; Jabalquinto; Javaleón”
etc…
b. ΓέΎϨϤϟ΍ = “Al-manara” = [CNOC¥PCÖTC] = “beacon” has produced similar

geographic names such as: Corre de Almenara; Sierra de Almenara;
Puerto de la Almenara etc…
c. For “ϱΩ΍ϭ” = “Wadi” = [¥YCÖFKÖ] = “valley or river”. For examples, see

table 8 below for more details.
10.3. Why was the Article <˰ϟ΃= !CN> Borrowed?
The most interesting linguistic aspect of this massive borrowing of Arabic

words and their assimilation into Spanish is the borrowing of many of those
words with their definite Article <˰ϟ΃> pronounced [!CN], but transcribed for
convenience as ‘al’. It has just been mentioned earlier on that the bulk of the
Arabic loanwords were nouns; however, in the case of ‘al’ it is the borrowing of
this grammatical article which is linguistically a separate morpheme (cf. Steiger,
1963:13) that is worthy of serious consideration. However, notice the following
example which demonstrates the grammatical nature of ‘al’ and how it functions
as an article [for more details see Chapter 15].
The triliteral root ‘KTB’ = ‘ϙ Ε Ώ’ denotes the abstract concept of ‘writing’ from
which the noun /kitaab/ = <ΏΎΘϛ > book” is derived. Thus /kitaab/ = “ΏΎΘϛ”
represents the indefinite form of the noun. To transform the noun into its definite
form, one has to prefix the definite article ‘al’ to /kitaab/ to arrive at /alkitaab/
“ΏΎΘϜϟ΍”. This entails that ‘al’ is an autonomous separable morpheme which
should have not been borrowed with those words.
The reasons for the emphasis in this study on only loanwords with ‘al’ are
many. Firstly, there is sufficient material to constitute a reliable linguistic corpus
to probe the subject. Secondly, the assimilatory behavior of the [1] segment of the
article ‘al’ in relation to the initial consonant of the word to which the ‘al’ is
prefixed is a well-known phonetic phenomenon in Arabic which seems to have
been historically transferred into Spanish. Thirdly, the mere fact that the ‘al’ is
borrowed as an integral part of the word seems, in itself, to have a specific
sociolinguistic implication as to the socio-educational class of the community
which was behind most of the borrowings. Finally, the manner in which the
Arabic loanwords are naturalized [indigenized] in Spanish mirrors several
interesting phonetic/phonological observations that could be part of a more
comprehensive, synchronically-orientated diachronic study of the Arabic-Spanish
phonetic/phonological interaction during the eight-century long period. The focus
of this study is an attempt to respond to all of the above linguistic and
sociolinguistic implications of the retention of the definite article ‘al’, a linguistic
element which is semantically redundant in relation to the lexical items borrowed.
10.3.1. Size of ‘al’-Prefixed Loanwords in Arabic
When data collection began, there was the initial impression that the
number of the ‘al’-prefixed Arabic words in Spanish was in tens; however, once
the gathering of data began, the number turned out to be in hundreds. What was
interesting, however, in the process of surveying those words in the dictionaries
was that not all of them were listed under ‘al’ entries because in many words the
‘1’ has been assimilated into another sound due to a major phonetic phenomenon
characteristic of Arabic as it will be explained in due course. Consequently, to
identify all the al-prefixed Arabic loanwords one has to survey and screen the
whole section of the dictionary under letter <a>.
The major lexical works consulted for this survey are: Academia
Española’s Diccionario de la Lengua Española (1956) and Diccionario Historico
de la Lengua Española (1960), Corominas’s Diccionario Critico Etimológico de la
Lengua Castellana (1972) and Corominas and Pascual’s Diccionario Critico
Etimológico Castellano e Hispánico (1980). Undoubtedly, other works were
consulted, but for an approximate estimation of the size of the relevant words, the
above four references were the primary sources.
In order to understand why those words were borrowed jointly with the
definite article, one has to have a better understanding of the nature of social and
linguistic contact between the Arabic speakers and Spanish speakers. It was
already pointed out that the linguistic situation in Andalusia amounted to a
complex diglossia with two major languages together with their formal and
informal varieties as well as different dialects. The following statement from
Corriente sheds further light on the intricate linguistic interactions:
“Many phenomena of Spanish Arabic cannot be understood without reckoning

with the fact that, in addition to high register requiring Classical Arabic for
formal purposes, there were within the colloquial dialect two main
distinguishable registers: the standard or educated register of well-bred people
who cared a good deal for what they considered to be correct, and the low,
substandard register of people who could or would not use but the only brand of
Arabic to which the underprivileged classes of Spain had access.” (1977:8)
The fact that all those words were admitted into Spanish with the definite
article [to which the Spanish article was added as in la alcova, la almohada] may
signal a strong indication that the borrowing was accomplished predominantly by
the masses of the people in the market-place, the street and the workplace in their
day-to-day conversations rather than by scholars and academia intentionally
designing to enrich the Spanish vocabulary in areas where certain words were
most needed. There are several indications which point in the direction of
pervasive informal and popular contacts as the most powerful source of
borrowing. First, there were no formal academic institutions to conduct systematic
borrowing and naturalization of loanwords. The standardization of Spanish did
not begin until the 13th century and the Real Academia Española was not created
until 1713. Second, the Mozárabes, the Christians who lived among the Arabs,
were the intermediaries between the two languages, and served to introduce
Arabic words into Spanish. Third, the change in the pronunciation of Arabic
loanwords is not only attributed to the phonetic and phonological differences
between the two languages, but also to the informal manner in which the
pronunciation of Arabic was picked up by ear and on the streets and working
places. Consequently, if such borrowings had been the work of the educated, the
retention of the definite article ‘al’ would have been unlikely because the
borrowers would have realized that the article is a separable morpheme and is not
part of the stem [root] of the borrowed words and has nothing to do with the
semantic denotation of the stem. The evidence that strongly substantiates the lay
people’s role in this lexical transmission is that the phonetic assimilation to which
‘al’ is vulnerable in daily spoken Arabic is strictly observed in the Spanish habitat
of those words; however, the transmission of the phonetic assimilation seems to
be sheer impersonation rather than observance of the formal rules of assimilation.
The formal rules are technically covered under the term sun-letters =
ΔϴδϤθϟ΍ ϑϭήΤϟ΍ derived from the Arabic word <shams βϤη> = “sun” whose first
sound is a typical sun-letter; for convenience, the term will, hereafter, be indicated
as <shamsi> for singular and <shamsiyya> for plural. Likewise, the term moon-
letters = ΔϳήϤϘϟ΍ ϑϭήΤϟ΍ derived from the Arabic word <qamar ήϤϗ > “moon” whose
first sound is a typical moon-letter; for convenience, the term will, hereafter, be
indicated as <qamari> for singular and <qamariyya> for plural. More details on
theme of <shamsiyya> and <qamariyya> will appear in Chapter 15.
In order to understand the above dichotomy, it is necessary to clarify that
shamsiyya represent those consonants to which if the ‘al’ is prefixed, the sound
[1] of the article is fully assimilated thus leading to its disappearance and to the
gemination (doubling) of the initial consonant of the given word. For instance, if
‘al’ is added to the word “shams”, the word is pronounced <ashshams> [!C55COU]
with the deletion of [1] and the doubling of <sh>. The same is true with “ruz” =
“rice’ to which when <al> is prefixed it becomes <arruz> [which in Spanish is
transcribed as <arroz>] rather than <alruz>. The Arab grammarians identify the
<shamsiyya> sounds [14 in all] as: [ε ϝ έ ι ί α ν ρ ϥ Ε Ω υ Ϋ Ι]. The rest of
the consonants [also 14 in all] are the qamariyya sounds: [ ϭ ϑ Ν ϱ ϙ Υ ύ ϕ ω Ρ ˰ϫ ˯
Ώ ϡ ]. With qamariyya, the [1] of the article is not assimilated nor is the initial
consonant of the word geminated. For instance, the word <qamar> is pronounced
<alqamar> [!CNSCOCT] with the retention of [l]. It is pertinent to clarify that in
Arabic the assimilation is realized primarily in speech. In orthography, the
absence of assimilation is indicated by leaving the letter <1> with no marking at
all while the presence of assimilation is indicated by placing a shadda [the
diacritic mark for gemination of consonants] over the initial consonant of the
word (Thackston, 1994: 3).
The next two sections display two short lists of selected al-prefixed Arabic
loanwords in Spanish representing ‘al’ with qamari-initiated words and shamsi-
initiated ones. For a longer list and more details on Arabic loanwords in Spanish
see: (http://www.loghaty.com/vb3/showthread.php?t=1012).
10.3.2. Qamari-Initiated Loanwords
Words Meaning Arabic Origin

alacena Cupboard Δϧ΍ΰΨϟ΍ˬΔϨϳΰΨϟ΍
alacrán Scorpion ΏήϘόϟ΍
alafia Pardon ΔϴϓΎόϟ΍
alamin Inspector Ϧϴϣϻ΍
alamud bolt (door; window) ΩϮϣΎόϟ΍
alarde military parade νήόϟ΍
alarife master builder ϒϳήόϟ΍
alatar perfume seller έΎτόϟ΍
alazán horse (blond) (ήϘηϻ΍) ϥΎμΤϟ΍
albacea Executioner ϲλϮϟ΍
albacore early fig ΓέϮϛΎΒϟ΍
albaquia remaining; rest ΔϴϘΒϟ΍
albufera Lake ΓήϴΤΒϟ΍
alcazaba Straw ΔΒμϘϟ΍
alcazuz Licorice αϮδϟ΍ ϕήϋ
alcohol Alcohol ϝϮΤϜϟ΍
alcove; alcoba room; bedroom ΔΒϘϟ΍
alfaqui Scholar ϪϴϘϔϟ΍
alfayate Tailor ρΎϴΨϟ΍
alférez 2nd lieutenant αέΎϔϟ΍
alfil bishop (in chess) Ϟϴϔϟ΍
alfondec hotel; inn ϕΪϨϔϟ΍
alforja Saddlebag ΔΟήΨϟ΍
algebra Algebra ήΒΠϟ΍
Alhandega Ditch ϕΪϨΨϟ΍
aljonjoli [ajonjoli] sesame seeds ϥϼΠϠΠϟ΍
almacén Storehouse ϥΰΨϤϟ΍
almanaque Climate ΥΎϨϤϟ΍
almodóvar Round έϭΪϤϟ΍
almocobar Graves ήΑΎϘϤϟ΍
almohada Pillow ΓΪΨϤϟ΍
almojábana cheese cake ΔϨΒΠϤϟ΍
almoneda Auction ϯΩΎϨϤϟ΍
alquibla direction (of prayer in Islam) ΔϠΒϘϟ΍
alquitara still (apparatus) ΓέΎτϘϟ΍
alubia Beans ΎϴΑϮϠϟ΍
10.3.3. Shamsi-Initiated Loanwords
Words Meaning Arabic Origin

acebibe Raisin ΐϴΑΰϟ΍
aceife summer (military expedition) ϒϴμϟ΍
aceite (olive) oil Ζϳΰϟ΍
aceituna Olive ϥϮΘϳΰϟ΍
acelga chard; beet ϖϠδϟ΍
acémila mule; donkey ΔϠϴϣΰϟ΍
acequia drain; stream; canal ΔϴϗΎδϟ΍
adalid Chieftain ϞϴϟΪϟ΍
adarme dram; measure ϢϫέΪϟ΍
adobe clay brick ϑϮτϟ΍
aduana Customhouse ϥ΍ϮϳΪϟ΍
adufe Tambourine ϑΪϟ΍
adunia Abundantly ΎϴϧΪϟ΍
ajebeba Flute ΔΑΎ˷Βθϟ΍
ajedrez Chess Ξϧήτθϟ΍
ajonjoli sesame seed ϥϼΠϠΠϟ΍
atalaya Watchtower ϊ΋ϼτϟ΍
azahar orange blossom ήϫΰϟ΍
azúcar Sugar ήϜδϟ΍
Except for some marginal modifications that are governed by the

phonology of Spanish, this phonetic phenomenon of assimilation is vividly
transmitted into Spanish very systematically with almost all shamsi or qamari
sounds with a few exceptions. In fact, the assimilation is so well-established in
Spanish that it is, unlike in Arabic, represented not only in speech, but also in
orthography with one violation. To illustrate, the Arabic word <ϑ˷Ϊϟ΍”
“tambourine” is orthographically transcribed as aldaf but pronounced as [addaf],
whereas in Spanish it is orthographically transcribed as adufe and pronounced as
[adufe] with no presence of the sound [l] of the definite article. The only violation
is the reduction of the expected gemination of the consonant to a single one i.e.,
[adufe] instead of [addufe].
10.4. What Justified the Borrowing?!

The manner in which many of those Arabic loanwords have changed in
Spanish in both pronunciation and transcription serves as an indication that the
loanwords were transplanted in Spanish via the informal spoken medium rather
than the formal written medium of orthography and grammar. It is because of this
manner of borrowing the ‘al’ sneaked into Spanish as an inseparable part of the
stems of those loanwords. It also implies that the overall process of borrowing
was more forcefully effectuated by the lay speakers of Spanish rather than by its
scholars. Argument in the direction of such an interpretation comes from Trend

who states, “The Spanish words, it need hardly be said, were not derived from the
classical, written language, but from the colloquial Arabic of Southern Spain”
(Trend, 1931:19-20). Elsewhere he also mentions: “The words are all hearsay
learned by word of mouth and not from books” (1953:60). This last statement is
very realistic because it is actually reflected in the manner in which the illiterate
native speakers of Arabic internalize the pronunciation of those words through
sheer impersonation of the spoken language. Relevant to this line of discussion is
the following statement from Penny (1991:218) who points out that “A very high
proportion of the Arabisms in Spanish are nouns.... These loans very frequently
begin with the syllable ‘al’, owing to the fact that the Arabic definite article ‘al’–
which was invariable for gender and number – was interpreted by speakers of
Romance as an integral part of the noun and therefore borrowed together with the
noun it accompanied”.
Obviously, there are many phonetic and phonological changes Arabic
loanwords underwent in their Spanish habitat. Foremost of such changes involved
the most characteristic sound features of Arabic including the pharyngeal sounds
<ω ,Ρ> = =Í], the velars sounds <ύ ,Υ ,ϕ> = =¯:S], the emphatic sounds < ,ι
υ ,ρ ,ν> = =&ҕ? together with several other sounds such as <ϭ> = [Y] and
<ε> = [5]. Frequently, the difficult Arabic sound was replaced by a convenient
Spanish one or it was dropped. The words in table 10/4, below, are presented as
examples in their Spanish and Arabic forms:
Sound Change Arabic Spanish

Arabic Pronunciation
From To Origin Rendition
[] = ω dropped νήόϟ΍ !CNCT Alarde
[Í] = Ρ [f] alfeña or
Δ˷ϨΤϟ΍ !CNÍ+PPC
[Í] = Ρ [h] alheña
[:] = Υ [k] ΥΎϨϤϟ΍ !CNOCPCÖ: almanaque;
[:] = Υ [f] ΔΟήΨϟ΍ !CN:7TC alforja;
[:] = Υ dropped ϥΰΨϤϟ΍ !CNOC:\CP almacén
[q] = ϕ [k] ΔϴϗΎδϟ΍ !CUUCÖS+LC Acequia
[Y] = ϭ [gu] ϱΩ΍ϭ YCÖFKÖ guad–––
Table 10/4. Examples of sound changes in Arabic loanwords in Spanish.
Perhaps one of the most interesting aspects of sound/letter conversion

between Arabic and Spanish is the one which deals with the Arabic sounds that
are transliterated into the Spanish letter/grapheme <j>. If one quickly surveys the
Arabic loanwords in Spanish (Batzarov, Zdravko, 2004; Diccionario de la
Lengua Espanola, 1956) containing letter/grapheme <j>, one will discover that
<j> may be a transliteration of the letters/sounds of <ε> = [ ] as in <ajedrez > =
<Ξϧήτθϟ΍> = “chess”; of <Ν> = [] as in <aljofifa> = <Δϔϴϔ˵Πϟ΍> “floor mop”; of
<Ρ> = [Í] as in <jaique> = <Ϛ΋ΎΣ> = “weaver”; of <Υ> = [:] as in <mujalta> =

<ΔτϟΎΨϣ>= “get together” and of <˰ϫ> as in <sajelar> = <ϝΎ˷˰Ϭγ> “laxative”.
Undoubtedly, there are two reasons why several sounds of Arabic have been
transliterated in one Spanish letter. First, some of those sounds do not have
counterparts in Spanish; thus, it all depends on the psycholinguistic/phonological
filter of the native speaker of Spanish and the phonetic approximation that he/she
comes up with for the Arabic sounds. Second, perhaps a more interesting reason
brought to light by Ruter (2004) based on information from Rafael Lapesa’s
Historia de la lengua española (1981) indicating that the phonetic value of the
letter/grapheme <j> had changed throughout the history of the Spanish language
from [5] to [:] which took place in the 16th century. He summarizes the impact of
this sound shift in the quotation below:
“Because of this shift, the Old Arabic borrowings continued to be written with
<j>, whereas the small number of new Arabic loanwords which contained the
phonemes :ÍJ [ = <Υ Ρ ˰ϫ >] were also written with <j>. This explains why
<j> can represent both 5 and :ÍJ in Arabic loanwords” (2004: 10).
The author also produced the following table to summarize the distribution of
when Arabic words were borrowed into Spanish and how the Arabic phonemes
were collapsed into Spanish ones and eventually transliterated in the letter <j>.
% Arabic Spanish
th
Before 16 century 94% 5 =ε ; = Ν 5
th j
After 16 century 6% := Υ ; Í = Ρ ; J = ˰ϫ :
Table 10/5. Indicates historical change in phonemic value of Spanish letter <j>
and its impact on transliterating Arabic sounds.
There are also historical indications of problems with consonant clusters

for the Spaniard learners of Arabic. According to Penny (2002: 270), Arabic
words ending in a consonant cluster were adapted either by adding a final <e> or
by inserting a vowel between the two consonants as in the examples in table 10/6,
below.
Arabic Word Phonetic Transcription Spanish Rendition

νήόϟ΍ !CNCT alarde
ϦϤΜϟ΍ !C667OP azumbre
ήμϘϟ΍ !CNSCT Alcazar
ϦτϘϟ΍ !CNS7P Algodón
Ϧϫέ TCJP Rehén
Table 10/6. Example of consonant cluster reduction in Arabic loanwords in
Spanish.
Notice that in [!C667OP] = <azumbre>, the gemination [doubling] of the

consonant has been reduced to a single consonant. The reduction of doubles into
singles when the ‘al’ is prefixed to shamsi-initiated sounds is consistent with the
linguistic status of gemination in Spanish. In Spanish, gemination is rare due to a
Romance substratum which tends to inhibit it (Corriente, 1977:66). Corriente
continues his comments on Spanish Arabic pointing out that regardless of the
native resistance to gemination, some instances of gemination were preserved in
Spanish Arabic. Geminations often in the form of <rr> and <ll> have been
preserved; however, these two are mere orthographic geminations [i.e., they are
doubles of letters not sounds] rather than phonetic or phonological because they
represent autonomous sounds not doubles of single sounds. Thus, apparently, due
to this phonological constraint, all the geminations that originally emerge in
Arabic as a result of prefixing the definite article to shamsi-initiated words have
disappeared in Spanish except for the ‘r-initiated’ ones such as in table 10/7,
below.
Loanwords in
Meaning Arabic Origin Pronunciation
Spanish
Arrabal Suburb ξΑήϟ΍ !CT¥TCD
Arraez Chief βϴ΋ήϟ΍ !CTTC¥!KÖU
Arrayán Myrtle ϥΎΤϳήϟ΍ !CTTCL¥ÍCÖP
road (stone
Arrecife ϒϴλήϟ΍ !CTTC¥KÖH
paved)
Arrejaque Spear ϕΎηήϟ΍ !CTTC5¥5CÖS
Arrelde Weight Ϟσήϟ΍ !CT¥TCN
Arroba Weight ϊΑήϟ΍ !CT¥T7D
Arrocabe top cross beam ΏΎϛήϟ΍ !CTT+¥MCÖD
Arroz Rice ίήϟ΍ !CT¥T7\
Table 10/7. Retention of geminated Arabic <rr> in Spanish as in original Arabic
loanwords.
In fact, the geminated <rr> appears even in medial positions in some Arabic
loanwords in Spanish such as in:
“jarra” “Γ˷ήΟ” [a44a] “earthen jar”

“algarroba” “Ώϭ˷ήΨϟ΍” [!CN:C44WÖD] “carob bean”
The reason for the retention of only <rr> gemination may be exclusively
accounted for in terms of the presence in Spanish, at the time, of a sound which
resembled the geminated /rr/ of Arabic. This interpretation may also serve as a
piece of diachronic evidence that today’s <ere> and <erre> distinction has been
present in Spanish at least phonetically–if not phonologically as well– since the

eighth century A.D. and thereafter.
Yet another very interesting feature of transplanting Arabic sounds in
Spanish is the destiny of Arabic <ϭ> = [w] which is replaced highly consistently
with <gua>. The best examples are some compound geographic names involving
the Arabic word <ϱΩ΍ϭ> = “river or valley”– pronounced as [¥YCÖFKÖ]. The [¥YCÖFKÖ]
portion of those names is very systematically rendered <guad> in Spanish (Arnold
and Guillaume, 1931: 25; Spaulding, 1962: 59). Table 10/8, below, demonstrates
some examples of such words:
The conversion of <w> into <gu> is an orthographically and phonetically
conspicuous change and if it is combined with other phonetic changes it can truly
conceal the Arabic origin of some words. Most typical of such words is
<Guadalajara> which sounds so much Spanish in orthography and pronunciation
that hardly anyone would guess it is of Arabic origin. Nevertheless, one should
know that its etymology is <ΓέΎΠΤϟ΍ ϱΩ΍ϭ> pronounced as =YCÖFKÖ!CNÍ+CÖTC]
meaning “the river or valley of stones”. In the absence of [w] = <ϭ>, [] = <Ν>
and [Í] = <Ρ> sounds in Spanish the conversion is considerably radical.
Spanish Form Arabic Form Arabic Pronunciation Meaning

YCÖFKÖ
Guadalquivir ήϴΒϜϟ΍ ϱΩ΍ϭ the great river
!CNMCDKÖT
YCÖFKÖ
Guadalajara ΓέΎΠΤϟ΍ ϱΩ΍ϭ the stones river
!CNÍ+CÖTC
YCÖFKÖ
Guadalaviar ξϴΑϻ΍ ϱΩ΍ϭ the white river
!CN!CDLC
YCÖFKÖ
Guadalcázar ήμϘϟ΍ ϱΩ΍ϭ the fort river
!CNSCT
YCÖFKÖ
Guadalcotón ϦτϘϟ΍ ϱΩ΍ϭ the cotton river
!CNS7P
YCÖFKÖ
Guadalmedina ΔϨϳΪϤϟ΍ ϱΩ΍ϭ the city river
!CNOCFKÖPC
YCÖFKÖ
Guadarrama Ϟϣήϟ΍ ϱΩ΍ϭ the sand river
!CTTCON
YCÖFKÖ the pomegranates
Guarroman ϥΎϣ˷ήϟ΍ ϱΩ΍ϭ
!CTT7OOCÖP river
Table 10/8. Examples of Hispanicizing Arabic [w] into [gu]
10.5 From Arabic to Spanish to English

There are many words of Arabic that moved into English via Spanish;
many of those words were also admitted into English with their definite article
‘al’ intact.
In general, there have been two routes by which Spanish words made their
way into English. First is the European route– which is the direct route–
beginning with the 16th century when Britain came in contact with Spain for
reasons of trade, exploration and colonization bringing about both friendly and
unfriendly relationships. In both cases, Spain and Britain interacted linguistically
and culturally as a result of which many Spanish words were borrowed into
English. A good number of those words were originally Arabic loanwords in
Spanish. Second is the American route which began when Spain occupied most of
the provinces of Central America and South America and gradually established
Spanish as the dominant language of education as well as the day-to-day medium
of communication. Evidently, these two routes did not remain apart. Early
Spanish loanwords moved to North America with the transplantation of English in
the New Continent.
With ‘al’ Article Without ‘al’ Article

admiral (ήΤΑ)ϝ΍ ήϴϣ΍ amber ήΒϨϋ
alcaide Ϊ΋ΎϘϟ΍ camphor έϮϓΎϛ
alcalde ϲοΎϘϟ΍ cipher ήϔλ
alcázar ήμϘϟ΍ cotton ϦτϘϟ΍
alchemy ˯ΎϴϤϴϜϟ΍ lute ΩϮόϟ΍
alcohol ϝϮΤϜϟ΍ magazine ϥΰΨϣ
alcove Δ˷ΒϘϟ΍ mattress Ρήτϣ
alembic ϖϴΒϧϻ΍ nadir ή˰ϴψϧ
alfalfa ΔλΎϔμϔϟ΍ orange, ΞϧέΎϧ
algarroba Ώϭ˷ήΨϟ΍ saffron ϥ΍ήϔϋί
algebra ήΒΠϟ΍ sugar ή˷Ϝγ
algorism ϲϣίέ΍ϮΨϟ΍ syrup Ώϭήη
Alhambra ˯΍ήϤΤϟ΍ zenith ΖϤγ
alidade ΓΩ΍Ϊόϟ΍
alkali ϲϟΎϘϟ΍
almanac ΥΎϨϤϟ΍
arroba ϊΑήϟ΍
Table 10/9. Example of Arabic words in English via Spanish
10.6 Conclusions
Linguistic borrowing between languages is a natural phenomenon when
languages come into contact for a long period of time. Which language borrows
more depends on many factors foremost among them are: a) duration of contact;
b) level of civilizational achievement; c) political and military supremacy; d)
population size and population concentration; e) linguistic and cultural
specificities etc…In case of the Arab and Spanish interaction, certainly the
duration of almost eight centuries was long enough to exercise tangible linguistic
and cultural impact on Spanish language and culture knowing that the Arabs had
an almost complete political and military supremacy at least in the Andalusia
region. The linguistic fact that many words were embedded in Spanish with their
Arabic definite article <al> intact signals a very significant trend in the process of
borrowing. Very much unlike the borrowing of Greek and Latin words into
English during the Renaissance, which was effected by scholars and intellectuals,
the borrowing of many Arabic words, especially those with <al> serves a strong
evidence that the borrowing was primarily the outcome of popular interaction by
the masses of the people on the street, in the market place and in other social
gathering. These day-to-day interlocutors were not linguistically sophisticated to
realize that <al> was an article prefixed to the root not a part of the root. These
popular interlocutors were also not sophisticated in the art of pronunciation to be
able to handle many difficult sounds, especially the emphatics and the guttural,
for which Arabic is very famous. This explains why in many cases the change in
pronunciation can very conspicuous.
10.7 Bibliography
Batzarov, Zdravko (2004). Arabic Loan-words in Spanish. Orbis Latinus, 15.
Burckhardt, T. (1972). Moorish Culture in Spain. New York: McGraw-Hill Book
Company.
Cantarino, V. (1994). From Spoken to Written Language and Back: Some
Cultural Considerations on Hispano-Arabic Phonetics. Perspectives on
Arabic Linguistics VI (eds. Eid, Cantarino & Walters). Amsterdam: John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
Corominas, J. (1970). Diccionario Critico Etimologico de la Lengua Castellana.
Madrid: Gredos.
Corominas, J. and Pascual, J. A. (1980). Diccionario Critico Etimologico
Castellano e Hispanico. Madrid: Gredos.
Corriente, F. (1977). A Grammatical Sketch of the Spanish Arabic Dialect Bundle.
Madrid: Instituto Hispano-Arabe De Cultura.
———. (1997). A Dictionary of Andalusi Arabic. Leiden: Brill.
De Gamez, Tana (1973). Simon and Schuster’s International Dictionary:
English-Spanish, Spanish-English. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Entwistle, W. J. (1938). The Spanish Language. New York: The Macmillan
Company.
Finegan, Edward and Besnier, Niko (1989). Language: Its Structure and Use.
Glick, Thomas F. (1979) Islamic and Christian Spain in the Early Middle Ages.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Jovanovich.
Lane, Edward W. (1874). Madd Al-Qamoos: An Arabic-English Lexicon.
(Reprinted1968). Beirut: Librairie du Liban.
Lapesa, Rafael (1981). Historia de la Lengua Española. Madrid: Gredos.
New Comprehensive Spanish-English, English-Spanish Dictionary. (1966).
Madrid: EDAF.
———. (1979). The Sun and the Moon Status of Arabic Ν: A Descriptive Study
(in Arabic). Proceedings of the First Pan-Arab Linguistics Seminar.
Tunisia.
———. (1980). The Sun and the Moon Status of Arabic Ν: A Descriptive
Study.(in English) International Journal of Dravidian Linguistics, Vol.
9:1.
———. (1992).’Transliterating English in Arabic’. Journal of Arabic Linguistics,
Vol. 24, 21-34.
Penny, Ralph (1991). A History of the Spanish Language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Qassoom, Jamal (2007).http://www.loghaty.com/vb3/showthread.php?t=1012.
Real Academia Espanola (1956). Diccionario de la Lengua Espanola. Madrid:
RAE.
Reilly, Bernard F. (1992). The Contest of Christian and Muslim Spain.
Cambridge/Mass.:Blackwell
Ruter, Weston (2004).Arabic Phonemes Represented by the Spanish Letter <J>.
http://weston.ruter.net/projects/misc-linguistics/arabic-phonemes-represented-by-
the-spanish-letter-j.html.
Sibawaihi (1881). Le Livre de Sibawaihi. Paris: L’Imprimerie National.
Spaulding, Robert K. (1962). How Spanish Grew? Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Steiger, Arnald (1963). Origin and Spread of Oriental Words in European
Languages. New York: Vanni Publishers & Booksellers.
Torreblanca, M. (1994). On Hispano-Arabic Historical Phonology: Latin and
Romance Evidence . Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics VI (eds. Eid,
Cantarino & Walters). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Trend, J. B. (1931). Spain and Portugal. The Legacy of Islam (eds. Sir Thomas
Arnold and Alfred Guillaume). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
———. (1953). The Language and History of Spain. London: Hutchinson’s
University Press.
Versteegh, Kees (1997). The Arabic Language. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Chapter 11
Empowering Arabic Orthography for better

Transliteration of Foreign Languages
It should be made clear at the outset that the purpose of this project is
categorically not a covert or overt intent to change the standard orthography of
Arabic. The intent is squarely to suggest a design for a more phonetic and
accurate transliteration of foreign languages in Arabic. It is, in essence, a
transcription system premised almost exclusively on Arabic core orthographic
symbols to be used for special purposes.
The broad meaning of communicative competence in a second language
means the acquisition of oral and/or written skills in that language. Thus,
transliteration, which is an attempt to render the pronunciation of one language in
terms of the alphabet or script of another language, is yet another vehicle to
establish a bridge of communication across two languages, especially when the
reader in one language does not possess literacy skills in the other language.
Transliteration is not only desirable, but also essential if there is to be mutual
understanding among nations of today (Stirling, 1964).
In order to set the scene for a better understanding of the process of
transliteration and its connection to pronunciation, it is imperative to immediately
clarify two concepts. First, transliteration does not necessarily mean “to represent
or spell in the characters of another alphabet”, as it is traditionally defined in most
of the dictionaries not all languages have strictly alphabetic systems of writing.
Moreover, the alphabetic systems also differ among themselves as to the extent to
which the alphabetic characters are supplemented with a system of diacritics most
of which have an equal phonetic role to that of the core characters in the encoding
and decoding of the linguistic message. This point is directly relevant to Arabic,
as it has many diacritics which play an essential role in the transcription and the
rendition of its sound code. Second, although we agree with Stirling, among
others, that transliteration does not mean accurate representation of the speech-
sounds of one language (1964), we do not see why consistency and accuracy
should not be targeted in any transliteration activity.
The transliteration of English words in Arabic is a very common
phenomenon in the area of proper and common names, especially in politics,
geography, arts and sciences, and in other commercial brand names. Despite the
broad scope of this transliteration, there seem to be no standardized conventions
to govern it other than the broad matching of the alphabet characters in the two
languages. There is ample evidence that such a broad matching of the two
alphabets is not sufficient to yield the desired accuracy. If maximum accuracy is
intended, then all the potentials of the Arabic script and other Arabic-based scripts
should be utilized, a fact which is frequently disregarded. It is, therefore, not
uncommon to encounter different degrees of consistency and accuracy in the
materials of different transliterators. For instance, in the transliteration of the so-

called hard English <g> = [g], transliterators from Iraq tend to use the so-called
Persian <̱> as in <English = ϱΰϴϠ̴ϧ·> and <England = ΓήΘϠ̴ϧ·>, whereas those
from Egypt use the Arabic character and transliterate the above two words as
<ϱΰϴϠΠϧ·> and <ΓήΘϠΠϧ·>, respectively. In case of Egyptian Arabic there seems no
need to use the <̱> since the <Ν> is pronounced as [g]. There is also some
tendency towards a free variation in the rendition of [g] either as <Ν> = [] or as
<ύ> = [¯] as in <Pentagon> = <ϥϮϏΎΘϨΑ> or <ϥϮΟΎΘϨΑ> and in <Margaret> =
<ΖϳήϏέΎϣ> or <ΖϳήΟέΎϣ>. One can also notice the inconsistency in the rendition of
the English sound [] as in <Churchill> = <ϞηήθΗ> ,<ϞθΗήθΗ> or <Ϟηήη> and also
in <Charlie Chaplin> = <ϦϠΑΎη ϲϟέΎη>, or <ϦϠΑΎθΗ ϲϟέΎθΗ>. In fact, the inconsistency
may also be encountered in the same work of the same author(s). In Elementary
Modern Standard Arabic (1983, Peter Abboud et al.), the name <Michigan> has
been transliterated in three different forms, viz., <ϥΎϐϴθϴϣ> (p. 108), <ϥΎϐθϴϣ> (p.
109) and <ϥΎϐθϣ> (p. 117).
In dealing with the subject of transliteration, per se, the long-term goals of
an investigator are the following two. First, identify some systematic principles
for a more accurate cross-language transliteration, in general, and transliteration
into Arabic, in particular. Second, use the accurate transliteration as a tool to teach
cross-language pronunciation. However, if the emphasis at this stage, is on
English then it is partly because English is the language with which Arabic has
the broadest interaction, and partly because of a need to restrict the domain to
allow for an in-depth treatment of the English-Arabic transliteration.
Nevertheless, even if some non-English items are included in the examples cited
in this study, it is the English pronunciation of those items that is taken into
account. In order to develop the most comprehensive treatment of English-Arabic
transliteration, the subject should be addressed from different aspects.
11.2 Comprehensive Look at English-Arabic Transliteration

In order to cover all of the relevant aspects of English-Arabic
transliteration, one has to go to the root of the problem which is essentially a
problem of inconsistency in the process and incompatibility in the comparative
systems of pronunciation and orthography. Once those aspects are determined
then one should proceed in the direction of alleviating the problems of
consistency and secure higher compatibility. A reasonable outline for further
investigation of the theme is through coverage of the three aspects mentioned
below:
1. The reasons for the inconsistency and incompatibility in the transliteration.
2. The potential accuracy that Standard Arabic Orthography [SAO] can yield.
3. The means to improve the consistency and compatibility and raise accuracy.
Empowering Arabic Orthography for better Transliteration 155
Prior to dealing directly with different aspects of inconsistency and

incompatibility in an explicit and orderly manner, one must distinguish between
the concepts of inconsistency and incompatibility. Inconsistency is much easier to
handle than incompatibility. It is simply attributed to the lack of a set of
standardized conventions among transliterators to be used uniformly and
systematically. As for incompatibility, it stands here for the overall disparity
between the English and Arabic orthographies and their respective sound systems.
The greater the incompatibility, the greater the inaccuracy becomes.
11.3 Some Aspects of Inconsistency

The inconsistency among the Arab transliterators is primarily attributed to
three reasons. First, free variation among the transliterators in selecting the Arabic
symbols to be assigned to some English phonemes and/or graphemes; second,
difference in the familiarity and knowledge of the transliterators with the
grapheme-phoneme correspondence in English and the transformation of that
familiarity and knowledge into the transliteration process and; third, the absence
of standardized conventions for transliteration. All those three reasons are
interrelated and they could be collapsed under the following conventions
1. Try to premise the transliteration on accurate pronunciation rather than on

orthographic matching or mere replacement of letter for letter. For instance,
the name <Carolina> [as in North Carolina] should not be transliterated as
<ΎϨϴϟϭέΎϛ >, but rather as <ΎϨϳϻϭέΎϛ> because the latter is more accurate phonetic
rendition of the English pronunciation.
2. Stop replacing English short vowels–which are many in number and too many
in actual spoken form– with Arabic long vowels. For instance, stop
transliterating a name such as <Clinton> as <ϥϮΘϨϴϠϛ> or <Washington> as
<ϥϮτϨη΍ϭ> because they should be <Ϧ˶ΘϨ˶Ϡϛ> and <Ϧ˶ΘϨ˶η΍ϭ>, respectively.
3. Systematize the conversion of English consonants into their approximate
Arabic counterparts. For instance, if SAO does not have the needed
counterparts then one should seek– as it will soon be recommended– an
available substitute from other Arabic-based orthographies For instance, stop
the arbitrary transliteration of English <g> with either <ύ> , <Ν> or <̱>. If in
a certain English word, the letter <g> is pronounced [] designate it with
Arabic <Ν> and if it is pronounced [I], designate it with the Farsi symbol
<̱>, but never transliterate English [I] with Arabic <ύ> as in <Michigan> to
be rendered <ϥΎϐϴθϴϣ>. A far more accurate transliteration of <Michigan>
would be <Ϧ˴˰̳˰˶θ˶˰ϣ> or < Ϧ˶˰̳˰˶θ˶˰ϣ>.
4. If the trend toward replacing short English vowels with long Arabic ones is
restrained, then there should be some conventions to transliterate the short
vowels, especially those that do not have one-to-one counterparts in Arabic.
Foremost of such short vowels is the schwa [], which indeed is the most
frequently occurring vowel in spoken English (McKenzie-Brown, 2006: 2).
The most convenient and approximate substitute recommended for a schwa
[] in this study is a lax version of Arabic Kasrah = <˰˶˰˰> to be pronounced

somewhat lower and less fronted as it is usually pronounced in some dialects
of Arabic rather than in Standard or Classical Arabic; also, a somewhat lax
FatHa would be an acceptable substitute. There are two reasons to replace the
schwa with either a lax Arabic FatHa or Kasrah. First, shortening the FatHa
or the Kasrah and relaxing them somewhat will render them phonetically the
nearest sounds to schwa and the phonetic difference is very difficult to detect
by phonetically inexperienced individuals; second, using these two short
vowels to replace the schwa is the best device to deter any tendency to replace
it with one of the three long Arabic vowels <ϱ ˬϭ ˬ΍> a tendency so
predominantly pervasive in traditional transliteration. If this approximation is
established as a convention, both Arabic transliteration and pronunciation of
English would be tremendously improved. Imagine, hundreds of names in the
form of <Jackson, Washington, Boston, Wilson> which are traditionally
transcribed as <ϥϮδϠϳϭ ˬϥϮτγϮΑ ˬϥϮτϨη΍ϭ ˬϥϮδϛΎΟ> should really be replaced by
the following renditions < Ϧ˶δϟ˶ϭ ˬϦ˶Θγϭ˰ɴ Α ˬϦ˶ΘϨ˶η΍ϭ ˬϦ˶δϛΎΟ >. Once again, the latter
rendition with a Kasra = <˰˶˰˰> instead of a Waw = <ϭ> in the above names
secures considerable consistency, which, in turn, results in enhanced accuracy
of both transliteration and pronunciation.
11.4 Some Aspects of Incompatibility

Generally speaking, incompatibility is attributed to several reasons,
foremost of which are:
1. The basic differences between the two sound systems.
2. The extent of the familiarity and knowledge of the transliterator with the rules
and dynamics that govern the grapheme-phoneme [letter-sound]
correspondence within one language and across the two languages.
3. The availability of appropriate graphemes [symbols] to match the existing

phonemes [sounds].
Each of the above three reasons needs further elaboration supported by

examples and other evidence.
11.5 Basic Matching and Mismatching between English and

Arabic
The basic difference between the sound and the script systems of English
and Arabic could be portrayed in terms of their consonants, vowels and other
prosodic features [e.g., stress placement and rhythm], and the graphic symbols
available to represent them.
11.5.1 Consonant Matching
English has 24 consonantal sounds of which 18 have, more or less,

accurate graphic representations in SAO. Table 11.1, below, shows the matching:
English Phoneme Example Arabic Grapheme Example

1 D Ban Ώ ϥΎΑ
2 V Tab Ε ΏΎΗ
3 F Dam Ω ϡ΍Ω
4 M Can ϙ ϥΎϛ
5 H Fat ϑ ΕΎϓ
6 6 Thor Ι έϮΛ
ʔ & that Ϋ Ε΍Ϋ
8 U Sam α ϡΎγ
9 \ zap ί Ώ΍ί
10 5 sheen ε Ϧϴη
11 T ream έ Ϣϳέ
12 N lamb ϝ ϡϻ
13 O mat ϡ ΕΎϣ
14 P noon ϥ ϥϮϧ
15 Y win ϭ ϥ˶ϭ
16 [ [L] ya(h)! ϱ Ύϳ
17 J hat ˰ϫ ΕΎ˰ϫ
18 jar Ν έΎΟ
Table 11.1. Matching of equivalent English-Arabic graphemes and Phonemes
The remaining six English consonants without graphic representations in

SAO are =R?=I?=X?=<?=0? and [], as in <pot>, <goat> <very> <measure>
<sing> and <church>, respectively. It follows from this comparison that SAO can
yield a neat 75 % accurate matching of English-Arabic consonants. Unfortunately,
the problem is more with vowels than with consonants.
11.5.2 Vowel Matching
Of the basic 15 GA and 20 RP vowels and diphthongs, Arabic can

accurately or approximately render only 8, as displayed in table 11.2 which
implies that there are at least 7 vocalic elements for GA and 12 vocalic elements
for RP that remain largely or categorically unrepresented. If one assumes that the
mastery of any of the two vowel systems of GA or RP is a legitimate and
praiseworthy target for an Arab learner of English or a transliterator then the

target would stand as follows. If one considers the GA system for comparison
with Arabic, the vowel elements that will remain unrepresented will be the
following: /'#nGQand QK/ as in <bed, hard, bought, America, bait, go and
boy>, respectively. Based on the GA and Arabic comparison, SAO can yield
about 53% accuracy. Overall, SAO has, at least theoretically, a maximum
potential for an approximate 67% accurate rendition of the English consonants
and vowels, which is actually not a high level of accuracy. However, the most
serious question in this regard is how to maintain the maximum potential of 67%
accuracy consistently. If the diacritics are not marked, we are left with only three
long vowels which have the graphic representation of <ϱ ,ϭ ,΍>. Thus, the actual
accuracy of vowel representation may drop from 53% to 20% which is too low a
percentage to claim reliable accuracy. What, then, are the means to maintain the
maximum potential of SAO for 67% accuracy? There are three ways to maintain
it. First, retain the application of the relevant diacritical marks of Arabic. Second,
be familiar with the rules of pronunciation in English. Third, resist the
phonetic/phonological interference from the native language [Arabic].
English Arabic
Example Example Meaning
Vowel Vowel
KÖ Seen (˯Ύϳ) ϴ˰ Ϧϴγ <α> “Letter-name”
+ Sin (Γήδ˴ϛ) ˰˶˰˰ Ϧ˶γ “tooth”
3 Bat ΍ ΕΎΑ “spend the night”
¡ But ˰˴˰ Ζ˴Α “decide”
WÖ Fool ϭ ϝϮϓ “broad beans”
7 Full ˰˰˵˰ Ϟ˵ϓ “jasmine”
CW How Ϯ˰˴˰˰ ϥϮ˴ϫ “ease”
CK High ϲ˰˴˰˰ ϒϴ˴γ “sword”
Table 11.2. Strict approximation of English vowel phonemes with Arabic vowel
graphemes.
As was mentioned earlier on, the diacritics rarely come into general use;
they are often used only in texts of the Al-Qur’Ɨn, in grammar books and reading
books for children, and to some extent in poetry (Beeston, 1970). In fact, the
disuse of the diacritics is traditionally more noticeable in transliteration than in the
original Arabic texts. Thus, if the short Arabic vowels /˰˶˰˰ ,˰˵˰˰ ,˰˴˰/ are not marked,
the accuracy of the vocalic representation, as mentioned earlier on, will drop to
20% since the absence of these diacritics will also hamper an approximate
rendition of the Arabic diphthongs /CK/ and /CW/. It is true that the sentential
context usually helps with the prediction of the diacritics, but this is not
necessarily so in the transliteration of non-Arabic words, especially when the
reader is not familiar with the source language and has little time to consider the
text and the context. Such cases typically occur in broadcasting for which many
examples will be cited in due course.
11.6. Familiarity with Rules and Dynamics of Pronunciation

Familiarity with the rules of pronunciation in English and Arabic, the
dynamics of their sound systems and the overall grapheme-phoneme
correspondence is very important in maintaining the maximum potential of
transliteration or lowering it. English is a well-known language for its grapheme-
phoneme inconsistency (Odisho, 2004). It is more so in the representation of
vowels than consonants. It is true that almost every consonant in English may
appear as silent; therefore, words such as <Cambridge> or <Illinois> should not
be transliterated as <ΝΩήΒϣΎϛ> and <βϳϮϨϴϟ·> since the <d> in the former and <s> in
the latter are silent. It is also true that in English one letter or a combination of
letters may stand for one sound or more; therefore, the transliterator should know
that, for instance, the <th> in ‘Heath’ stands for the Arabic <Ι>, while <th> in
<heather> stands for Arabic<Ϋ>. However, despite all this consonantal
inconsistency, the manner in which the 15 vocalic elements of GA and 20 of RP
are graphically represented in terms of the available 5 vowel characters reveals far
more extensive inconsistency with vowels than is the case with the consonants.
This extensive inconsistency requires a thorough knowledge by the transliterator
with regard to this aspect of English pronunciation.
The most salient characteristics of the vowel systems and their dynamics
in Arabic and English were best captured through the global concepts of
centrifugal and centripetal vowel systems first suggested in Odisho 1992,
elaborated on later in 2003 and revisited casually in this book.
11.7 Enhancing Consistency and Compatibility of Transliteration

Up to this juncture, the focus has been on maintaining the maximum
potential of SAO in transliteration and on avoiding any decrease in accuracy or
any unwarranted deviation and distortion of SAO. Any further discussion of
enhancing the accuracy beyond what SAO provides will lead us to the
introduction of a modified version of SAO which is to be called the Augmented
Arabic Orthography [abbreviated, hereafter, as AAO].
The core of AAO lies in the addition of slightly modified Arabic alphabet
characters and one additional diacritical mark, all of which have been historically
added to the original Arabic script when the latter was adopted for the
transcription of non-Arabic languages as in Farsi, Kurdish, Urdu etc... Additional
symbols such as the Farsi < ̱ ̫ ̧ ‫ >̟ ׃‬and the superscript Haþek <ˇ> are all
very important for two reasons:
1. They do not disfigure or distort the identity and the neatness of SAO.
2. They considerably contribute to the enhancement of the accuracy of

transliteration.
The use of <‫ >׃‬for /v/, <̟> for /p/, <̫> for /</ and <̧> for // is utterly
consistent with the Arabic script, since the addition of three-point diacritic to a
character is already an existing device in SAO as in <Ι>. The addition of a
diagonal stroke to <̯> (i.e. <̳> to stand for [g]) hardly causes any disfiguration of
the basic alphabet character. In fact, the addition of the stroke to <̯> indicates
that it shares the same place and manner of articulation with [I]. Perhaps, most
important of all is the fact that by adding those modified characters the accuracy
of the consonantal transliteration will be raised to almost 100% since the only
remaining unrepresented English consonant /0/ could easily be accounted for by a
combination of < ̳Ϩ/ = <̳ +ϥ /as in the transliteration of <reading> = <̱Ϩ Ϊ˶ ϳέ> and
<writing> = <̱Ϩ˰˶Θϴ΍έ>. In the area of vowel transliteration, the adoption of the
symbol <ˇ>, which in Kurdish is used as a superscript with <Ϯ> and <ϱ> to
represent mid vowels similar to those of RP English in <bed> and <pot>,
respectively, will graphically change SAO only minimally. However, what is of
paramount importance is that with the adoption of this single diacritic, the
accuracy of the vocalic representation of English is drastically increased. Besides
enabling the transliterator to transcribe the ['] and [b] vowels, it also serves as an
expedient device to transcribe the diphthongs [QK], [GK] and [QW]. For the
application of this diacritic and the demonstration of its phonetic significance,
notice the transcription of the following English words in AAO in table 11.3,
below.
Word Transcription Aao

Bell /D'N/ Ϟϴ˰Αɴɴ
Bail /DGKN/ Ϟϴϴ˰Αɴɴ
Bought /DnÖV/ Ζ‫ا‬Β
Boat /DQWV/ ΖϮ‫ا‬Β
Boy /DQK/ ϱ‫ا‬Β
Table 11.3. Samples of more phonetically accurate transliteration of vowels.
With the use of the Kurdish haþek, AAO will be able to transliterate with
reasonable accuracy 13 of the 15 vocalic elements of GA which represents an
increase from 53% to over 87%. This in itself is a remarkable improvement in
accuracy through the use of a single diacritic. And with the approximation of
English [] to either the Arabic fatHa or kasra, according to the graphic form of
the English words, both SAO and AAO will achieve even more accuracy in the
transliteration of English according to its pronunciation rather than through the
mechanical transliteration of its orthographic forms, i.e., the alphabetic characters.
Up to this extent, AAO represents the farthest limit to which SAO is
carried in terms of modification to yield more pronunciation accuracy. No other
modifications will be introduced here because any such additional modifications
will cause readily noticeable disturbance to the formal uniformity, compactness

and overall identity of SAO. However, if the intention of AAS were the creation
of a phonetic transcription for teaching pronunciation, there would be a need to
add a few more modifications and conventions.
11.8 Practical Implications of SAO and AAO

Now, attention will be focused on the advantages gained through strict
adherence to SAO or through recourse to AAO. The maintenance of higher
consistency and compatibility in the transliteration of English, or of any other
foreign language for that matter, into Arabic is not just academic; there are many
practical advantages to be gained. From the personal experience of the writer in
the field of teaching languages and linguistics and his involvement in the training
of newscasters in Arabic, AAO, in particular, has three main advantages:
1. It helps avoid mistaking foreign words for native words, especially in

broadcasting when the reader is, quite often, not given ample opportunity to
consider the text and the context of his materials. Most of the examples cited
in table 11.4, below, are real mistakes on the part of Arab newscasters in
English with the Iraqi radio and television station, in the period from 1967
through 1980.
English Attested Mistaken For Recommend

Meaning
Words Pronunciation Arabic Word ed Sao/Aao
Paul ϝϮΑ [ϝϭɴ˰Α] ϝϮ˴Α urine Ϟ‫̢ا‬
Alice βϴϟ΍ β
˴ ϴ˴ϟ΃ isn’t it? β˶ϟ΁
Bridge ΝήΑ Νή˵Α tower Ν˶ήΑ˸
Park ϙέΎΑ ϙ
˴ έ˴ ΎΑ blessed ϙέΎ̡
Roy ϱϭέ ϱ
˴ ϭ˶ έ˴ irrigated ϱϭέɴ
Mason ϥϮδϴϣ ϥϮδϴ˴ϣ name (f.) Ϧ˶˰˶δ˰ϴ˰˰ϣ
ɴ
Kent ΖϨϛ Ζ
˵ Ϩ˵ϛ I was ΖϨϴ˰ϛɴ
Alan ϥϻ΍ ϥϵ΃ now Ϧ˶ϟ΁
Cream Ϣϳήϛ Ϣϳή˴ϛ name (m.) Ϣϳή˸ϛ
Table 11.4. Examples of traditional transliterations of foreign words mistaken for
Arabic words with recommendations to improve the accuracy.
2. It helps avoid mispronouncing foreign words, such as those in table 11.4

above and table 11.5, below.
3. It teaches correct pronunciation of foreign words and inhibits or reduces the

chances of their distortion.
This last advantage of AAO is equally important to points (a) and (b) above; in
fact, in certain ways it is perhaps the most important of all. The replacement of
the diacritics /˰˶˰˰ ,˰˵˰˰ ,˰˴˰/ with their long counterparts /ϱ ,ϭ ,΍/ is very pervasive with
most of the Arab transliterators and it leads to extensive discrepancy between the
pronunciation of the source words and their Arabic versions. It also nurtures bad
pronunciation habits and, in the long run, it interferes with the natural ability in
mastering or learning the best possible pronunciation of foreign languages [for
more specifics, see Chapter 12].
Attested Recommended Aao

English Words
Transliteration Transliteration
Cambridge ΝήΒϣΎϛ or ΝΩήΒϣΎϛ ΝήΒϤϳ˰ɴ ϛ
Winston Churchill ϞθΗήθΗ ϥϮΘδϨϳϭ /ϥϮΘδϧϭ Ϟ˰̪ήϳ˰ɴ ̪ Ϧ˶Θδϧ˶ϭ
Pan American ϥΎϜϳήϴϣ΍ ϥΎΑ Ϧ˶˰ϛ˶ήϳɴ˰ϣ΍ ϥΎ˰̡
Margaret Thatcher ήθΗΎΛ ΖϳήϏέΎϣ έ̪
˶ ΎΛ Ε˶έ̳έΎϣ
Chicago ϮϏΎϜϴη ϭ̳ɴ ΎϜ˶η
Bush εϮΑ ζ˵Α
Table 11.5. Examples of AAO transliteration securing higher accuracy of
pronunciation.
It is obvious that Arabic transliterators tend to avoid using the short vowel
diacritics /˰˶˰˰ ,˰˵˰˰ ,˰˴˰/ for the following three reasons:
1. Their symbols are not incorporated in the body of Arabic alphabet; therefore,
they have less visibility and, consequently, less frequent use;
2. In general use, they are deleted both in writing and printing for ease of writing
and printing and the avoidance of visual density; and
3. Only their long counterparts are incorporated in the body of Arabic alphabet;
therefore, they have more visibility and, consequently, more frequent use.
Notice that the examples in table 11.6, below, very vividly display the
above three trends in traditional Arabic transliteration, while AAO abides by the
pronunciation version of those words thus avoiding the unwanted long vowels and
replacing them with their approximate short vowels of Arabic.
Attested Recommended Aao

Words
Transliteration Transliteration
Philips βΒϴϠϴϓ β̢˰˶Ϡ˰˶ϔ
Hilton ϥϮΘϠϴ˰ϫ Ϧ˶ΘϠ˶˰ϫ
Marian Anderson ϥϮγήϳΪϧ΍ ϥΎϳέΎϣ Ϧ˶γέ˶Ϊϧ΍ Ϧ˶˰ϳ˶έΎϣ
Mike Tyson ϥϮδϳΎΗ ϚϳΎϣ Ϧ˶δϳΎΗ ϚϳΎϣ
Princeton ϥϮΘδϧήΑ /ϥϮΘδϨϳήΑ Ϧ˰˶ΘδϨή˶ ̢
Remington ϥϮΘϐϨϴϤϳέ /ϥϮΘΠϨϴϤϳέ ϥϭɴ˰ΘϐϨ˶˰Ϥϳέɴ
Latin ϦϴΗϻ Ϧ˶Ηϻ
Lenin ϦϴϨϴϟ Ϧ˰˶Ϩ˰ϴϠɴ
Susan ϥ΍ίϮγ Ϧΰ˶ Ϯδ
ϥϮΘϐϨϴϟέ΍ /ϥϮΘΠϨϴϟέ΍
Arlington Ϧ˰˶Θ̳Ϩ˰˶Ϡέ΁
ϥϮΘϜϨϴϟέ΍
Table 11.6. AAO-based transliteration which avoids unwanted long vowels and
secures better model for accuracy in foreign language pronunciation
In most of the above-cited traditional transliterations, words are

graphically stretched, spatially inflated and phonetically deformed not just
because of long vowels, but also because of the inevitable creation of more long
syllables which in Arabic constitute salient foci for the attraction of stress.
It is true that due to the drastic differences between the English and Arabic
phonological and orthographic systems, interference is inevitable; however, one
should be careful enough with the transliteration so as not to encourage further
and unwanted interference and institutionalize it. Reading those inaccurately
transliterated words and hearing them pronounced equally inaccurately on radio
and television programs contribute, beyond doubt, to further inculcation of bad
pronunci¬ation habits that are so difficult to unlearn because for adults those
habits may amount to phonological fossilization. All such features are the cause
of major pronunciation problems for Arab learners of English as will be handled
in a forthcoming study
11.9 Conclusions
The traditional transliteration of English into Arabic shows serious signs
of inconsistency and incompatibility both of which are, generally speaking,
attributed to the nature of their sound systems and orthographic systems as well as
the lack of a set of standardized conventions for such transliteration. Among the
most necessary standardized conventions is the need for consensus on what
Arabic symbols to use to represent the English sounds as well as the need for
more weight given to the pronunciation of the words involved rather than their
alphabetic [orthographic] forms. Today, the typical traditional transliteration
frequently assumes the form of a mere mechanical transformation of the graphic
forms of the source words in terms of the Arabic alphabetic characters, with
hardly any consideration for the diacritical marks.
Traditional transliteration does not only lead to a low level of accuracy,

but it also leads to unwanted and inflated distortion of the transliterated materials,
most of which are fairly accurately transliterable at two levels of accuracy. The
first level is that of SAO, which stipulates the use of all the Arabic vowel
diacritics, avoidance of unnecessary replacement of the short vowel diacritics
with their alphabetic long vowel counterparts of /ϱ ,ϭ ,΍/ and the observance of a
certain degree of sound-based transliteration rather than a purely letter-based one.
The second level of accuracy is that of AAO in which a few modified Arabic
characters and one vocalic diacritic are brought into play in addition to the
symbols already available with SAO. SAO has a potential to yield approximately
67% accuracy; however, this percentage is frequently reduced drastically due to
the abandonment of the diacritical marks. AAO can raise the accuracy up to 87%
which is considerably higher and which also has the virtue of serving as a base for
a more accurate transcription of foreign words in Arabic for purposes beyond
those of mere transliteration.
It has also been revealed that the distortion in accuracy is more evident
with the transliteration of vowels than with consonants, suggesting that
transliterators should be more careful in handling the representation of vowels,
since the latter can easily impact the overall rhythm if the transliterated items are
to be reproduced orally.
The accurate transliteration of non-Arabic words is not tackled here for
mere academic purposes; on the contrary, the accurate rendition has three applied
purposes. First, avoid confusion of foreign words with native words and
eventually mispronouncing them. Second, teaching correct pronunciation. Third,
inhibiting or reducing the chances of inculcating bad habits in learning the
pronunciation of foreign languages through inaccurately transliterated versions. It
is the last two purposes that have justified the inclusion of orthography in the
study and teaching of pronunciation. It is beyond any doubt that traditional Arabic
transliteration of foreign words gravely interferes with pronunciation of those
words and consequently, albeit inadvertently, serves as source of inaccurate
pronunciation.
11.10 Bibliography
Abboud, Peter, McCarus, Ernest (1983). Elementary Modern Standard Arabic.
Beeston, A.F. (1970). The Arabic Language Today. London: Hutchinson
University Press.
Peter McKenzie-Brown (2006). The Stress-timed Rhythm of English.
http://languageinstinct.blogspot.com/2006/10/stress-timed-rhythm-of-
english.html.
Odisho, Edward Y. (1980). The Phonetic Potential of Arabic Orthography and the
Project of Augmented Arabic Orthography for Special Purposes. Adab Al-
Rafidayn: Journal of the University of Mosul, Vol.11-12, pp.155-168.
———. (1992). Transliterating English in Arabic. Zeitschrift für arabische
Linguistik, 24, 21-34.

Foreign Language Classes. Munich: Lincom Europa Language
Textbooks.
English Alphabet. New York: Edwin Mellin Press.
Stirling, W. F. (1964). Observations on the Transliteration of Arabic Names into
Roman Alphabet. In Honour of Daniel Jones. Abercrombie, D., D.B. Fry,
P.A.D. MacCarthy, N.C. Scott (eds). London: Longman Green & Co.
Chapter 12
Word Inflation vs. Word Deflation: A Major

Source of Mispronunciation among Arab
Learners of English
In the context of this study, the term ‘inflation’ is used for convenience to
designate a tendency in the pronunciation of words– ultimately of discourse– that
renders their syllabic structures relatively more stretched out, augmented and,
more or less, evenly prominent. Conversely, ‘deflation’ is used to designate a
tendency to render the pronunciation of those words more compressed, compact
with reduced prominence of those syllables except on the stressed ones. Such
identification of the two tendencies may be reminiscent of the dichotomy of
syllable-timed versus stress-timed rhythm patterns in languages (MacKay, 1978:
215; Ladefoged, 1982: 224); however, the analogy does not amount to a one-to-
one relationship. True, there is some sort of connection, but the subject of
inflation and deflation is much broader than just cross-language stress and rhythm
differences. Any shift from one pronunciation system to another may result in
considerable distortion of pronunciation. All phonetic and phonological
differences between two languages should be seriously considered when
comparative pronunciation studies are conducted. The focus, in this study, will be
on English and Arabic because the former has a distinct tendency toward
deflation, whereas the latter has the tendency toward inflation.
Obviously, vowel systems play a far more significant role than consonants
in determining the overall rhythm and rhythm patterns in languages. It is
worthwhile pointing out that rhythm is not just the aggregate of the distribution of
stressed and unstressed syllables; rather, in this context, the dynamics that govern
the qualitative and quantitative vowel changes as a result of stress placement are
equally important in the overall production of targeted pronunciation. In a major
study of the nature of vowel systems, it was concluded that languages tend to
develop vowel systems that place them dynamically along a continuum one end of
which is occupied by a centrifugal vowel system and the other extreme by a
centripetal vowel system with many other systems falling in between the two
extreme ends (Odisho, 1992; Odisho, 2003). For instance, English has a vowel
system that tolerates a wide variety of vowels ranging from very lax [short] to
tense [long] and they are all extremely sensitive to vowel quality and quantity
change in combination with stress or its absence. Such a vowel system was best
labeled as centripetal, wherein the vowels have a strong tendency to move from
the periphery of vowel zone to its center where schwa is located. This type of
vowel system is compatible with stress-timed rhythm. By contrast for instance,
the Spanish vowel system, in which the vowels are located near the periphery of
the vowel zone and resist movement to the center, is best labeled as centrifugal.
This type of vowel system is usually without a schwa vowel and is compatible
with syllable-timed rhythm. In comparison with the English and Spanish vowel
systems, the Arabic system, with only three vowel qualities that are doubled by
length [quantity] with minimum change in quality fits somewhere half-way
between the Spanish centrifugal system and the English centripetal one (See
figure 12/1 below).
i u: i:
i. u. u:
7 i
+ n. u
«:
e. o.
Q
' a
¡
3. #. a. a:
Figure 12/1. Vowel systems of English, Spanish and Arabic.
12.2 Focus of this Study

In terms of language varieties under consideration, the focus for Arabic is
on its Modern Standard Arabic [MSA] variety, whereas for English, it applies to
its standard varieties whether General American English [GAE] or Received
Pronunciation [RP] of Britain. As for the underlying causes of word inflation and
deflation, the discussion has to focus on the two vowel systems in terms of the
range of their vowel quality [timbre] and quantity [length] and the dynamics that
govern the extent of vowel quality and quantity change such as stress placement
and vowel reduction. With relevance to Arabic, the traditions of its orthography
[writing system], especially with regard to the use of its diacritics, will be
seriously considered.
12.3 English and Arabic Vowel Systems

Arabic and English have two extremely different vowel systems not only
in the number of contrastive vowels that each system has in terms of quality and
quantity, but also– and more importantly– in the dynamics that govern the two
systems. So, the difficulties are not exclusively confined to the qualitative and
quantitative ranges of differences in their vowel systems; rather, it is the dynamics
that govern those differences which, in turn, render the systems even further apart.
The latter aspect of the difference between the two languages plays an extremely
important role in creating serious difficulties in the way of mastering each other’s
system. For a sketch of the differences, let us begin with English.
Word Inflation vs. Word Deflation 169
12.3.1 English Vowel System
The English vowel system compared to Arabic has three major differences: i) It is
qualitatively a very diversified system with a minimum of twelve [12] distinctive
vowels coupled with a complex system of diphthongs; ii) Phonetically, one can
readily distinguish vowels with four relatively different lengths: a) long, such as
[i:] and [u:] as in <bean> and <boon>; b) longish, such as [3 ] and [n ] as in
<bad> and <all>; c) short, such as ['] and [i] as in <bed> and <bid>; and d) very
short such as [¥] and [], but typically the latter; iii) Due to the centripetal nature
of this system, it manifests a very conspicuously distinct dynamic of vowel
reduction. This dynamic is behind the shrinking process or what was earlier on
recognized as ‘deflation’ typically exemplified by the pronunciation of the world
<comfortable> in which all vowels are rendered short or very short as it will be
demonstrated below.
12.3.2 Arabic Vowel System
As demonstrated in figure 12/2 below, the basic quality range in MSA is

very narrow and limited to the triangular vowel formation of [K W C]. Because
quantity is phonologically relevant, the number is doubled. Generally speaking,
there is a tendency to treat the three short/lax vs. long/tense pairs of vowels as
qualitatively similar; however, they are not identical and some slight difference in
quality is phonetically inescapable. Quantitatively, long vowels tend to stay long
and the short ones tend to stay short with minimum difference with stress or
without it. In other words, there is very limited, if any, reduction in the length of
long vowels and the shortness of short vowels. Stated differently, the extent of
reduction in quality and quantity in Arabic vowels is hardly perceptible by
phonetically untrained people. A significant point to consider is that a long vowel
in a word tends to be a powerful focal point that captures the stress. This strong
stress placement rule causes two major problems for Arab learners of English as
we will see in due course.
KÖ WÖ
K W
CÖ
Figure 12/2. Basic triangular vowel quality in MSA.

12.4 How Native Arab Learners of English Create Word Inflation

In order to demonstrate how Arab learners of English inflate the English
pronunciation, it is necessary to briefly survey the driving forces behind word
deflation in English.
12.4.1 Driving Forces behind Word Deflation in English
In the pronunciation of English there is a powerful tendency of assigning

major prominence to the stressed syllable while reducing the prominence on the
unstressed syllable(s) by reducing intensity which usually minimizes vowel
quality and/or quantity. This is demonstrated most characteristically through the
usage of a small group of approximately fifty words that appear in two forms
known as strong form and weak form as demonstrated in table 12/1, below:
Word Stressed (Strong) Form Unstressed (Weak) Form

A GK
An 3P P; P
Can M3P MP ; MP
For HnÖ H
Had J3F JF ; F ; F
Shall 53N 5N; 5N
Some U¡O UO ; UO
The &KÖ &+ (V.) ; & (C.)
would Y7F YF ; F ; F
Table 12/1. Tokens of words that have strong and weak forms.
For instance, the strong form of <and> is /3PF/, but it has at least three other
weak forms such /PF/, /P/ and /PB/1. The strong form is habitually of minimum
circulation since it has to occur in an emphatic form or in its citation (isolated)
form. It is the weak forms of <and> that are of more frequent recurrence. The
often-schwa-based weak forms of those scores of words and the weak syllables of
other words collectively govern the overall rendition of the rhythm type in
English. Equally effective in demonstrating vowel reduction or augmentation is
observed in the category of words that yield both verb forms and/or
noun/adjective forms by merely shifting the position of stress and reducing a
vowel as in table 12/2, below:

1
The so-called syllabic ‘n’.
Word Noun Verb

<conduct> [¥MbPF¡MV] [MP¥F¡MV]
<contest> [¥M*bPV*'UV] [M*P¥V*'UV]
<contrast> [¥M*bPV*3UV] [M*P¥V*3UV]
<convict> [¥M*bPX+M*V] [M*P¥X+M*V]
<produce> [¥pbdLWU] [p¥dLWU]
Table 12/2. Examples of noun vs. verb categories of words distinguished
by shift of stress position and vowel reduction.
Simply, vowel reduction, especially in the form of schwa [], which is

unequivocally the most frequently used vowel in English2, is one of the most
salient and pervasive features of English pronunciation. It is this tendency that is
the major cause of ‘word deflation’. The dynamics of word deflation often dictate
how and to what extent native speakers of English alter the vowel systems and
rhythm types of other targeted languages. A good example of English learners
imposing their word deflation dynamics on Arabic is typically demonstrated
through the replacement of the unstressed Arabic [C or m], so dominant in
triliteral roots such as <˴ΐΘ˴ ϛ˴ > = /¥MmVmDm/3, <˴αέ˴ Ω˴ > = /¥Fm4mUm/ and <ϝ΄˴γ> =
/¥Um!mNm/, by schwas. It is typical of Arabic to retain the quality of all three /m/
vowels throughout the verb (though the initial stressed vowels tends to be slightly
more prominent; thus another option for transcribing <˴ΐΘ˴ ϛ˴ > may be /¥MDVmDm).
Conversely, under the robust influence of schwaization (propensity toward
schwas) in English, a word pattern in Arabic of the /¥MmVmDm/ type tends to be
automatically pronounced by English learners of Arabic as /¥M3VD/ thus
rendering it more compact and only initially prominent. A common English word
such as <comfortable> is highly likely to be pronounced by beginner Arab
learners of English as [M*QOHQT¥V*GÖD+N] while in proper English
pronunciation is reduced to [¥M*¡OHV*DN].
12.4.2 Driving Forces behind Word Inflation in Arabic
MSA is a non-schwa [] system with essentially three ranges of vowel

qualities [K W C]; it strongly resists any inclination in the direction of vowel
reduction. If there is any slight reduction, it is almost negligible to phonetically
untrained individuals. In fact, in more formal pronunciation of Arabic such in
oratory and in the recitation of Qur’Ɨn, all vowels and consonants have to be
distinctly enunciated. As was hinted above, in the pronunciation of <˴ΐΘ˴ ϛ˴ > =
/¥MmVmDm/ the three FatHas are fully enunciated and any tendency to reduce the

2
In some estimates about 30 per cent of the sounds we make when we speak English are the
sound schwa (McKenzie-Brown, 2006: 2).
3
Phonetically, the Arabic short /C/ sounds as [m] and is so transcribed.
last two FatHas to schwas, i.e., /¥M3VD/, as is the tendency by English learners
of Arabic, is resisted. However, besides this strong trend of resisting vowel
reduction, there are other very important aspects of the Arabic vowel system, its
stress assignment rules and the nature of Arabic orthography that significantly
contribute to word inflation. Let us consider each of the above three factors.
12.4.2.1 The Arabic Vowel System
Once again, it may seem necessary to highlight the fact that the Arabic
vowel system is highly restricted in vowel quality range. With regard to its
quantity range, it is also restricted to short vs. long contrasts not only
phonologically, but also phonetically. The strong resistance to vowel reduction
does not allow noticeable variation in the quantity of each vowel. Compared to
the English vowel system, it was pointed our earlier on that English exhibits, at
least phonetically, four quantity ranges: long, longish, short and very short.
Numerically, English has a vowel system that is twice as broad as that of Arabic;
consequently, an Arab learner of English will tend naturally to pronounce English
with six vowels (6) rather than twelve (12). There is a strong push in Arabic to
replace the English schwas with Arabic short vowels FatHa, Dhamma and Kasra
depending on the English letter representing the schwa. There is an equally
pervasive inclination to replace the short vowels of English with Arabic
alphabetic symbols that designate the long vowels of <ϱ ˬϭ ˬ΍> as in <Canada>
[k3nd] = <΍Ϊ˴Ϩϛ˴ >; <Ronald Reagan> [rounld reign] = <ϥΎΠϳέ/ϥΎϐϳέ ΪϟΎϧϭέ>; and
<Hilton> [hiltn] = <ϥϮΘϠϴ˰ϫ>. For more examples, see table 12/3, below:
Words Attested Transliterations

Philips βΒϴϠϴϓ
Hilton ϥϮΘϠϴ˰ϫ
Marian Anderson ϥϮγήϳΪϧ΍ ϥΎϳέΎϣ
Mike Tyson ϥϮδϳΎΗ ϚϳΎϣ
Princeton ϥϮΘδϧήΑ /ϥϮΘδϨϳήΑ
Remington ϥϮΘϐϨϴϤϳέ /ϥϮΘΠϨϴϤϳέ
Latin ϦϴΗϻ
Lenin ϦϴϨϴϟ
Susan ϥ΍ίϮγ
Arlington ϥϮΘϐϨϴϟέ΍ /ϥϮΘΠϨϴϟέ΍/ϥϮΘϜϨϴϟέ΍
Table 12/3. Short vowels and schwas transliterated into Arabic with long vowels.
12.4.2.2 Stress Assignment Rules in Arabic
One of the most powerful rules of stress assignment in Arabic is that of the
long vowel. A long vowel in an Arabic word tends to be a magnetic focal point
that attracts the stress. And if there is more than one long syllable, usually the
latter one attracts the stress. Many word patterns in English, which contain a long
syllable, but does not carry the primary stress, are highly vulnerable to stress shift
in their Arabic rendition. English word patterns in table 4 below, demonstrate
such a shift. The stress is reassigned to the long syllable– the one with the
diphthong in this instance– thus causing the first element of the diphthong, which
is a short vowel, to be lengthened. The differences in the positions of stress
between the two versions of the pronunciations are vividly demonstrated by the
graphic stress patterns in which the large dot represents the primary stress in each
case.
Ending English Stress Arabic Stress

In: Pronunciation Pattern Mispronunciation Pattern
<¥simplify> zyy <simpli¥fy> yyz
<¥terrify> zyy <terri¥fy> yyz
––ify
<so¥lidify> yzyy <solidi¥fy> yyyz
< di¥versify > yzyy <diversi¥fy> yyyz
<¥alternate> zyy <alter¥nate> yyz
<¥animate> zyy <ani¥mate> yyz
––ate
<ab¥breviate yzyy <abbrevi¥ate> yyyz
<af¥filiate> yzyy <affili¥ate> yyyz
<¥anglicize> zyy <angli¥cize> yyz
<¥emphasize> zyy <empha¥size> yyz
––ize
<de¥mocratiz yzyy <democra¥tize> yyyz
<e¥conomize yzyy <econo¥mize> yyyz
Table 12/4. Examples of stress shift in Arabic pronunciation of English due to
long vowel rule in Arabic.
With the drastic difference in stress placement and its rules in English and Arabic,
directing the attention of the teachers and learners of English to stress placement
becomes a linguistic aspect of the highest priority in language instruction.
12.4.2.3 Nature of Arabic Orthography
Arabic orthography is highly dependent on diacritics [both dots and non-

dots] for the accurate realization and production of both consonants and vowels.
Traditionally, the non-dot diacritics are often discarded in texts which are handled
by educated adults who tend to be experienced in decoding even in the absence of
some diacritics and also in texts which do not demand strict accuracy in
pronunciation such as in silent reading of a book or newspaper. On the contrary,
textbooks prepared for children are usually marked with the indispensable
diacritics. Also religious texts such as the holy book of Islam, Al-Qur’Ɨn ϥ΁ήϘϟ΃,
legal texts and poetry are usually marked (Thackston, 1994: xx-xxii; Wickens,
1980: 13). It is also a common practice in broadcasting to fully apply the

diacritics to avoid pronunciation errors. With relevance to this study, Arabic
marks the long three (3) vowels by the three alphabet letters < ϱ ˬϭ ˬ΍>, while the
short three (3) ones are marked with the diacritics <–˴–, –˵–, –˶–> which are
approximately similar to short vowels [a, u, i], respectively. As mentioned above,
in most Arabic publications– let alone handwritten communications– vowel
diacritics are discarded. The significance of the retention or discarding of
diacritics to accuracy in pronunciation and even in the teaching of pronunciation
becomes very important in the transliteration of foreign names and words into
Arabic. Since many such words have consonants and vowels which either do not
exist in Arabic or are different from them, the accuracy or inaccuracy of their
transliteration becomes very important.
There are two common practices among the transliterators and the
difference often depends on the degree of proficiency of the transliterators in the
rules of English pronunciation. Those who have low proficiency in English or
those who simply stick to the traditional trend in transliteration into Arabic tend to
pronounce English predominantly based on the alphabet letters rather than follow
the underlying rules of pronunciation. For instance, the transliteration of
<Cambridge> has been attested in the form of <Ν˶ΩήΒϣΎϛ> http:// www. vec. ca
arabic/3/cambridge.cfm or even <ΞϳΩήΒϣΎϛ> http://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/ which are,
more or less, letter-transliterations including the silent <d>. This trend in
transliteration also manifests strong urge to transliterate any <a> into <΍>, <e or i>
into <ϱ> and <o or u> into <ϭ>. Notice, for example, the transliteration of
<Mississippi> as <ϲΒϴδϴδϣ> (Ba’albaki, 1972: 1103) which in the English version
has no long vowel [i:] = <ϱ>, but has been transliterated into Arabic with three of
them. Those with high proficiency in the pronunciation of English do their best to
premise their transliteration as accurately as possible on the short vowel diacritics
and the long vowel letters; however, they occasionally skip the practice of
accurately matching English and Arabic vowels for two reasons: 1) For fear that if
the higher frequency and much greater diversity of short English vowels,
especially schwas, are reflected in the transliterated Arabic versions the number of
diacritics will drastically increase; consequently, the orthographic rendition of
Arabic version of those foreign words will look graphically overloaded with
diacritics and visually dense. 2) The transliterators may be overly conscious of the
fact that if the texts of transliterations are reprinted it is highly likely the reprinter
will tend to do away with the diacritics in the text to make the reprinting easier
and less costly. So why bother inserting all the diacritics in the first place. In light
of the above facts about the traditions in Arabic orthography and the trends in
transliteration, there is no doubt about the massive inclination in the direction of
replacing short vowel diacritics of <–˴–, –˵–, –˶–> with long vowel letters <ϱ ˬϭ ˬ΍>,
respectively. The most negative outcome of this inclination is that English words
are graphically stretched, spatially inflated and phonetically deformed not just
because of long vowels, but also because of the inevitable creation of more long
syllables which in Arabic tend to constitute salient foci for the attraction of stress.
In aggregate, the outcome is enormous distortion of pronunciation of English
primarily through the process of word inflation.
To illustrate, let us consider the name of the newspaper <Christian Science

Monitor> which is properly pronounced as /¥M+UP or ¥M+UVKP
¥U#KPU ¥ObP+VT/>, but is usually transliterated into Arabic as < ϥΎϴΘδϳήϛ
έϮΘϴϧϮϣ βϨϳΎγ> the transliteration of which phonetically reads as [MTKÖUV¥LCÖP
¥U#ÖKPU OQÖPKÖ¥VQÖT]. Consider also the proper name <Antony Gibson>
which is pronounced as [¥3PVP+¥I+DUP], whereas it is transliterated in
Arabic as <ϥϮδΒϴϏ ϲϧϮΘϧ΍> (or even <ϥϮδΒϴΟ ϲϧϮτϧ΍ >) and pronounced as
[3P¥VQÖPKÖ ¯KÖD¥UQÖ P ]. It is distinctly clear that in the English
pronunciation of the name there are no long vowels, whereas in its Arabic
rendition there emerge four long vowels which, in turn, bring about a major shift
in the rhythmic structure of the name.
Evidently, the drastic change in the quantity and quality of English vowels
by the Arab learners oftentimes automatically results in the reassignment of the
primary stress and overall rhythm change. Consider the full name of ex-President
Clinton:
4
William[¥Y+NLO] zy ϡΎϴϟϭ ϡΎϴϠϳϭ [Y+N¥LCÖO] yz
5
Jefferson[¥'HUP] zyy ϥϮγήϔϴΟ [KÖH+T¥UQÖP] yyz
Clinton[¥MN+PVP] zy ϥϮΘϨϴϠϛ [MNKÖP¥VQÖP] yz
Imagine, if this much divergence is created in one person’s name, the divergence
must be multiplied within a longer piece of discourse. This type of asymmetrical
vowel length change between English and Arabic is one of the most key areas for
pronunciation distortion. It is a distortion that does not simply result from
imposing the Arabic phonology subconsciously on that of English, but is also
propagated in writing by transliterators, especially those who are not well versed
in English pronunciation.
12.5 Better Transliteration for better Pronunciation

In an attempt to minimize the distortion of English pronunciation, or any
other foreign language for that matter, a linguistic system was designed with the
intent of rendering a more phonetically accurate transliteration of foreign
languages into Arabic (Odisho, 1980) whore primary purpose was to improve
pronunciation by Arab learners of foreign language. The system known as the
Augmented Arabic Orthography [AAO], and was based on the following
principles:
1. Use the Arabic diacritics, especially of short vowels, to their maximum.

4
Could also be transcribed and pronounced as <ϡΎϴϠϳϭ >
5
Could also be transcribed and pronounced as <ϥϮγήϴϔϴΟ>
2. Use additional consonantal symbols common in other alphabets that are

originally based on Arabic such Farsi. Accordingly, Farsi coined the letters <
̟ ‫ >̱ ̫ ̧ ׃‬to represent the sounds [R, X, , <, I] which do not exist in
Arabic.
3. Use additional vocalic symbols such as the superscript haþek < > common in
Arabic-based Kurdish orthography. This diacritic when placed as a superscript
on the letters <ϭ> and <ϱ> they are transformed from [u] and [i] vowels into
the [Q] and ['] vowels, respectively.
4. Execute the transliteration on the basis of pronunciation rather than

orthography (alphabet symbols).
To demonstrate the impact that principle (a) will have on the inflation of a word
and its pronunciation distortion consider the transliteration of the name <Bill
Clinton> in the traditional system and the suggested (Odisho, 1992; 2005) system.
The traditional transliteration of <Bill Clinton> is <ϥϮΘϨϴϠϛ ϞϴΑ > (to be pronounced
[DKÖN MNKÖP¥VQÖP]) in which there are three long vowels as opposed to none in proper
English rendition. If, however, <Bill Clinton> were to be transcribed as
approximately as it is actually pronounced, then it should appear as <Ϧ˰˶ΘϨ˶˰Ϡϛ Ϟ˶˰Α> the
pronunciation of which should be very similar to its English rendition ([D+N
¥MN+PVP]); thus, there will be no inflation in its pronunciation nor will there be a
tendency to shift the position of stress. For a magnified demonstration of the
above transcriptions, see the two versions Figure 12/3, below:
<ϥϮΘϨϴϠϛ ϞϴΑ> vs. <Ϧ˶ΘϨ˶Ϡϛ Ϟ˶˰Α >

Figure 12/3. Notice the inflated version of <Bill Clinton> in traditional transliteration vs. ɴ
the deflated one in AAO transliteration.
If principle (b) is demonstrated, the traditional transliteration of <Winston

Churchill> [Y+PUVP «Ö+N] will be ϞθΗήθΗ ϥϮΘδϴϨϳϭ, whereas its suggested
transliteration Ϟ˶˰̪ήϳ˰ɴ ̪ Ϧ˶Θδ˰˸˰ϧ˶ϭ will yield a highly similar pronunciation to its
English one. Some of the best examples on the application of principle (d) relate
to the manner in which the first name of President Clinton and the last name of
President Bush appear traditionally in their written forms in Arabic as in table
12/5, below.
English Names Bill Bush

Proper English Pronunciation [D+N] [D75]
Traditional Arabic Transliteration <Ϟϴ˰Α> <εϮΑ>
Arabic Pronunciation [bKÖN] [DWÖ5]
Suggested Arabic Transliteration <Ϟ˶˰Α> <ζ˵˰Α>
Arabic Pronunciation [DKN] [DW5]
Table 12/5. Distorting pronunciation by replacing English short vowels with
Arabic long vowels.
With regard to <Bill>, the traditionally transliterated form replaces the short lax
vowel [+] with a long tense vowel [KÖ], whereas the suggested transliteration
reduces the differences to a minimum by replacing the long Arabic vowel with a
Kasra [–˶–] = [K] which is as short as [+], but only slightly tenser, a difference that
is hardly detected by non-phonetically-trained individuals.
In the earliest attempt at developing the AAO (Odisho, 1980; 1992), stress
position was commented on, but left unmarked, whereas in the later attempt
(Odisho, 2005) the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA) superscript [¥] was used
to mark the position of stress; however, if the stress mark were to be indicated in
the context of Arabic transliteration, the IPA [¥], would not be convenient for two
reasons. First, it will disrupt the cursive nature of Arabic writing. Second, as a
diacritic, it will add further graphic density to the many diacritical marks that
Arabic is well known for. For example, if one were to transliterate the English
word <international>, which would appear as:
<Ϟ˴˰Ϩ˶˰ηΎϧ¥ή˰˶˰Θ˸˰ϧ· >
The Arabic transliteration of the above word has already five (5) diacritics –
excluding the dots– and the [¥] would be the 6th diacritic. Thus, it is suggested here
that a convenient way to mark the stressed syllable in the context of transliterated
items is to mark the syllable carrying the stress in bold. To implement this
procedure, assigning the stress to the word <Ϟ˴˰Ϩ˰˶˰ηΎ˰ϧή˶˰Θ˸˰ϧ· > will render it as:
<Ϟ˴˰Ϩ˰˶˰ηΎϧή˶˰Θ˸˰ϧ· >
This AAO-based transliteration and transcription will undoubtedly attest to the
effectiveness of AAO in discouraging any inclination in the direction of inflating
the word in the form of:
<ϝΎϧ˰ϴ˰ηΎϧή˰ϴΘϧ·>
which will lengthen three short vowels and shift the stress to the final syllable
thus creating considerable word inflation and fundamental mispronunciation.
For a more detailed comparison of word inflation tendency in the
traditional Arabic transliteration of English versus word deflation secured through
the AAO-based transliteration, table 12/3 above is reproduced with AAO
transliterations added in the third column.
Recommended Aao
Words Attested Transliteration
Transliteration
Philips βΒϴϠϴϓ β̢˰˶Ϡ˰˶ϔ
Hilton ϥϮΘϠϴ˰ϫ Ϧ˶ΘϠ˶˰ϫ
Marian Anderson ϥϮγήϳΪϧ΍ ϥΎϳέΎϣ Ϧ˶γέ˶Ϊϧ΍ Ϧ˶˰ϳ˶έΎϣ
Mike Tyson ϥϮδϳΎΗ ϚϳΎϣ Ϧ˶δϳΎΗ ϚϳΎϣ
Princeton ϥϮΘδϧήΑ /ϥϮΘδϨϳήΑ Ϧ˰˶ΘδϨή˶ ̢
Remington ϥϮΘϐϨϴϤϳέ /ϥϮΘΠϨϴϤϳέ ϥϭɴ˰ΘϐϨ˶˰Ϥϳέɴ
Latin ϦϴΗϻ Ϧ˶Ηϻ
Lenin ϦϴϨϴϟ Ϧ˰˶Ϩ˰ϴϠɴ
Susan ϥ΍ίϮγ Ϧΰ˶ Ϯδ
ϥϮΘϐϨϴϟέ΍ /ϥϮΘΠϨϴϟέ΍
Arlington Ϧ˰˶Θ̳Ϩ˰˶Ϡέ΁
ϥϮΘϜϨϴϟέ΍
Table 12/6. Traditional Arabic transliteration of English versus suggested
transliteration in AAO.
12.6 Conclusions
The characteristic mismatch between English pronunciation and its
orthography coupled with the overriding inclination of its centripetal vowel
system in the direction of vowel reduction in both quality and quantity renders the
overall pronunciation of English by non-native learners, especially those whose
languages lean in the direction of centrifugal vowel systems, extremely difficult.
With focus on Arab learners of English, whose vowel system is very restricted in
quality variation and resists reduction, the difficulty of mastering English
pronunciation becomes far more complicated not only when they are introduced
to it orally or through English orthography, but also, and perhaps more so, when
the English words and texts, especially relating to drugs and medical supplies, are
transcribed in Arabic.
Due to the elasticity that vowel sounds infuse in the structure of words,
vowel reduction in English tends to compress or deflate the words and its absence
(of reduction) in Arabic tends to stretch them out or inflate them. The difficulty
snowballs further because additional inflation emanates from the nature of Arabic
orthography which functionally and traditionally is bias in favor of using the long
vowel graphemes <ϱ ˬϭ ˬ΍> in place of the short ones in transliterating English
words into Arabic. Very common English names are traditionally transliterated in
such a manner that they are inflated to the extent of creating serious
mispronunciation. This proclivity toward word inflation in Arabic becomes a
major source of mispronunciation of English by native Arab learners in two major
ways: it seriously lengthens the vowels and interferes with stress placement thus
augmenting (inflating) the overall length of the words, in particular, and of the
overall discourse, in general. Even more serious than distorting English
pronunciation, it promotes mispronunciation of English and other foreign
languages even further among those who depend in their rendition of non-Arabic
words on their transliterated forms. This type of distortion is very common among
readers of the Arabic publications such newspapers and magazines that include
many foreign proper names, geographic names and commercial names of
products and drugs. Worst of all is when such names occur in the context of news
bulletins on radio and television. One of the most recent and interesting names
circulating in the American media was <Sarah Palin> pronounced [¥seir ¥peilın]
who was immediately ‘christened’ in Arab media as <ϦϴϟΎΑ ΍έΎγ/ϩέΎγ> pronounced
as [¥sa:ra ba:¥li:n] which displays two major deviations in the Arabic
pronunciation of the name. First, it is based on letter rendition rather than on
sound rendition. Second, there are multiple serious changes in vowel sounds, shift
in stress position (in <Palin>) and replacement of <p> with <b> due to the
absence of former in traditional Arabic orthography. Hence, unfortunately, the
Arab media outlets may be the worst culprits in promoting mispronunciations to
masses of listeners and viewers. With some training and orientation in AAO,
<Sarah Palin> could be transliterated as [ ΍ήϳ˰γ
ɴ ] with Ϧ˶˰Ϡ˰։˰̡ɴ] pronounced [e] as in
English <pen> From the pedagogical perspective, the writer has long been
promoting the practical advantages of AAO for special purposes foremost of
which are: a) teaching proper pronunciation of foreign languages with emphasis
not just on vowels and consonants, but also on primary stress placement; b) using
it for the transcription of pronunciation in dictionaries; and c) training and
orientation of newscasters and actors in performing tasks that involve foreign
languages.
12.7 Bibliography
Ba’albaki, M (1972). Al-Mawrid: A Modern English-Arabic Dictionary. Beirut:
Dar El-Ilm Lil-Malayeen.
Ghazali, Salem, Hamdi, Rym and Barkat, Melissa (2002). Speech Rhythm
Variation in Arabic Dialects. http://aune.lpl.univ-ix.fr/sp2002/pdf/ghazali-
hamdi-barkat.pdf.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/arabic/world_news/newsid_7608000/7608332.stm
http://www.ar.wikipedia.org/wiki
http://www.vec.ca/arabic/3/cambridge.cfm
Ladefoged, Peter (1982). A Course in Phonetics. New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich.
MacKay, Ian (1978). Introducing Practical Phonetics. Boston/Mass.: Little,
Brown & Company.
Peter McKenzie-Brown (2006). The Stress-timed Rhythm of English.

http://languageinstinct.blogspot.com/2006/10/stress-timed-rhythm-of-
english.html.
Odisho, Edward Y. (1980). The Phonetic Potential of Arabic Orthography and the
Project of Augmented Arabic Orthography for Special Purposes. Adab Al-
Rafidayn: Journal of the University of Mosul, Vol.11-12, pp.155-168.
———. (1992). Transliterating English in Arabic. Zeitschrift für arabische
Linguistik, 24, 21-34.
Foreign Language Classes. Munich: Lincom Europa Language
Textbooks.
and English. Piscataway: New Jersey: Gorgias Press.
———. (2007). Linguistic Tips for Latino Learners and Teachers of English.
Piscataway: New Jersey: Gorgias Press.
Thackston, W.M. (1994). An Introduction to Koranic and Classical Arabic.
Bethesda?Maryland: Iranbooks.
Wickens, G.M. (1980). Arabic Grammar: a First Workbook. Cambridge:
Chapter 13
Formation of Sound Plurals and Duals in

Arabic: A Phonetic/Phonological Approach
A survey of the rules of the Sound Plurals [SPs] and Duals [Ds] formation
in most regular cases in Arabic reveals three different interpretations of what
actually takes place during the process of formation. The first interpretation is
simply stated as a process of suffixation [ΓΩΎϳί ϭ΍ ϕΎΤϟ΍] implying the addition of
<ϥϮ˰˰> = /–uun/ for nominative case and <Ϧϴ˰˰> = /–iin/ of the masculine sound
plural (MSP) for both genitive and accusative cases jointly called the oblique
case. The feminine sound plural [FSP] is formed from the singular by adding the
suffix/–aat/ = <ΕΎ˰˰>. A sample of wording the rules in Arabic would read as
follows:
ϊϤΠϟ΍ ϊϤΠϳϭ .ϩΩήϔϣ ϰϠϋ ϥϮϧϭ ˯Ύϳ ϭ΍ ϥϮϧ ϭ ϭ΍ϭ ΓΩΎϳΰΑ ΎϤϟΎγ ΍ήϛάϣ ΎόϤΟ ήΧϻ΍ ΢ϴΤμϟ΍ Ϣγϻ΍ ϊϤΠϳ
.ϩήΧ΍ ϰϠϋ ˯ΎΗϭ ϒϟ΍ ΓΩΎϳΰΑ ϢϟΎδϟ΍ ΚϧΆϤϟ΍
The second interpretation is more explicit and does not confine the
formation process exclusively to suffixation; rather, the suffixation is preceded by
omission.˶According to Wickens (1980: 56) and Thackston (1994: 20) the base of
the masculine nouns is formed by dropping the inflectional endings to which the
sound masculine plural suffix i.e. /–uun/ = <ϥϮ˰˰> for the nominative case and /–
iin/ = <Ϧϴ˰˰ > = for both the genitive and accusative cases are added. The feminine
plural is formed by dropping the /–at/ ending of words that end in <Δ˰>
[marbuuTa] and adding the plural suffix <–aat> = <ΕΎ˰˰>. However, both
interpretations could be collapsed in one since they opt to identify the process as
external change which is unlike the formation of the Broken Plurals (BPs) < ωϮϤΟ
ήϴδϜΘϟ΍> that are built by breaking up the singular pattern and building an entirely
new pattern on the same radical letters; thus they are the result of internal change.
(Wickens, 42)
With further scrutiny of the rules for the formation of SPs, one might
argue in favor of a third interpretation of the rules which does not invoke the
processes of suffixation and/or omission or the so-called external change; rather,
the interpretation invokes the process of ‘internal change’ not unlike what occurs
with BPs. For instance, Wright mentions that “the pluralis sanus of the feminine
nouns which end in /–atun/ (i.e., Δ˲ ˰˴˰), is formed by changing the /–atun/ into /–
aatun/ (i.e., Ε˲ Ύ˰) as in /saariqatun/ = <˲ΔϗέΎγ> ‘thief’, s.f. and /saariqaatun/ =
<˲ΕΎϗέΎγ> ‘thieves’ p.f.. (Wright, 1967: 192). Wright’s view implies that the
formation of the plural is executed by the change of the short vowel [a] [i.e., the
FatHah] into its long counterpart [aa] (i.e., alif). Tritton makes an identical
statement by saying that the external plural of nouns with feminine ending is
made by lengthening the [a] before the [–t], the feminine marker (1970: 39).This
interpretation is very strongly supported by Moscati who invokes the comparative

examination of the Semitic languages as stated below:
A comparative examination of the Semitic languages suggests the following

Proto-Semitic morphemes for the external masculine plural: nominative –ǌ and
genitive/accusative –Ư. These endings seem to be the result of the lengthening of
the corresponding singular morphemes of the nominative (–u) and genitive (–i),
while the independent ending of the accusative singular (–a) merges with that of
the genitive in the plural (Moscati, 1969: 87).
However, more significant of all of the above hints at a different interpretation for
the formation of SPs is the definite and robust statement made by Palmer as early
as 1874 which reads as follows:
[T]he regular plural forms [i.e., sound plurals, my insertion] are nothing more
than a prolongation of the terminations of the singulars, as though the vowels
were prolonged to imply an extension of the meaning (1874: 8-9).
Elsewhere in his book, Palmer reaffirms his above statement with more explicit
clarifications (Palmer, 1874:106) which have been arranged in the form of table
13/1, below:
Plural Marker Case Comments

This is an expansion of
ϥ
˴ Ϯ˵ ˰˰˰˰ Nominative the singular termination
˰˲˰˰˰
Plural Masculine
This is an expansion of
Ϧ
˴ ϴ˶˰˰˰˰ Oblique the singular termination
˰˳˰˰
Ε
˲ Ύ˴ ˰˰˰˰ Nominative This is an expansion of
Plural Feminine the singular termination
Ε
˳ Ύ˴ ˰˰˰˰ Oblique of Δ˴˰˰
Table 13/1. Palmer’s assumption of the origin of SPs markers in Arabic.
The main purpose of this paper will be to draw together further support for
Palmer’s vivid statement and Moscati’s, Wrights’ and Tritton’s hints implying a
different interpretation for the formation of SPs. Stated differently, the process of
formation of SPs may be similar in its underlying structure to that of BPs because
it may be premised primarily on certain internal phonetic/phonological changes
rather than on omissions and suffixations. The argument in favor of this
interpretation may also shed light on the partial contribution of the nature of
Arabic orthographic system in concealing the actual dynamics that act in the
background of the transformations under discussion. It is quite obvious that the
Arabic orthography relies heavily on diacritical marks many of which are visually
suspended [omitted] though phonetically relevant and indispensible. Typically in
Formation of Sound Plurals and Duals in Arabic 183
this regard are the nunation marks [–un = ˰˲˰; _an = ˰˱˰; _in = ˰˳˰] which are often
discarded (Brustad, et al, 2004: 141; Odisho, 2005: 138; Ryding, 2005: 25) and/or
disregarded although they have very concrete presence and significant phonetic
and grammatical functional role. In fact, the diacritical marks for nunation include
the sound [n], which has the letter representation of <ϥ> unlike other diacritics,
such as <˶˰˰˰ ˬ˵˰˰˰ ˬ˴˰˰˰> which have no letter representation. The reduction of the <ϥ>
element of nunation to a part-diacritic may be the culprit in concealing part of the
grapheme and/or phoneme reality which plays a major role in the transformation
of singulars into non-singulars. To shed more light on the preceding statement, the
orthographic difference between <˳ϢϠ˷˰˴ό˵˰ϣ > and <Ϧ˶˰Ϥ˷Ϡ˰˴ό˵˰ϣ > is visually very
conspicuous although their pronunciation is exactly the same; however, the latter
form reveals the graphemic and phonemic connection with its oblique form
<ϦϴϤ˷Ϡό˵˰ϣ> far more distinctly than <˳ϢϠ˷˰˴ό˵˰ϣ >. No doubt, further support and evidence
are needed to render the argument in favor of an alternative interpretation for the
singular/non-singular transformation rules more powerful. In any case, regardless
of the viability this interpretation may eventually garner, it should be made clear
right at the outset that the objective of such an interpretation is not concerned with
substantiating or refuting of any historical and/or traditional rules for the
formation of SPs and Ds because language users have been observing them for
ages as they have been conventionally prescribed to them; rather, this
interpretation simply proposes a different descriptive approach to handling the
same subject-matter and looks deeper into the nature of language and the
underlying linguistic rules that govern various processes and transformations.
Furthermore, a better understanding of the underlying linguistic rules would
certainly result in a better and more practical, integrated and pedagogically
constructive approach to the learning and teaching of language, in general, and
Arabic, in particular.
13.2 Discussion
A combined schematic formulation of the first two interpretations of the
rules governing the generation of SPs in terms of omission of the singular case
endings of /–un/, /–in/, /–an/ and the feminine marker /–t/ followed by the
suffixation of necessary plural markers with inflections would look as in table
13/2 based on the word /kannaasun/ [m.] and /kannaasatun/ [f.] “sweeper”.
A casual treatment of the changes in table 13/2 below may direct an
observer to the acceptance of the processes of SPs formations as indeed being
executed with the use of omissions and suffixations. However, with more
deliberate linguistic scrutiny, the observer may notice certain consistencies in the
transformations that gear his/her attention in a radically different direction with
regard to the underlying dynamics that govern the transformation of singulars into
SPs. First, in the transformation of m.s. nominative [kan¥naasun] and genitive
[kan¥naasin]– the latter of which also representing the accusative case under the
rubric of the oblique case–, into m.p. nominative [kannaa ¥suuna] and oblique
[kannaa ¥siina] there is no omission; rather, there are two internal changes. a) The
stress placement shifts and advances one syllable forward in plural; b) Vowel
quantity changes [short to long]. Second, there is an identical change in the
transformation of f.s. nominative [kan¥naasatun] and genitive [kan¥naasatin] – the
latter also representing the accusative case in the form of oblique case–, into f.p.
nominative [kannaa ¥saatun] and oblique case [kannaa ¥saatin].
Gender/ Omis- Suffix- Gender/

Word/ Word/
Number/ sion ation Number/
Singular Plural
Case Case
kan¥naasun1 Kannaa¥suuna
Nom. m.s. _un _uun Nom. m.p.
α
˲ Ύ˷Ϩϛ ϥϮγΎ˷Ϩϛ
kan¥naasin kannaa¥siina
Gen./ _in _iin
α
˳ Ύ˷Ϩϛ Ϧ
˴ ϴγΎ˷Ϩϛ
Oblique
kan¥naasan kannaa¥siina
Acc. –an
Ύ˱γΎ˷Ϩϛ Ϧ
˴ ϴγΎ˷Ϩϛ
kan¥naasatun Kannaa¥saatun
Nom. f.s. _atun _aatun Nom. f.p.
Δ˲ ˰˴γΎ˷Ϩϛ Ε
˲ ΎγΎ˷Ϩϛ
kan¥naasatin Kannaa¥saatin
Gen./ _atin _aatin
Δ˳ ˰γΎ˷Ϩϛ Ε
˳ ΎγΎ˷Ϩϛ
Oblique
kan¥naasatan Kannaa¥saatin
Acc. –atan
Δ˱ ˰γΎ˷Ϩϛ Ε
˳ ΎγΎ˷Ϩϛ
Table 13/2. SPs formations with their so-called suffixations.
All the above observations are extremely significant because they manifest
concrete evidence in favor of an alternative view with regard to the rules
governing the formation of SPs. For the sake of distinguishing the two views, the
one that ascribes the transformation to the mechanical external processes of
suffixations with/without omissions is labeled, for convenience, as the
prescriptive approach [PA], whereas the view that ascribes the transformation to
the internal dynamic processes of stress shift and quantitative vowel shift is
labeled as the descriptive approach [DA]. PA has long been the dominant one
especially among the Arab grammarians and the Arab teachers of grammar in
schools. Also, many non-Arab scholars have adopted PA as a given fact. In any
case, in order to assess the viability of the DA as an alternate, one has to produce
as much evidence in its support as available. No doubt, there is an association
between stress and vowel lengthening (Hyman, 1975: 206-7) or vowel quantity.
Nevertheless, it is beyond the scope of this paper to try to determine which one of
the two phenomena is the corollary to the other. The aim at this stage is to refer to
the relationship and see whether the relationship is of any relevance to Arabic.
Linguistically, in Arabic, vowel length [quantity] is of phonological significance;

1
The superscript indicates the syllable carrying the primary stress.
therefore, it would be reasonable to envisage the so-called suffixes /_uun/ (ϥϮ˰˰)

and /_iin/ (Ϧϴ˰˰), occurring in the plural items, as the lengthened variants of the
indefinite case endings (Ϧ˵˰˰) = (˰˲˰) and (Ϧ˶˰˰) = (˰˳˰) of the singular items. Such a line
of thinking is not unprecedented. Mustafa (1937: 111) indicates that the Dhamma
(˵˰˰) and the Kasrah (˶˰˰) are the grammatical markers of the masculine plural and
that the Waaw (Ϯ˰˰) and the Yaa’ (ϲ˰˰) are only saturated (lengthened) variants of
the former. Along the same line, Bateson states that the masculine plural and
nominative dual [D] have endings which are reminiscent of singular case endings
although lengthened (1967:11). Both Mustafa’s and Bateson’s interpretations are
highly consistent with Moscati’s interpretation cited earlier on. Thus far, it seems
that DA is not without some merit that is worthy of consideration. Perhaps, one
can enhance its merit through further argument that suggests the treatment of SPs
and Ds as one broader category with a common grammatical denominator of non-
singularity. Differently stated, even D may be treated as a plural, albeit a
numerically restricted one. That masculine sound plural [MSP] refers to more
than two, is a view adopted by the Arab grammarians, while the Arab linguists
[philologists] use the term ‘plural’ to include the dual (D) because in their view
the plural designates two as well as more than two (Abd Al’Ɨl, 1977: 8, who cites
examples from Al-Qur’Ɨn). Perhaps, this is why D in some Semitic languages is
treated as plural of paucity (Moscati, 93). For instance, Ali (1956/60: 107) points
out that D is, in fact, a plural, but a limited [small] one because it denotes two
things only. This functional characteristic that SPs and Ds share may account for
the similarity that exists in the manner of their formation from the singulars.
Having argued in favor of such similarity, let us consider the following
arrangement of the relationships in table 13/3 below.
Singular Plural Dual

Kan¥naasun Kannaa ¥suuna2 ––––––––––
Masculine Kan¥naasin Kannaa ¥siina ––––––––––
Kan¥naasan –––––––––– Kannaa ¥saani
–––––––––– Kanna¥sayni
Kan¥naasatun Kannaa ¥saatun
Kannaa ¥saatin
Kan¥naasatin
Feminine
––––––––––
Kan¥naasatan Kannaasa¥taani
–––––––––– Kannaasa¥tayni
Table 13/3. Notice the consistency of stress shift and vowel length in the
transformation of singulars into SPs and Ds.

2
Notice that the final vowel has no grammatical role in MSP and D because it does not change.
ΩήϔϤϟ΍ ϊϤΠϟ΍ ϰϨΜϤϟ΍

Ϧ˵γΎ˷Ϩϛ ϥϮγΎ˷Ϩϛ
––––––
Ϧ˵γ ϥϮγ
Ϧ˶γΎ˷Ϩϛ ϦϴγΎ˰˷Ϩϛ
–––––––
ήϛάϤϟ΍ Ϧ˶˰γ Ϧϴγ
Ϧ˴γΎ˷Ϩϛ ˶ϥΎγΎ˷˰Ϩϛ
––––––––
Ϧ˴˰γ ϥΎγ
Ϧϴ˰˴γΎ˷Ϩϛ
––––––––––
Ϧϴ˴γ
Ϧ˵Θγ
˴ Ύ˷Ϩϛ Ϧ˵ΗΎγΎ˰˷Ϩϛ
Ϧ˵Θ˰˴γ Ϧ˵˰ΗΎγ
Ϧ˶Θγ
˴ Ύ˷Ϩϛ Ϧ˶ΗΎγΎ˷˰Ϩϛ
Ϧ˶˰Θ˴γ Ϧ˶˰ΗΎγ
Ϧ˴Θγ
˴ Ύ˷Ϩϛ ϥ
˶ ΎΘ˴γΎ˷˰Ϩϛ
ΚϧΆϤϟ΍ ––––––––––
Ϧ˴˰Θ˴γ ϥΎΘ˴˰γ
Ϧ
˶ ϴ˴Θγ
˴ Ύ˰Ϩϛ
––––––––––
Ϧϴ˴˰Θ˴γ
Table 13/4. Arabic version of table 2.
Notice the shift of endings: Ϧ˵γ into Ϧ˶˰γ ; ϥϮγ into Ϧϴγ for masculine plural;
Ϧ˵˰Θ˰˴˰γ into Ϧ˵˰ΗΎγ and Ϧ˶˰Θ˴γ into Ϧ˶˰ΗΎγ for feminine plural and Ϧ˴˰γ into ϥΎγ or Ϧϴ˴γ for the
masculine dual and Ϧ˴˰Θ˴γ into ϥΎΘ˴˰γ or Ϧϴ˴˰Θ˴γfor feminine dual, respectively. The
systematicness in the above linguistic conversions is readily noticeable. The
formal and distributional symmetry between the singulars and the non-singulars is
too distinct to be denied and discarded and too linguistically consistent to justify
invoking ad hoc rules of omissions and suffixations to interpret what seems to be
multiple correlationships. To carry the discussion further, in Arabic, the choice of
case endings /˰˴˰/ ,/˰˵˰/ and /˶˰˰/ = /u, a, i/ for definite singulars is phonetically
indisputably arbitrary, but the case endings in three nunation forms /˰˱˰ / ,/˰˲˰ / and /
˰˳˰/ = /un, an, in/ for the indefinite singulars do not seem to be arbitrary because
they present themselves phonetically as /˰˴˰/ ,/˰˵˰/ and /˶˰˰/ plus /ϥ/ = /n/ which form
the nunations. It is, therefore, not unreasonable to envisage a relationship. In fact,
it is quite logical to argue strongly for the emergence of a pattern of symmetry
and naturalness when the plurals and duals are generated with /ϥΎ˰˰/ ,/ϥϮ˰˰/ and /Ϧϴ˰˰/
= /uun, aan, iin / which are the long version of /un, an, in/. DA sees that the above
symmetry in correlationships is governed by three factors all of which collaborate
in revealing an intrinsic affinity between the two categories of singulars and non-
singulars:
1. Change is internal (not external as traditionally claimed) and it involves:
2. Vowel quantity [length] change.
3. Stress placement shift.

Concerning the first factor, it is beyond any doubt that the change in the
forms of plurals vs. singulars is an internal one indicated by vowel quantity
change and stress location shift rather than an external change in the form of
omission and suffixation as traditionally claimed. Pertaining to the second factor,
vowel quantity in Arabic is phonologically relevant and it is used as a device to
double the size of its limited vowel system by creating two sets of vowels, namely
short/lax vs. long/tense (Odisho, 2005: 27). As vowel quality is a twin feature of
vowel quantity, there is an indication that the triangular vowel quality range
seems to be assigned a double function of: a) as the grammatical case markers of
nominative, genitive and accusative of singular nouns and adjectives; b) in
combination with quantity, as number markers of singulars, duals and plurals.
Stated differently, the system seems to have assigned the three vowel qualities
(i.e. /u/, /i/, /a/), coupled with their long counterparts the linguistic [grammatical]
function of setting the singulars apart from the plurals and duals. Because the
combination of grammatical cases and numbers would generate more patterns
(i.e., nine in all) than the six vowel varieties can account for, the system has
created the oblique cases which reduce the patterns [to six] by collapsing the
genitive and accusative cases of the SPs and Ds together. Interestingly, once the
short vowels gain length in SPs and Ds, they assume the shape of the alphabetic
characters <ϱ , ϭ ,΍> and are, therefore, incorporated into the orthographic
structure of the word. Consequently, <ϱ , ϭ ,΍> become visually more discernible
(more visually prominent) by the reader much unlike the diacritics which often
tend to be suspended in writing and printing. As for the third factor, the stress
shift in combination with vowel quantity change highlights the difference between
the singulars and their non-singular counterparts and makes the distinction more
auditorily prominent (Roach, 1983: 73; Streefkerk, 2002: 207). Thus, the visual
prominence of the difference between singular and non-singulars forms through
orthographic transformation of /˰˴˰/ ,/˰˵˰/ and /˶˰˰/ into /΍/ ,/Ϯ˰˰ / and /ϱ/ reinforced by
the auditory prominence of stress shift and vowel lengthening create maximum
prominence to signal the difference. These are very dynamic internal changes
which DA promotes as the underlying [deep] rules vs. the superficial and
mechanical omissions and suffixations which PA has long been promoting.
One of the few things that DA cannot account for in a straightforward
manner is the appearance of the diphthongal element /ay/ in the oblique case of
Ds. However, consistency, neatness and the need for the retention of a formal
distinction between the items involved may have contributed to providing a
rationale for the emergence of this diphthong as a grammatical marker of this
particular case. As the system has exhausted its basic vowel qualities in the
formation of SPs and nominative D, it became necessary to introduce a similar
device of the same nature; thus /ay/ emerged. Being different in form and sound,
it secures distinction between the nominative and oblique cases of D, and being a
diphthong, which is phonetically equivalent to a long vowel (Roach, 1983:19), it
helps capture the primary stress, generate prominence and maintain further
consistency and symmetry within the system of non-singulars.
At this juncture, several crucial questions are in order. First, would DA be
considered more realistic and representative of the linguistic facts in the process
of singular/non-singular transformations? Second, how would the two approaches

[PA and DA] be rated in terms of economy, naturalness and simplicity? The
answer to the first question seems to be straightforward. Since DA ascribes the
whole transformation to systematic phonetic/phonological changes that take place
internally (within the linguistic units) instead of invoking unmotivated processes
of omissions and suffixations, then DA is deemed more linguistically viable. In
response to the second question, when linguists are faced with the task of
constructing a theory to account for a particular subject-matter, they have to try
various ways and choose the simplest that can be found (Chomsky, 1962: 223).
Simplicity is attained when the notions of economy and generality are applicable.
PA fails to abide by the principles of economy and consistency because it treats
each formation independently of the other despite the structural symmetry in the
transformations. In each instance of the singular/non-singular transformations, PA
claims that an element is omitted and another one is introduced as a suffix. To
demonstrate, the /–un/, /–in/, /–an/ and /–at/ are omitted and /–uun/, /–iin/, /–aan/
and /–aat/ are added, respectively. More importantly, PA fails to explain why the
choice of SPs and Ds markers fell specifically on /–uun/, /–iin/, /–aan/.
Additionally, its claim that the process of transformation is external is structurally
ad hoc and linguistically untenable. As for simplicity, according to Chomsky,
simplicity correlates with maximal degree of generalization (1955, cited in
Hyman, 1975: 101). In PA, simplicity and economy are disregarded because in
trying to arrive at ‘¥V’ [standing for a long vowel that carries the stress and
functions as the major distinctive feature between the singular and non-singular
items], it resorts to the following highly redundant and convoluted formula:
– vC + VC = VC
where ‘v’ is a short vowel, ‘V’ is a long vowel and ‘C’ is a consonant which , in
this case, is either the /n/ of nunation or the feminine marker /t/. An Arabic
version of the above formula for the transformation of m.s. (ήϛάϤϟ΍ ΩήϔϤϟ΍) into
m.s.p. (ϢϟΎδϟ΍ ήϛάϤϟ΍ ϊϤΠϟ΍) would appear as follows,
ϥϮ˰˰ = ϥϮ˰˰ + Ϧ˵˰˰ –

which is to be interpreted as: delete case ending < Ϧ˵˰˰> of the singular and add
plural suffix < ϥϮ˰˰>. Notice that CA grants no consideration, whatsoever, to stress
shift. As an alternative to the above formula, DA suggests the one below:
vx2=V
in which ‘v’ has the same value as above, while ‘x’ stands for stress and ‘2’ for
(vowel) length. An Arabic version of the above formula would appear as follows,
˰˵˰˰ x ˻= Ϯ˰˰˰
Obviously, as the Dhamma vowel is lengthened, it creates the last strong syllable
(Ryding, 2005: 38) which captures the primary stress. Hence, the final formula
should appear as ‘¥V’ which designates a long vowel that carries the primary
stress. This formula represents the actual change– which is an internal change–
that transforms singulars into SPs and Ds; it is a simple and economical formula.
It is a formula that secures simplicity and economy because it avoids any
processes of subtraction [omission] and addition [suffixation] merely because
they are unwarranted. Moreover, no ‘C’ is included in the simple formula because
the presence of such a symbol is redundant as it represents consonantal elements
that remain untouched and are constant throughout the whole transformation.
No doubt, there are instances which are not so consistently captured by DA
because they do undergo ‘suffixation’ to be transformed to non-singulars;
however, many of those instances could be covered by DA if we were to
introduce the concept of ‘implication’ and allow slight modifications to the basic
formula. The concept of implication would require a derivation from an
underlying form. For instance, <˵ΪϨϫ> = /¥hindun/ [feminine proper name] whose
plural is /hin¥daatun/ would have the underlying form of <¥hindatun>. The
singular feminine marker /t/ is assumed by implication due to the feminine gender
of the name. In fact, Arabic licenses the formation of FSP even from items of
masculine gender. The following words in table 13/5, below, are of masculine
gender, but allow FSP formations:
Singular Masculine Meaning Plural Feminine

Mu¥alladun Volume /mualla¥daatun/
Ϊ˲ ϠΠϣ (of a book) Ε
˲ ΍ΪϠΠϣ
max¥luuqun /maxluu¥qaatun/
Creature
ϕ
˲ ϮϠΨϣ Ε
˲ ΎϗϮϠΨϣ
/tarmiimum/ /tarmiimaatun/
Repair
Ϣ˲ ϴϣήΗ Ε
˲ ΎϤϴϣήΗ
Table 13/5. Masculine singulars having feminine plurals.
It is interesting to note that FSP derivations from items of masculine form

and gender are on the increase in Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) and other
dialects and they cover both native and loan words (cf. Wickens, 1980: 55;
Ryding, 2005: 138). Notice table 13/6, below:
Singular Masculine Meaning Plural Feminine

/!i¥aar/ έΎσ· <tyre> /!iaa¥raat/
Native
/ma¥aar/ έΎτϣ <airport> /maaa ¥raat/
/mu¥rakkab/ ΐ˷ϛήϣ <compound> /murakka¥baat/
/sanda¥wii/ζΘϳϭΪϨγ <sandwich> /sandawii ¥aat/
/kom¥byuutar/
Loan <computer> /kombyuuta¥raat/
ήΗϮϴΒϣϮϛ
/tili¥foon/ ϥϮϔϠΗ <telephone> /tilifoo ¥naat/
Table 13/6. Native and loan masculine nouns that take feminine plurals.
However, to avoid losing the focus on regular SPs and Ds, let us not drift away
and pursue the less regular and exceptional cases of plurals. The main focus of
this paper, as stated at the outset, is further elaboration in support of the claim that
the main factor in the formation of SPs and Ds is the internal change in the form
of stress shift and vowel quantity shift rather than the purported external change
in the form of omissions and suffixations. With this focus in mind, it might be
interesting and relevant to consider a similar claim of internal change for the
structural generation of the cardinal numbers of 30 through 90 as being based on
the lengthened versions of the masculine nominative and genitive case endings of
the cardinal numbers from 3 through 9 in conjunction with stress shift as in table
13/7, below.
Case Cardinals 3-9 Meaning Cardinals 30-90 Case

Nom. 6a¥laa6un Three 6alaa ¥6uun Nom.
Gen./ 6a¥laa6in 6alaa ¥6iin Obl.
Nom. ¥!arbaun Four !arba¥uun Nom.
Gen./ ¥!arbain !arba¥iin Obl.
Nom. ¥Xamsun Five Xam¥suun Nom.
Gen. ¥Xamsin Xam¥siin Obl.
Nom. ¥Sittun Six Sit¥tuun Nom.
Gen. ¥Sittin Sit¥tiin Obl.
Nom. ¥Sabun Seven Sab¥uun Nom.
Gen. ¥Sabin Sab¥iin Obl.
Nom. ¥6amaanun Eight 6amaa ¥nuun Nom.
Gen ¥6amaanin 6amaa ¥niin Obl.
Nom. ¥Tisun Nine Tis¥uun Nom.
Gen. ¥Tisin Tis¥iin Obl.
Table 13/7. Represents a formula for generating 30 through 90 cardinal numbers
from cardinals 3 though 9 similar to the formula of generating SPs and Ds
The transformations seem to be consistent with the overall assumption that DA

proposes. Although the relationship between the cardinal numbers 3 through 9,
on the one hand, and the cardinal numbers 30 through 90, on the other hand, is not
a singular/plural relationship it does, however, behave in the same manner both in
terms of function and internal structural change. In other words, the same
phonological rules of stress shift and vowel quantity change are used as a device
to signal numerical increase, a process that is basically identical in nature to the
singular/non-singular relationship. This, probably, explains why the Arab
grammarians regard the cardinal numbers 20 through 90 as both masculine and
feminine and are given the MSP ending /–uun for the nominative and /–iin/ for the
oblique (Wright, 257).
So far, the argument has been in defense of the plausibility of a basic
relationship between case endings of certain nouns and their SP and D forms.
Indeed, there are some strong grounds for such an argument; however, one might
raise the question of “What then”? In other words, what are the implications- both
theoretical and practical, if any, if DA were deemed plausible? The next sections
will attempt to respond to such a question.
13.3 Theoretical and Pedagogical Conclusions and Implications

The consistency with which different parts of DA fit together is far from
being accidental and ad hoc. DA claims that the distinguishing factor between the
singulars as opposed to their duals and plurals in the instances under discussion is
basically a difference of vowel quantity in association with stress shift. In other
words, a combination of phonological features is functioning as a grammatical
device indicating numerical differences of two (dual) and more than two (plural)
or even the multiples of ten. DA favors the argument that in the formation of SPs
and Ds, the non-singularity morphemes /–uun/, /–iin/ and /–aan/ which have,
hitherto, been regarded as suffixes, are merely the long versions of the three
inflectional morphemes /–un, /, /–in/ and /–an/ of the indefinite singulars with /–
an/ being allocated for Ds. The inclusion of Ds implies that from a global
perspective, they are treated on a par with plurals except in numerical value.
Moreover, all the transformations are essentially seen as the outcome of internal
change identical with some of the changes occurring with BPs though the changes
with the latter are more diverse in range and more drastic. It is, therefore, a gross
misinterpretation to look at SPs and BPs as being mutually exclusive in their
formation processes in the sense that the former are the outcome of exclusively
external changes and the latter are the outcome of only internal changes. On the
whole, it would be far more accurate in stating that internal changes are
significant in the formation of both SPs and BPs. With this supposition, the
argument is carried one step further to claim that SPs and Ds could be treated as
additional patterns of BPs. This inference would also reveal the inappropriateness
of external vs. internal plural dichotomy because it fails to justify itself on the
basis of the nature of linguistic changes involved which are far more identical in
nature in their underlying [deep] structures than the claimed omissions and
suffixations in their superficial (surface) structure. It is also pertinent to point out
that the whole process of SPs and Ds formation serves as a typical example of the
interaction between various linguistic levels. In this instance, the significance of
vowel quantity [length] change in Arabic is not confined to phonology only
because the phonological changes create morphological changes which eventually
generate grammatical/semantic changes. This chain of changes is best portrayed
in the formation of SPs, Ds and the cardinal numbers 20 through 90.
DA may also motivate the investigator and learner to espouse a descriptive
perspective of the Arabic language which has long been the captive of the
prescriptive grammarians who occasionally interpreted certain linguistic
processes based on the written forms of language rather than its phonetic and/or
phonological processes, a typical example of which is the formation of the items
under discussion here.
It is also believed that DA will encourage learners and teachers of Arabic,
both as native language (L1) and second language (L2), to espouse a more
analytical attitude with regard to language learning. The persistence in accounting
for the formation of SPs and Ds in terms of omissions and suffixations will only
foster a superficial look at the structure of Arabic, a look that is too short-sighted
to perceive the real linguistic changes and the interplay between different
underlying linguistic systems and structures. Additionally, DA promotes a more
integrative approach to linguistic analysis as opposed the compartmentalized one
that PA has long been promoting. The failure to pinpoint the real underlying
changes in this instance has been in part perpetuated by the orthographic system
of Arabic which allows many of its diacritic marks which have significant
phonetic, phonological and syntactic values to be discarded. The failure has also
partially been exacerbated by the prescriptive vision maintained vis-a-vis the
Arabic language since the early days of the Arab grammarians.
The significance of DA would be even greater when Arabic is taught as a
foreign language [FL], a domain that is rapidly expanding, especially in the
Western hemisphere where language teaching methodology is more linguistic-
oriented. It would certainly be more convincing and instructive to see the whole
process of SPs and Ds formations as internal phonological changes that trigger the
grammatical and subsequently the semantic changes. This is a descriptive
approach that would give the native learner as well as the non-native learner of
Arabic a better insight into the dynamics of Arabic and the manner in which its
structures and systems interact to signal semantic variations– in this instance, the
phonetic/phonological system initiating contrastive structures to signal plurality
and duality.
13.4 Bibliography
Abboud, Peter, McCarus, Ernest (1983). Elementary Modern Standard Arabic.
Abd Al’Ɨl, Ali (1977). The Sound Plurals and Broken Plurals in Arabic. (in
Arabic) Cairo: Al-Khanji Bookstore.
Ali, Jawad (1956-1960). History of Arabs before Islam (Vol. 7 of 8 volumes, in
Arabic). Baghdad: Iraq Academy of Sciences.
Bateson, M.C. (1967). Arabic Language Handbook. Washington/D.C.: Center for

Applied Linguistics.
Brustad, Kristen, Al_Batal, Mahmoud and Al-Tonsi, Abbas (2004). Alif Baa:
Introduction to Arabic Letters and Sounds. Washington D.C.: Georgetown
University Press.
Chomsky, Noam (1962/64). A Transformational Approach to Syntax. In A.A. Hill
(ed) Proceedings of the Third Texas Conference on Problems of Linguistic
Analysis in English, 1958. Austin/Texas: University of Texas press.
Hyman, L. (1975). Phonology: Theory and Analysis. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and Winston.
Lane. Edward W. (1968). An Arabic-English Lexicon. Beirut: Librairie du Liban.
Moscati, Sabatino (1969). An Introduction to the Comparative Grammar of the
Semitic Languages. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.
Mustafa, IbrahƯm (1937; reprinted 1993). Revival of Grammar [in Arabic]. Cairo:
Committee of Composing, Translating and Publishing.
Odisho, Edward Y. (1992). Transliterating English in Arabic. Zeitschrift für
arabische Linguistik, Vol. 24, pp. 21-34.
and English. Piscataway/New Jersey: Gorgias Press.
O’Leary, de Lacy (1966). Colloquial Arabic. London: Kegan Paul.
Roach, Peter (1983). English Phonetics and Phonology: A Practical Course.
Palmer, E. H. (1874). A Grammar of the Arabic Language. London: Wm. Allen &
Co.
Ryding, Karin (2005). A Reference Grammar of Modern Standard Arabic.
Streefkerk, Barbertje, M. (2002).Prominence: Acoustic and Lexical/Syntactic
Correlates. Proceedings 25, Institute of Phonetic Sciences, University of
Amsterdam, 207-209.
Bathesta/Maryland: Iranbooks.
Tritton, A.S. (1970). Arabic. London: Teach Yourself Books.
Wickens, G.M. (1980). Arabic Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Wright, W. (1967). A Grammar of the Arabic Language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Chapter 14
An Aerodynamic, Proprioceptive and

Perceptual Interpretation of SƯbawayhi’s
Misplacement of /ρ/ and /ϕ/ with Majhǌra
Consonants
14.1 Introduction Remarks
In a series of articles and research papers published between 1975 and
1988 (Odisho, 1975, 1977a, 1977b, 1981, 1988), attention was drawn to the
phonetic [perhaps even phonological] role of aspiration in the sound system of the
Arabic language. In the 1977 and 1988 papers, the focus was specifically on
SƯbawayhi’s controversial placement of /T/= < ρ>, /q/ = <ϕ> and /! / = <˯> within
his majhǌra [implying voiced] category which nowadays would be placed in
mahmǌsa (implying voiceless) category. With the 1988 paper, I thought I had
exhausted my contribution to this controversy; however, later when the views of
other investigators, such as Al-Nassir (1993), Versteegh (1997) and Carter (2004),
among others, were known to me especially with respect to their acceptance of the
possibility that the /T/ and /q/ were indeed majhǌra sounds and that they had
undergone phonetic change since SƯbawayhi’s time, I had a strong urge to retackle
the theme with more detailed phonatory, aerodynamic, perceptual and kinesthetic-
proprioceptive investigation of human sound production and classification which
all might help in a better understanding of the approach that Sibawahi might have
followed in his renowned treatise on the sounds of Arabic. For the sake of
accuracy and to acquaint the readers with the exact wording of those three
authors, their statements are cited as they appear in their respective works. Al-
Nassir states: “…there is every reason to believe that the original value of the /ϕ/
was [G] [i.e. a voiced uvular plosive, my insertion] and that the present voiceless
variant [q] of FuңHa Arabic [ϰΤμϔϟ΍ ΔϴΑήόϟ΍] is a subsequent outcome of sound
change” (1993: 37). With regard to /ρ/, he concludes by stating, “…like the ϕ, the
ρ too seems to have undergone a change in its voice feature.” (37). Versteegh
concludes, “ On the basis of his [SƯbawayhi] historical data, it is not unreasonable,
however, to suppose that in SƯbawayhi’s time these two sounds were indeed
voiced.” (1997: 89). Carter seems somewhat more cautious; he tends to believe
that “the pronunciation of [q] may well have been voiced… but the ‘voiced’ [ρ] is
not so easily explained anyway.” (2004: 126).
It is worth mentioning that the case of /˯/ will be excluded from this
discussion for most part since “the glottal stop by definition requires complete
closure of vocal folds, and it is physiologically impossible to make a voiced
glottal stop” (Laver, 1994: 206). Worded differently, since the glottis [for the
glottal stop] is tightly closed, forming the articulation of the sound, it cannot
simultaneously be open to produce voicelessness, whisper or voice. (Catford,
1988: 57) By the same token, it is impossible for a glottal stop to be accompanied
by aspiration; therefore, its inclusion by SƯbawayhi among the majhǌra sounds is

categorically untenable. The focus will, therefore, be primarily on his inclusion of
/T/ and /q/, within the category of majhǌra, which modern investigators
unanimously identify as voiced in opposition to mahmǌsa being the voiceless
category.
The general reaction to the above tendency on the part of those three
authors in favor of the assumption that /ϕ/ and /ρ/ had been voiced, but they have
lost their voicing throughout time, is that such a phonetic change is not
impossible; however, there seems to be other factors which need to be seriously
considered prior to accepting the proposition of the suggested phonetic change.
Foremost of those are the following two.
First, the two sounds, /ϕ/ and /ρ/ had been and still are equally common in
virtually hundreds of roots in both Arabic and Aramaic with their various standard
and dialectal versions. Obviously, Aramaic is the nearest cognate language to
Arabic; therefore, if some dialects of Arabic may have [or had] the voiced version
of these two plosives, their occurrence may be the exception rather than the rule.
Additionally, the articulatory, perceptual and acoustic investigation of the
Aramaic /ϕ = / and /ρ = /does not show any perceptible difference from their
Arabic counterparts (Odisho, 1975a; 1975b; 1977c); besides, it is very rare to
come across an investigator that made the claim that these two plosives had once
been voiced in Aramaic. Second, the phenomenon of phonation which is
sometimes mistakenly clustered under “the manner of articulation” parameter as
with Carter (2004: 126) is in reality a primary classificatory parameter on a par
with the other two parameters of place of articulation and manner of articulation.
Besides, phonation is often simplistically reduced to its binary contrast of voiced
vs. voiceless. For a meticulous and accurate description and classification of
human sound inventory, there is a wide range of vocal folds activities, modes and
synchronizations (Catford, 1977: 16; 1988: 51-4) which fall under the rubric of
phonation and are commonly invoked as autonomous distinctive features in
addition to voice and voiceless [breath], e.g., whisper and creak (Catford, 1988:
53-4). Thus, in actual fact, the phenomenon of phonation should be treated as a
continuum– rather than a dichotomy– along which several phonetic and
phonological contrasts do occur in different languages around the world.
Reducing phonation to a mere dichotomy can conceal very many phonetic
features the absence of which may lead to inaccurate identification, description
and classification of sounds in human languages. It is the lack of knowledge of
the virtual presence of the vocal folds and the wide range of their postures,
activities and synchronizations that seem to have been the primary cause of the
failure on the part of SƯbawayhi in the accurate identification of the two plosives
and their misplacement among the majhǌra sounds. Moreover, if the voicing and
its absence are combined with additional glottal [laryngeal] postures, modes and
synchronizations such as those yielding aspiration, or denying it, the result will
yield several distinctive contrasts. For instance, the mode [feature] of aspiration
may quadruple the binary contrast of voicing and voicelessness into: voiced
unaspirated, voiced aspirated, voiceless unaspirated and voiceless aspirated which
do trigger auditory and acoustic differences some of which may be difficult to
Aerodynamic, Proprioceptive and Perceptual Interpretation of Sounds 197
recognize by speakers whose languages do not treat aspiration or the lack of it as

phonological features. As this discussion progresses, it will be revealed that part
of SƯbawayhi’s confusion is attributed to the total absence of aspiration in both /ρ/
and /ϕ/.
14.2 What is Aspiration?

Traditionally, aspiration has been identified and defined as a ‘puff of air’
which follows the release of certain sounds, especially plosives. This way of
identifying aspiration is quite superficial and does not reflect the underlying
supraglottal and glottal articulatory, aerodynamic, and phonatory conditions that
lead to the presence or absence of the ‘puff of air’.
In a series of very stimulating papers, Kim (1965, 1967, 1970) developed
a theory of aspiration which is widely accepted. In those papers, he defines
aspiration as the “function of the glottal opening at the time of the release [of the
stricture, my insertion].” (Kim 1970: 111) Thus, Kim identifies aspiration as the
outcome of the articulatory, phonatory, and aerodynamic adjustments and
synchronizations between the glottal and supraglottal activities and apertures.
Hence, if the vibration of the vocal folds is on during the supraglottal stricture the
sound is said to be voiced. If there is no vibration during the supraglottal stricture
[which presumably indicates a relatively open glottis], and vibration is initiated
with the release of the sound, the sound is said to be voiceless unaspirated. But if
there is no vibration during the supraglottal stricture [which unequivocally
indicates a wide open glottis] and vibration is initiated only a while after the
release –perhaps 50 ms or more (Shadle, 1997: 49), then the sound becomes a
voiceless aspirated one. More technically, aspiration is a type of frication noise
which is the same phenomenon as [h] (Fujimura and Erickson, 1997: 76). It is the
above patterns of articulatory and glottal adjustments that determine the
aerodynamic conditions of which the ‘puff of air’ is only an outcome. Aspiration
is also detected and identified in plosives in terms of voice onset time [VOT]. In a
voiced plosive, such as a [d = Ω], vibration of the vocal folds is initiated prior to
the release of the plosive; in a voiceless unaspirated plosive such as [ =ρ]
vibration in the following vowel is initiated with the release of the plosive [no
delay]; in the case of the aspirated plosive such [t* = Ε] vibration in the following
vowel is noticeably delayed till after the release of the plosive. Schematically, the
three modes of plosive release and timing of voicing initiation will appear as in
Figure 14/1 below.
Closing Release
Gesture Gesture
Voiced
Voiceless Unaspirated
Voiceless Aspirated
Voicing
No Voicing
Figure 14/1. Timing and synchronization of voicing and aspiration in three

types of plosives.
If, however, the feature “delayed” is used to stand for “delayed initiation of
vibration” in the following vowel (which means aspiration), the three categories
of plosives in Arabic will distinguish themselves as follows: the voiced category
(such as /Ω/) will have the features [+ voice, – delayed], the voiceless unaspirated
category [such as /ρ/ and /ϕ/ ] will have the features [– voice, – delayed], and the
voiceless aspirated category will receive the features [– voice, + delayed] as in
Table 14/1, below:
Arabic Plosive Sounds Voiced Delayed

/d/ = /Ω/ + –
// = /ρ/ or /q/ = /ϕ/ – –
/t/ = /Ε/ – +
Table 14/1. Three categories of Arabic plosives set apart by distinctive features.
With the addition of the feature ‘delayed’ [i.e. aspiration] next to the
features of ‘voicing’ and ‘emphasis’ [ϕΎΒσϻ΍/ϢϴΨϔΘϟ΍], the plosives of Modern
Standard Arabic [MSA] and most of its dialects as well as those in Old Aramaic
and its modern varieties, will be marked as in table 14/2.
According to the feature grid in table 14/2 below, /t/ is different from /T/
in two features emphasis and aspiration. Thus, phonetically /t/ (= /Ε/) should be
transcribed as [t*] with the superscript [*] because it is aspirated, whereas /T/ (=
/ρ/) should be transcribed as [] without the superscript [*] because it is
unaspirated but with a subscript dot because it is emphatic. By the same token, the
difference between /ϙ/ and /ϕ/ is signaled by two features, namely, place and
aspiration. In light of this additional distinctive feature for /Ε/ vs. /ρ/ and /ϙ/ vs.
/ϕ/, one can quite justifiably conclude that with these two pairs of contrasts,
aspiration is not just a phonetic feature that enhances the contrast; rather, the
feature can function phonologically, as well, to set the two pairs of plosives apart.
From a phonetician’s perspective, such two-feature contrasts seem to be generated
by the language to enhance the distinction in less familiar contrasts to avoid any
auditory confusion. Unfortunately, in the case of SƯbawayhi it seems to have led
to confusion because of his total unfamiliarity with this feature and the total
absence of any knowledge about the existence of vocal folds and their
classificatory role not just with voiced vs. voiceless contrasts, but more so with
aspirated vs. unaspirated ones. In a nutshell, instead of dealing with the parameter
of phonation as a trichotomy [voiceless aspirated, voiceless unaspirated, voiced]
SƯbawayhi dealt with the same parameter as a dichotomy thus placing the
voiceless aspirated on one end and clustering the voiceless unaspirated and the
voiced together on the opposite end. Languages such as Hindi, Korean, Tai,
Modern Aramaic, among others, lean phonologically in the direction of a
trichotomy with regard to phonation parameter rather than a dichotomy. In such
languages, aspiration is used as a distinctive feature in combination with voicing
as well as without voicing (Fujimura and Erickson, 1997: 76).
Place and Symbol Voicing Aspiration Emphasis

1
Bilabial /b/ = Ώ + – –
Alveolar /d/ = Ω + – –
Alveolar /D/2 = ν + – +
Alveolar /t/ = Ε – + –
Alveolar /T/ = ρ – – +
3
Velar /k/ = ϙ – + –
Uvular /q/ = ϕ – – –
Glottal /!/ = ˯ – – –
Table 14/2. The primary distinctive features for Arabic and Aramaic plosives.
It is not only SƯbawayhi that failed to recognize the identity of unaspirated

sounds. In classes of teaching cross-language pronunciation, learners whose
languages may have phonetic instances of unaspirated sounds, but lack

1
Notice that plosives with the same feature are distinguished by their place of articulation.
2
Aramaic does not have this emphatic.
3
For a visual [spectrographic] difference between [k*] and [q], see Figure 16/1 Chapter 16.
phonological contrasts fail to distinguish the aspirated and the unaspirated

occurrences of such sounds. They also often fail to master unaspirated plosives
without intensive orientation and practice. Such instances are frequently
encountered with native speakers of English (L1) targeting Spanish (L2). For
example, native speakers of English often fail to tell the difference between the /p/
in /pin/ and /spin/ or the /t/ in /tick/ and /stick/ or the /k/ in /kin/ and /skin/ in
which the first members of the pairs have aspirated plosives versus the
unaspirated ones in the latter pairs. They often fail to recognize the unaspirated
phonetic nature of Spanish /p, t, k/ and render them aspirated. It takes real time to
help them recognize the difference. There are also instances when students with
languages without phonological significance of aspiration are exposed to
languages with contrastive aspirated vs. unaspirated pairs, they are likely to
identify the voiceless unaspirated tokens as voiced i.e., a [t] may be identified as
[d]. The reason behind the confusion of the voiceless unaspirated plosives with
the voiced ones [see Figure 14/1, above] is that the unaspirated plosives are
perceptually much nearer to the voiced [minimally different, only on the basis of
presence/absence of voice] compared to the aspirated ones which are twice
removed from the voiced [maximally different based on the presence/absence of
voice as well as the presence/absence of delay i.e. aspiration]. A very significant
historical case of the manner in which speakers of Semitic languages– Aramaic in
this case– identify the unaspirated sounds is embodied in the numerous words that
the Aramaic-speaking Christians borrowed from Greek Christian tradition which
involved the unaspirated Greek <Ĳ> and <ț> as in ‘ʌĮĲȡȚȐȡȤȘȢ’ and ‘țȜȘȡȚțȩȢ’
which are rendered <¾ÜûØûÓñ> and <¾ùØûÙàø>, respectively (Odisho, 2002). Very
consistently, all those instances of the unaspirated Greek [t] and [k] were rendered
unaspirated Aramaic // and //, rather than the aspirated // and // which by
their alphabetic status and their place of articulation are the direct counterparts of
the Greek plosives. The only explanation for the by-passing of <> and <> in
favor of <> and <> is because intuitively for the native speaker of Aramaic
<> and <>, with their aspirated nature, sound less identical with the Greek
unaspirated plosives than <> and <> do which are strictly unaspirated.
Inasmuch as the teaching of Arabic sounds to non-native learners of
Arabic is concerned, it is extremely significant to highlight the non-aspirated
nature of /ρ/ and /ϕ/ to secure maximum articulatory and perceptual differences
lest they should confuse the first with /Ε/ and the latter with /ϙ/ (Odisho, 1981).
This is a widely common confusion among foreign learners of Arabic and
Aramaic in spite of their success in securing reasonable proficiency in the
pronunciation of other sounds.
Still pertinent to the phonetic nature of /ρ/, its misplacement among the
majhǌra resulted in another inevitable phonological mismatching by SƯbawayhi.
Because, he treated it as majhǌra, he had no choice and justification but to treat
/ρ/ as the emphatic counterpart of /Ω/ rather than /Ε/ and leave /ν/ as an emphatic
without a plain counterpart. The following is the exact wording in SƯbawayhi Al-
KitƗb (1965: 404)
ϡϼϜϟ΍ Ϧϣ ΩΎπϟ΍ ΖΟήΧϭ ˬϻ ˱ ΍Ω ˯Ύτϟ΍ ΕέΎμϟ ϕΎΒσϻ΍ ϻϮϟ“

˱ ΍Ϋ ˯Ύψϟ΍ϭ Ύ˱Ϩϴγ ΩΎμϟ΍ϭ ˬ ϻ
.”ΎϫήϴϏ ΎϬόοϮϣ Ϧϣ ϲ ˱ η βϴϟ Ϫϧϻ
Nowadays, there is unanimous agreement that / ν/ is the emphatic counterpart of

/d/. Consequently, the /ρ/ is fairly and squarely the emphatic counterpart of /Ε /
but in two features: emphasis and aspiration. Tables 14/3 and 14/4 portray
SƯbawayhi’s plain vs. emphatic sounds contrasts versus their modern contrasts.
Plain Sound Emphatic Sound

/s/ = α // = ι
/į/ = Ϋ /įҕ/ = υ
/d/ = Ω // = ρ
No plain counterpart //=ν
Table 14/3. SƯbawayhi’s matching of plain versus emphatic sounds.
Plain Sound Emphatic Sound

/s/ =α // =ι
/į/ = Ϋ /įҕ/ =υ
/d/ = Ω // =ν
/t/ = Ε // =ρ
Table 14/4. Modern matching of plain versus emphatic sounds.
14.3 Why the Terms ‘Majhǌra’ and ‘Mahmǌsa’?

Regardless of some irregularities, Sibawahi’s twelve-century old
description and classification of sounds, as well as his unique phonetic
nomenclature bear undeniable testimony to his linguistic genius and exquisite
phonetic aptitude and sensitivity to human sounds and their production
mechanisms. Specifically, his majhǌra [ΓέϮϬΠϣ] vs. mahmǌsa [ΔγϮϤϬϣ] dichotomy
and the high accuracy of the assignment of the sounds of Arabic to the two
categories, which are, for most part, incredibly consistent with the modern
descriptive and classificatory criteria, do strongly substantiate his phonetic talent
and aptitude. The fact that he was not aware of the existence of the vocal folds
and their significant role in sound production deprived him of a major descriptive
criterion [parameter] and put him at a disadvantage in his attempt of sound
identification and description. According to the modern theory of speech
production, there are three possible sound sources supplying the primary acoustic
energy. These are voice i.e., vocal fold vibration; noise i.e., random noise from
turbulent airflow through the supraglottal passages and past sharp objects; and
transient i.e., single shock excitation of the vocal cavities (for details see Fant
1967, 1970; Minifie 1973; Shadle, 1997: 49). The transient is not dealt with here
because of irrelevance to our topic. Looking at human sound production sources
from a more general perspective, Catford identifies the three processes of

initiation, phonation and articulation (for further elaboration on Catford’s
excellent description of those three processes consult his books, 1977 and 1988).
According to Fant’s and Catford’s meticulous identification of sources and
processes of human sound-production, SƯbawayhi seems to have missed Fant’s
acoustic source of voice generation and Catford’s phonatory process. With this
handicap on the part of SƯbawayhi, he had intuitively to resort to other sources of
feedback. His phonetic contrast of mahmǌsa and majhǌra and his reference to the
‘sound of the mouth’ [Ϣϔϟ΍ ΕϮλ] and the ‘sound of the chest’ [έΪμϟ΍ ΕϮλ] correlate
very efficiently with the scientific fact that the source of noise is in the vocal tract
above the glottis [predominantly in the oral cavity ϲϤϔϟ΍ ϒϳϮΠΘϟ΍], whereas the
source of voice is in the larynx [on top of chest cavity ϱέΪμϟ΍ ϒϳϮΠΘϟ΍]. It is
SƯbawayhi’s impressionistic sensations detected by his auditory and
proprioceptive feedback channels that seem to have led him to his choice of the
attributes of mahmǌsa and majhǌra.
With the mention of those two feedback channels, some explanation of
each one of them is inevitable. The auditory feedback consists of the stimulations
of the speaker’s peripheral hearing organs by the sound-wave issuing from his
own mouth which reaches his ears both externally, by air conduction, and
internally, by bone conduction (Catford, 1988: 6; see also Abercrombie, 1967: 22-
3). In both these cases, it is the resonance that carries the feedback. Scientifically,
there are two basic kinds of resonance: sympathetic resonance (or free resonance)
and conductive resonance [or forced resonance] (McKinney, 2005: 119). In the
latter type of resonance, “the resonator starts vibrating because it is in physical
contact with a vibrating body.” Although “both types of resonance are at work in
the human voice during speaking and singing”, conductive resonance seems to be
of greater significance and relevance to this discussion of SƯbawayhi’s overall
approach to sound identification, description and choice of nomenclature. “The
vibrations created by the vocal folds travel along the bones, cartilages, and
muscles of the neck, head, and upper chest, causing them to vibrate.” (McKinney,
120) The movements of different parts of the speech production mechanism and
vibrations that may accompany them – such as of the vocal folds– could all be
picked up by proprioception. “Human speech would be impossible without the
proprioceptive sense which refers to the sense within the organism itself which
detects or controls the movement and location of the muscles, tendons, and joints
which are used to create speech. Our mouth, vocal cords, diaphragm, and lungs
incorporate thousands of nerve sensors which the brain uses to control their
movement and determine their position (http://www.freeenglishnow
.com/lsfl1.html, 2008: 4). The best way to sense the articulatory gestures and the
aerodynamic disturbances is through the kinesthetic and proprioceptive channels
of perception. For instance, muscular tensions and pressure changes within the
vocal tract, including the larynx and the rest of the supraglottal cavities, are
picked up by special kinesthetic and proprioceptive receptors, thus providing
some information about the movements, positions, contacts, and pressures
throughout the vocal tract (Daniloff 1973:183).
With regard to the term of majhǌra, and irrespective of the different

modern translations of it as “loudly and clearly uttered” (Al-Nassir), “spoken
aloud” (Versteegh), “shouted or loud” (Carter), it is the resonance in his chest,
larynx and even his head and ears of the vibration of the vocal folds that
SƯbawayhi had sensed without knowing its source. Failure to identify the source
of resonance, which is so axiomatic for modern researchers, he had to express his
sensations impressionistically and identify the source of this category as
originating in the chest [έΪμϟ΍ ϲϓ ΕϮλ]. The absence of those vibratory sensations
in his chest, trachea, larynx etc… with the other category of sounds, his
impressionistic judgment led him to the label of mahmǌsa, with its different
translations as “whispered, hushed” (Al-Nassir, 1993) and “whispered”
(Versteegh, 1997; Carter, 2004). Incidentally, the ‘whispered’ rendition for
‘ΔγϮϤϬϣ’ is not an appropriate one for two reasons. First, technically in ‘whisper’
“the vocal folds are vibrating to produce voice but at the same time there is a
continuous escape of air generating the sound of whisper.” (Catford, 1988: 55; see
also Laver, 1994: 190) Second, in the renowned Arabic-English Lexicon ( Ϊϣ
αϮϣΎϘϟ΍), there is no mention of ‘whisper’ as the English rendition for the Arabic
root ‘˴βϤ˴ ϫ˴ ’. The rendition that is consistently cited for ‘˴βϤ˴ ϫ˴ ’ is “speak inaudibly or
in a low, faint, gentle or soft manner” (Lane, 1968: Vol. 8: 2901-2); anyhow,
impressionistically the term mahmǌsa as an antonym for majhǌra is an
appropriate choice. Nevertheless, the question as to why SƯbawayhi placed /ρ/ and
/ϕ/ among the majhǌra remains unanswered. This study tends to believe strongly
that the unaspirated nature of these two plosives results in the instantaneous
initiation of vocal folds vibration in the next vowel thus misleading the person
articulating –or perceiving– them into deceptive proprioceptive sensation –or
auditory perception– that the vocal folds are in vibration mode prior to the release
of the stricture as is the case with voiced plosives. In a previous article, the
phenomenon of aspiration had been rendered in Arabic as ‘΢ϔϨϟ΍ ΓήϫΎχ’ and the
attributes ‘aspirated’ and ‘unaspirated’ were rendered as ‘ΔΣϮϔϨϣ’ and ‘ΔΣϮϔϨϣ ήϴϏ’,
respectively (Odisho, 1976). The combination of these attributes with SƯbawayhi
‘ΔγϮϤϬϣ’ and ‘ΓέϮϬΠϣ’, the three different types of plosives in Arabic would best be
described as ‘ΔΣϮϔϨϣ ΔγϮϤϬϣ’ for the voiceless aspirated [ΔΣϮϔϨϣ ήϴϏ ΔγϮϤϬϣ’ ,[ϙ ˬΕ’
for the voiceless unaspirated [ϕ ˬ ρ] and ‘ΔΣϮϔϨϣ ήϴϏ) ΓέϮϬΠϣ)’ for voiced
(unaspirated) [Ω ˬ Ώ ].
14.4 Conclusions
SƯbawayhi’s classification of the sounds of Arabic into majhǌra and
mahmǌsa, which is more than a millennium old, is a brilliant accomplishment.
Although his dichotomy tends to align itself with the modern dichotomy of voiced
vs. voiceless, no one should be tempted to treat the two dichotomies as identical.
One can conjecture as much as one wishes, but there is no solid evidence to verify
what exactly SƯbawayhi had in mind when he described the two categories of
sounds. However, in the absence of his knowledge of the existence of the vocal
folds and their complicated combinations of postures, modes and synchronization
with the supraglottal articulatory and aerodynamic maneuvers, he had no choice
to formulate his descriptive and classificatory premises other than in terms of his
impressionistic feedback which was a combination of articulatory, kinesthetic and
proprioceptive sensations that his brain received during the performance of those
sounds.
Many scholars have tried to identify SƯbawayhi’s dichotomy with their
own, (voiced/voiceless, lenis/fortis, pressed/non-pressed, sonorous,/muffled and
non-breathed/breathed), but none of them matches it precisely. Hence, instead of
identifying it with the above list of suggested dichotomies, it should be added to
them as a stand-alone descriptive tool. The mahmǌsa-majhǌra dichotomy is what
SƯbawayhi meant it to be. Nevertheless, if the choice is to match it with the
voiceless-voiced then one has to account for the misplacement of /ϕ ˬ ρ / within
the voiced category. Many researchers, such as the ones cited in the beginning of
this study, have opted to explain their inclusion within majhǌra in terms of
historical change in the sense that at SƯbawayhi’s time these two plosives had
been voiced. Such an explanation implies no misplacement of the two plosives
and that SƯbawayhi’s classification “was correct” (Al-Nassir, 1993: 37). This
study concludes that there is no solid evidence to substantiate the occurrence of
the historical change in the nature of those two plosive sounds; rather, there is a
misplacement and the culprit behind the misplacement is the unaspirated nature of
/ϕ ˬ ρ/. This unaspirated nature of such sounds which involves the instantaneous
initiation of voicing in the next vowel with the release of the supraglottal closure
and the concomitant aerodynamic and perceptual conditions seem to have created
proprioceptive sensations much similar to those accompanying voiced sounds. It
is those sensations that misled the genius SƯbawayhi into their placement with the
majhǌra.
14.5 Bibliography
Al-Nassir, A.A.(1993). SƯbawayh the Phonologist: A Critical Study of the
Phonetic and Phonological Theory of Sibawayh as Presented in his
Treatise Al-KitƗb, Library of Arabic Linguistics, Monograph 10. London:
Kegan Paul International.
Carter, M.G (2004). SƯbawayhi: Makers of Islamic civilization. London: Tauris.
Daniloff, R. G. (1973). Normal Articulation processes. Normal Aspects of Speech,
Hearing, and Language (Fred D. Minifie, Thomas Hixon, and Frederick
Williams (eds.), Englewood Cliffs/NJ: Prentice-Hall, Pp. 169-210.
Catford, J.C. (1988). A Practical Introduction to Phonetics. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
———. (1977). Fundamental Problems in Phonetics. Bloomington/Indiana:
Indiana University Press.
Fant, G. M. (1967). Descriptive Analysis of the Acoustic Aspects of Speech.
Readings in Acoustic Phonetics. Ilse Lehiste, (ed.). Cambridge/MA: The
M.I.T. Press. Pp. 93-108.
———. (1970) Acoustic Theory of Speech. The Hague: Mouton.
Fujimura, Osamu and Erickson, Donna (1997). Acoustic Phonetics. The

Handbook of Phonetic Sciences. William J. Hardcastle, John Laver (eds.),
pp. 65-115.
http://www.freeenglishnow.com/lsfl1.html (2008). The Proprioceptive Sense in
Language Learning, pp.1-9.
Kim, C. W. (1965). On the Autonomy of the Tensity Feature in Stop Consonants.
Word, Vol. 2l: 339-59.
———. (1967). Cineradiographic Study of Korean Stops and a Note on
Aspiration. Quarterly Progress Report, 86: 259-72.
———. (1970). A Theory of Aspiration. Phonetica, 21: 107-116.
Ladefoged, P. (1971). Preliminaies to Linguistic Phonetics. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.
Lane, Edward (1968). Arabic-English Lexicon. Beirut/Lebanon: Librairie du
Liban, Vol. 8: 2901-2.
Laver, John (1994). Principles of Phonetics. London: Cambridge University
Press.
McKinney, James C. (2005). The Diagnosis and Correction of Vocal Faults: A
Manual for Teachers of Singing and for Choir Directors. Long Grove/
Illinois: Waveland Press.
Odisho, Edward Y. (1975a). A Study of the Voiceless Emphatic Alveolar Plosive.
(abstract) Proceedings of the 7th International Congress of Phonetic
Sciences, Leeds/England.
———. (1975b). The Phonology and Phonetic of Neo-Aramaic as Spoken by the
Assyrians in Iraq. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Leeds University, England.
———. (1976). The Phenomenon of Aspiration and its Role in Sound Systems.
AfƗq Arabiyya Review, 1: 102-104 (Baghdad).
———. (1977a). The Role of ‘S’ in the Deaspiration of Plosive Sounds. AfƗq
Arabiyya Review, 1: 94-97.
———. (1977b).Was Sibawaih Justified in his Description of Certain Sounds as
Majhǌra? AfƗq Arabiyya Review, 2: 62-65.
–––––– (1977c). Arabic /S/: a Voiceless Unaspirated Uvular Plosive. Lingua, 42,
343-347.
———. (1981). Teaching Arabic Emphatics to the English Learners of Arabic.
Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics, 13, 275-280.
———. (1988a). Sibawaihi’s Dichotomy of ‘majhǌra’ and ‘mahmǌsa’ Revisited.
Al-arabiyya. 21, 81-90.
———. (1988b). The sound system of modern Assyrian (Neo-Aramaic).
Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz Velag.
———. (2002). The Role of Aspiration in the Transliteration of Loanwords in
Aramaic and Arabic. Sprich doch mit deinen Knechten aramaisch, wir
verstehen es (60 Beitrage zur Semitistik Festschrift fur Otto Jastrow zum
60. Geburtstag), Werner Arnold and Hartmut Bobzin (eds.) Wiesbaden:
Otto Harrassowitz Verlag, pp.489-501.
Foreign Language Classes. München: Lincom-Europa.

and English. Piscataway: New Jersey: Gorgias Press.
———. (2007). Linguistic Tips for Latino Learners and Teachers of English.
Piscataway: New Jersey: Gorgias Press.
Shadle, Christine H. (1997). The Aerodynamics of Speech. The Handbook of
Phonetic Sciences. William J. Hardcastle, John Laver (eds.), pp. 33-64.
SƯbawayhi, Abu Bishr. Al-KitƗb (1965, Bulaq edition). Chapter 565: 404.
Versteegh, Kees (1997). The Arabic language. New York: Columbia University
Press.
Chapter 15
The Sun or Moon Status of Arabic <Ν>: A

Descriptive Perspective
The Arabic character <Ν> is supposed to have the phonetic value of a
voiced palato-alveoalr affricate1 [] in Classical Arabic [Qur’Ɨnic Arabic] as
well as in Modern Standard Arabic [MSA]. However, it has been consistently
described by the Arab grammarians as a voiced plosive with a place of articulation
between the center of the tongue and the center of the palate (Sibawaihi, 1881;
Carter, 2004). They have also classified it as a Moon [ϱήϤϗ] consonant as opposed
to Sun [ϲδϤη] consonant. Obviously, there is a major difference between the two
identifications which renders itself as the focus of this study. As a prelude to this
study some light should be shed on the “Sun vs. Moon” classification of sounds in
Arabic. The Arabic terminology of <ϲδϤη> or <ϱήϤϗ > is based on the fact that
the Arabic word < βϤη > = “sun” begins with <ε> a ‘Sun’ consonant and the
Arabic word <ήϤϗ> = “moon” begins with <ϕ> a ‘Moon’ consonant. To further
clarify the above two terms, we have to point out that the Arab grammarians have
classified their consonants into two categories on the phonetic basis of
assimilation. The assimilation relevant here is the one that takes place when the
Arabic definite article <ϝ΃> = [!al] is prefixed to words. With some consonants
the <l> of the article is fully assimilated thus leading to its disappearance and to
the gemination [doubling] of the first consonant of the word concerned. For
instance, if ‘al’ is added to <shams> = “sun”, the word is pronounced <ashshams>
[!C55COU] with the deletion of [1] and the doubling of <sh>. According to Arab
grammarians, the Sun letters are the following: ε ϝ έ ι ί α ν ρ ϥ Ε Ω υ Ϋ Ι.
When the definite article is added to the word <qamar> = “moon”, the [1] of the
article is not assimilated nor is the initial consonant of the word geminated. Thus
<qamar> will be pronounced <alqamar>. The Moon consonants are: Ν ϑ ϭ ϡ Ώ
˯ ˰ϫ Ρ ω ϕ ύ Υ ϙ ϱ [see figures 15/1 and 15/2 below].
The above classification of consonants into the Sun-Moon dichotomy
stated by the Arab grammarians still holds true almost absolutely except for the
fact that in the speech of the overwhelming majority of Iraqis, whether using
standard or dialectal Arabic, <Ν> functions as a Sun consonant contrary to what
the Arab grammarians have, hitherto, stated.
This study is a descriptive attempt to further substantiate earlier
observation about the Sun status of <Ν> in both standard and colloquial Arabic of
Iraq (Odisho, 1977; 1980).

1
It is also described as voiced postalveolar affricate.
15.2 Corpus and Testing

In order to determine the Sun or the Moon status of <Ν>, the following
short passage was composed which contained thirteen (13) instance of <Ν> with
the definite article.
ΔϨϳΪϤϟ΍ ωέ΍Ϯη ήΒϋ Γήϴδϣ ϲϓ ΩϮϨΠϟ΍ ΩϮϘϳ ϥ΍ ϪϴϠϋ ϥΎϛ ϡΎϳϻ΍ Ϧϣ ϡϮϳ ϲϓϭ ˬζϴΠϟ΍ ϲϓ ΎτΑΎο ϞΟήϟ΍ ϥΎϛ
ςΑήϳ ϱάϟ΍ ήδΠϟ΍ ΍ϭήΒϋ ϞϴϠϗ ΪόΑϭ .ϢϬΗήϴδϣ Ϧϴ΋ΪΘΒϣ ΪϨΠϟ΍ α΃έ ϰϠϋ ςΑΎπϟ΍ ΝήΧ ΡΎΒμϟ΍ ϲϓϭ .ΔϠϴϤΠϟ΍
ϡΎψΘϧΎΑ ΐΠϋ΍ ϱάϟ΍ ΔϳέϮϬϤΠϟ΍ βϴ΋έ ϢϬϓΩΎλ ήδΠϟ΍ ϢϫέϮΒϋ ϯΪϟϭ .ϦϤϳϻ΍ ΐϧΎΠϟΎΑ ΔϨϳΪϤϠϟ ήδϳϻ΍ ΐϧΎΠϟ΍
ϲϓ ΎϫϮϟάΑ ϲΘϟ΍ ΩϮϬΠϠϟ ήϳΪϘΘϟ΍ ϡΎγϭ ΩϮϨΠϟ΍ϭ ςΑΎπϟ΍ ΢Ϩϣ ΔϳέϮϬϤΠϟ΍ βϴ΋έ έήϗ ϚϟΫ ήΛ΍ ϰϠϋϭ .ΓήϴδϤϟ΍
.ϦσϮϟ΍ ϞΟ΍ Ϧϣ ΩΎϬΠϟ΍
Thirty [30] subjects all native speakers of Iraqi Arabic were selected to
read the passage which sounded a fairly acceptable passage of standard Arabic.
None of the subjects felt any artificiality about it in the sense that it is a contrived
passage. They were not told anything about the purpose of the experiment lest
they should gear their pronunciation and make it in line with the targeted
intention; thus, their reading [pronunciation] is assumed to be as natural and
subconscious as possible. The only instruction they received was to read the
passage in the style of an educated native speaker. The subjects were intentionally
selected so as to represent three well-defined categories of educated people: 1)
Ten [10] native speakers of Arabic with formal education in Arabic language
leading to a post-graduate degree in Arabic; 2) Ten [10] native speakers of Arabic
without formal education in Arabic leading to a degree in Arabic language;
however, they all had graduate degrees in English or French; 3) Ten [10] native
speakers of Arabic who majored in foreign languages.
All thirty [30] subjects were individually invited to the language
laboratory and were asked to read the passage. They were all tape-recorded.
Altogether, the experiment yielded 390 [13 x 30] tokens of <Ν>.
15.3 Results
In table 15/2, at the end of this study, [+] indicates that <Ν> is realized by
the subject as a Moon consonant [hereafter referred to as Moon realization and
abbreviated as MR], whereas [–] indicates that <Ν> is realized as Sun consonant
[hereafter referred to as Sun realization and abbreviated as SR]. A careful look at
the chart indicates that the majority of the token realizations of <Ν> are SRs in the
speech of all three categories. There are 305 SRs vs. 85 MRs; in other words, the
difference is approximately of the ratio of 1:4. What is interesting to notice is that
only five [5] subjects produced absolutely consistent MRs. Four [4] of them
belong to the first category and one to the second category. Two [2] subjects kept
shifting inconsistently from MR to SR realizations. Five [5] sporadic instances of
MR are encountered in the performance of five [5] subjects from all three
categories, each producing one instance in a different place in the passage.
Differences in the performance of categories 2 and 3 are negligible. It is worth
The Sun or Moon Status of Arabic Ν 209
mentioning that no subject in all three categories confused the MR or SR

realization of sounds other that [Ν].
Figure 15/1. Schematic representation along the Vocal Tract of the place
of articulation of Sun and Moon consonants of Arabic.
15.4 Discussion
It is to be noticed that most of the MRs of <Ν> are provided by subjects
from category 1, i.e., those who are formally majored in Arabic and have a higher
degree in it. In their formal university education, their instructors try to teach
them the sounds of Arabic strictly as described by classical Arab grammarians.
Since those grammarians have unanimously specified <Ν> as a Moon consonant,
it follows that students majoring in Arabic are instructed and trained to abide
strictly by MR. This is a typical prescriptive attitude on the part of the instructors
in handling the teaching of Arabic. The lack of exposure or simply the casual
exposure of the subjects of category 2 and 3 to the prescribed rules for the
pronunciation of Arabic may account for the 90% failure in producing MRs.
However, this by no means can account for the 53% failure of the subjects of
category 1 in securing MRs.
Further personal interviews and communication with the subjects revealed
that three subjects of category 1, who consistently produced MRs, had spent fairly
good time in the recitation or cantillation of the holy book of Islam, the Qur’Ɨn
where MRs should be strictly observed. Any failure to do so is regarded a flagrant
violation of the rules of recitation and cantillation. This fact also provides the
answer to the consistent MR realizations by one of the subjects of category 2 who
admitted that in his boyhood he had received formal education in the recitation
and cantillation of the Qur’an. The fourth consistent scorer of MRs in category 1
turned out to be a poet with some formal training in broadcasting, another field
which stipulates ‘correct’ [prescriptive] pronunciation in Arabic.
Consequently, the almost complete failure of five [5] subjects of category
#1 to produce MRs may be attributed to the following reasons. 1) Improper
training in the production of the sounds of Arabic as prescribed by the Arab
grammarians; 2) Casual or absence of training in the recitation or cantillation or
any other profession that stipulates MR; 3) Mere insensitivity by the subjects to
matters pertaining to pronunciation; and 4) Perhaps the most significant reason,
which will be elaborated on course of our discussion, is related to the phonetic
nature of <Ν> = [] as a voiced palato-alveolar affricate.
Moon Zone Sun Zone Moon Zone

[b, w, m, f, ] [6, &, t, , s, , z] [/g, j, k, :, ¯, q, Í]
<Ώ ,ϭ ˬϡ ˬϑ> [Ι Ϋ Ε ρ α ι ί] [Ν ϱ ϙ Υ ύ ϕ Ρ]
[d, , &ҕ, l, r, n, , 5] [ , !, h]
[Ω ν υ ϝ έ ϥ ε] [ ω ˯ ˰ϫ]
Figure 15/2. Zones of Moon consonants [14] and Sun consonants [14] as
prescribed by Arab grammarians.
Nevertheless, the crucial question of the strong tendency of <Ν> toward

SR, contrary to the Arab grammarians’ claim, remains to be answered. In pursuit
of an answer, one has to digress somewhat to deal with the rationale behind the
assimilation or the retention of <l> of the definite article. Figure 15/1 above
indicates that there are three [3] articulatory zones one of which is labeled Sun
Zone and the other two are Moon Zone. The Sun Zone includes sounds with the
following places of articulation: inter-dental, alveolar and palato-alveolar,
whereas the anterior Moon Zone includes sounds with bilabial and labio-dental
places of articulation and the posterior Zone includes sounds with the palatal,
velar, uvular, pharyngeal and laryngeal [glottal] places of articulation. The first
thing that captures attention is that the Sun consonants have the same place of
articulation as [l] sound of the definite article or a place that is adjacent to that of
[l] which, from the articulatory perspective, is an alveolar sound. Therefore, the
assimilation of [l] is accounted for in terms of economy in articulatory maneuvers
in that instead of executing two consecutive maneuvers in the same or adjacent
place of articulation– one for [l] and one for the following Sun consonant, the
tongue tip and/or blade execute only one articulatory maneuver [for a prolonged
form of consonant or geminated] thus performing regressive articulatory
assimilation. This process of assimilation seems to indicate some sort of
constraint on the maneuverability of the tip/blade of the tongue within a limited
period of time. On the contrary, there seems to be no such maneuverability

constraint on articulatory combinations of [l] with the Moon consonants because
they are produced by articulators other than the tongue such as the [b] and [m]
which are produced primarily by the action of the two lips] and the [f] which is
produced by a combination of the lower lip and the upper incisors. Moon
consonants may also be sounds in which a part of the tongue is involved in their
production, but the required tongue maneuvers are not antagonistic to those of the
tongue tip/blade. So lips, tongue tip/blade and the tongue body/back may be
thought of as three more or less independent systems (Scully, 1973).
Now if [Ν] = [], in the modern classificatory terms, is a voiced palato-
alveolar affricate consonant then such a sound should naturally fall into the
category of Sun consonants on equal basis with [5] = <ε>, a palato-alveolar
consonant which is unequivocally the ‘archetype’ of Sun consonants. In actual
fact, [Ν] = [] has got stronger articulatory qualifications [justifications] to
function as a Sun consonant since its first articulatory maneuver i.e., [d] is located
in the alveolar area which is absolutely confined to Sun consonants and it is
second segment [<] is simply the voiced cognate of [ε] = [5]. The articulatory
nature of [Ν] = [] may be the primary reason to explain why the speakers of
Iraqi Arabic have a strong tendency to render it a Sun consonant unlike the claim
of the Arab grammarians in identifying it as a Moon consonant. It may also
explain why in the absence of formal training in the pronunciation of Arabic,
whether through a prescriptive course in Arabic sounds or through recitation and
cantillation, SR is so dominant. The SR seems to be so strong an inclination that
even formal training in Arabic fails, sometimes, to counter it. This inclination
could also contribute, along with other reasons mentioned above, to explain the
53% failure among the subjects of category 1 to secure a MRs.
Another relevant and pressing question to answer is: why in the first place
did the Arab grammarians classify [Ν] as a Moon consonant? If the old <Ν> had
the same phonetic value of the modern <Ν> [i.e., ] then it should have been
listed with the Sun consonants on a par with [5]. What the Arab grammarians have
done is different. It is true that they have clustered <ε Ν ϱ> together as
consonants produced in the same place [Alnasser, 1993; Carter, 2004], but they
have regarded only <Ν> as a Sun consonant, whilst the other two have been
regarded as Moon consonants. From the articulatory perspective, it is absolutely
irrational to cluster three sounds in the same place of articulation, but identify one
of them as Moon consonant and other two as Sun consonants.
It is inconceivable to assume that the Arab grammarians were mistaken in
specifying the Moon or the Sun nature of <Ν> because the phonetic differences
resulting from the two realizations of a consonant, any consonant, would have
been too drastic and striking to the ear that even an untrained person would have
easily differentiated them. The inconsistency in the Moon and Sun status of <Ν>
would tempt the investigator to think that <Ν> had a phonetic realization that was
perhaps different from its present realization as voiced palato-alveolar affricate
[] realization. If the <ε> = [5], a palato-alveolar consonant, has always been–
and still is – unequivocally classified as a Sun consonant, it follows that the old
<Ν> may have been representing a sound with a more posterior place of
articulation viz., a palatal or a post-palatal [velar]. What supports this line of
thinking is that <Ν> has also been described by the Arab grammarians as a plosive
[stop] not as an affricate. With this latter identification of <Ν>, there will be two
main differences between the classical description of <Ν> and the present
observations about it.
Those two major differences [i.e., plosive vs. affricate and MR vs. SR]
encourage one to infer that the letter <Ν> might have had a different phonetic
realization than its present voiced palato-alveolar affricate realization. It might
have been a voiced palatal plosive [Ì], which is the dominant phonetic version of
<Ν> in the Sudanese norm of Arabic, or a voiced velar plosive [g] which is the
dominant phonetic realization in the Egyptian norm of Arabic. Such an
assumption implies that the phonetic value of this character has changed
throughout the historical evolution of Arabic and that the Arab grammarians have
actually described a sound that no longer has the same phonetic realization though
the alphabetic character remains the same. Additionally such an assumption is
quite likely in light of the present several different realizations of the letter <Ν>
across the Arabic speaking population. Foremost among such realizations are:
[], a voiced palato-alveolar affricate as in Iraq; [<], a voiced palato-alveolar
fricative as in Syria and Lebanon; [Ì], a voiced palatal plosive as in Sudan; and
[I], a voiced velar plosive as in Egypt.
15.5 Conclusions
The differences observed in the phonetic identification and the Moon vs.
Sun realizations of the Arabic alphabetic character <Ν> seem to indicate sound
change; however, the sound change has apparently been concealed for two
different reasons. First, the letter has not changed to indicate the change in the
phonetic nature of the sound. Second, the deep-seated archaic nature of the Arabic
grammar and the traditional methodology of teaching it have consistently
promoted a prescriptive attitude in that Arabic has not changed and it does not
change. The Sun realization of <Ν> at all levels of performance in the speech of
Moon Sun Moon

[b, w, m, f, ] [6, &, t, , s, , z] [j, k, :, ¯, q, Í]
<Ώ ,ϭ ˬϡ ˬϑ> [Ι Ϋ Ε ρ α ι ί] [ ϱ ϙ Υ ύ ϕ Ρ]
[d, , &ҕ, l, r, n, , 5] [ , !, h]
[Ω ν υ ϝ έ ϥ Ν ε] [ ω ˯ ˰ϫ]
Figure 15/3. Distribution of Moon consonants [13] and Sun consonants [15] as
identified presently in Iraqi Arabic. Notice the shift of <Ν> to Sun zone.
the Iraqis appears to be a natural inclination of sound change and is consistent

with the Sun realization of <ε> = [5]. If <ε> = [5] had been, and still is, a Sun
consonant, the present phonetic realization of <Ν> as [] should yield a SR as
well because it falls fairly and squarely within the Sun realization zone.
Interestingly, the sound system of Iraqi Arabic has developed the voiceless
palato-alveolar affricate [] which is the voiceless counterpart of [] as in the
word [al,b] for [kalb] = “dog”. [] is consistently realized as a Sun consonant.
Thus, the reassignment of <Ν> to SRs shifts the balance of 14 SRs vs. 14 MRs of
classical Arab grammarians (Thackston, 1994) to the balance of 15 SRs vs. 13
MRs as indicated in figure 15/3 above.
The assumption that the place of articulation of <Ν> shifted forward by
one place [velar or palatal to palato-alveolar] may be explained in a broader
context. For example, when we compare the change in the sound system of Iraqi
colloquial Arabic with that of Egyptian colloquial Arabic we will discover that
sounds in Egyptian drift backward in the vocal tract, whereas in Iraqi they drift
forward. For example, in the former, the <Ν> is realized [g] and the <ϕ> is
realized [!], while in the latter <Ν> is realized [] and <ϙ> and <ϕ> may be
realized as [] and [g], respectively as in table 1, below. Therefore, with regard to
the Sun or Moon realization of <Ν>, the Iraqi system is more compatible with a
SR of <Ν> because it pushes the sound forward into the Sun Zone of sounds [as in
figure 15/3 above], while the Egyptian system retracts it to the Moon Zone of
sounds to be the voiced equivalent of [k] as in figure 15/2 above.
Iraqi Colloquial Egyptian Colloquial
Palato-alveolar Velar Palato-alveolar Velar

I J
= [̧] M= [ϙ] = [Ν] g[=̳]
Velar Uvular Uvular Glottal
I J
g =[ ̳] S= [ϕ] S= [ ϕ ] ! = [ ˯]
Table 15/1. Drift of sounds in Egyptian and Iraqi colloquial Arabic in opposite
directions along the vocal tract.
Third, the proper training and orientation in the MR of <Ν> may reinforce the MR
performance of some subjects as noticed in category 1. It is noteworthy that
orientation in the recitation of the Qur’an is the most effective in producing MRs.
However, the natural assimilatory tendency of a [], as a SR, is so powerful that
it often counters the orientation in the direction of MR brought about by Qur’anic
recitation and the prescriptive Arabic language classroom instruction.
The existence of the Sun-Moon consonant dichotomy in Arabic, a clear
case of articulatory maneuvering and assimilation, may have wider implications
in general phonetics relevant to the constraints of maneuverability of certain
speech organs. It is, therefore, plausible to think of the lips, tongue tip-blade and
tongue body-back as three, more or less, independent systems as pointed out by

Scully earlier on. It is the coordination among theses systems that leads to a Sun-
Moon dichotomy of consonants in Arabic.
Another very significant classificatory implication of the Sun-Moon
dichotomy relates to the articulatory distinctive features first presented by
Chomsky and Halle (1968). They identified the feature anterior/nonanterior as
follows:
“Anterior sounds are produced with an obstruction that is located in front of the
palato-alveolar region of the mouth; nonanterior sounds are produced without
such an obstruction. The palato-alveolar region is that where the ordinary English
[6] is produced.”
Elsewhere Halle and Clemens (1983) name this feature slightly differently as
‘anterior/posterior’ and identify it as:
“Anterior sounds are produced with a primary constriction at or in front of the

alveolar ridge, while posterior sounds are produced with a primary constriction
behind the alveolar ridge.”
Regardless of the slight difference in naming and wording of the feature, the gist
is the same in that the demarcation line is between the alveolar place of
articulation and the palato-alveolar. Thus, any sound that is posterior to the
alveolar place of articulation is a nonanterior [posterior], whereas any sound that
in front of the palato-alveolar place is an anterior sound. Hence, labials, dentals
and alveolars are anterior sounds and palato-alveolars, palatals, velars, uvulars,
pharyngeals and glottals are nonanterior ones. Nevertheless, it is not clear on
what empirical basis Chomsky and Halle drew the demarcation line between the
anterior and the nonanterior sounds. If, however, the anterior/nonanterior
distinctive feature is applied as a classificatory criterion to identify the sounds of
Arabic, then in this case the feature would fail the more empirical and realistic
classificatory viability and validity of the Sun vs. Moon dichotomy of Arabic. In
other words, the demarcation line of Sun and Moon sounds of Arabic would be a
far more factual and realistic phonetic basis to delimit Chomsky and Halle’s
anterior/nonanterior articulatory distinctive feature. Such as conclusion supports
Ladefoged’s overall commentary on Chomsky and Halle’s feature system where
he states:
“It is by no means certain that phonetic facts can be adequately described using
the Chomsky-Halle features. These features are more suitable for classifying the
phonological oppositions that occur in languages than describing their phonetic
structures” (Ladefoged, 1982).
This last discussion leads to the conclusion that any set of distinctive features
should be premised on more factual, empirical and/or experimental criteria and be
subject to on-going discovery of more concrete linguistic evidence to substantiate
more universal validity of the features. In the case of Arabic, for the
anterior/nonanterior feature to be valid the palato-alveolar sounds [6, <, , ]

should be included in the anterior zone.
In sum, language change is a fact of life as long as a language is in
circulation and Arabic is not immune to this dynamic. There is strong indication
that the sound of the letter <Ν> has changed from what it had been in early Islam.
Most likely, it had the phonetic value of [Ì] as in Sudanese Arabic and [I] as in
Egyptian Arabic, an inference that is consistent with Littmann’s (1948)
hypothesis, based on historical evidence, which states that the origin of <Ν> was
[g] as it is presently in Egypt and as it was and still is in the Semitic languages. In
modern varieties of Arabic and Aramaic, the letter <Ν> and its Aramaic
equivalent <> are recognized in at least three different sounds, namely [], a
voiced palato-alveolar affricate, [Ì] a voiced palatal plosive and [g] a voiced velar
plosive.
Subjects Tokens MR SR
1 Category # 1 – – – – – – – – – – – – – ––– 13
2 + + + + + + + + + + + + + 13 –––
3 – – – – – – – – – – – + – 1 12
4 – – – – – – – – – – – – – ––– 13
5 – + – – + + – – + + + – + 7 6
6 – – – – – – – – – – – – – ––– 13
7 + + + + + + + + + + + + + 13 –––
8 – – – – – – – – – – – – + 1 12
9 + + + + + + + + + + + + + 13 –––
10 + + + + + + + + + + + + + 13 –––
1 Category #2 – – – – – – – – – – – – – ––– 13
2 – – – – – – – – – – – – – ––– 13
3 – – – – – – – – – – – – – ––– 13
4 – – – – – – + – – – – – – 1 12
5 – – – – – – – – – – – – – ––– 13
6 – – – – – – – – – – – + – 1 12
7 – – – – – – – – – – – – – ––– 13
8 – – – – – – – – – – – – – ––– 13
9 – – – – – – – – – – – – – ––– 13
10 + + + + + + + + + + + + + 13 –––
1 Category #3 – – – – – – – – – – – – – ––– 13
2 – – – – – – – – – – – – – ––– 13
3 – – – – – – – – – – – – – ––– 13
4 + + – + + – + – + + + – – 8 5
5 + – – – – – – – – – – – – 1 12
6 – – – – – – – – – – – – – ––– 13
7 – – – – – – – – – – – – – ––– 13
8 – – – – – – – – – – – – – ––– 13
9 – – – – – – – – – – – – – ––– 13
10 – – – – – – – – – – – – – ––– 13
85 305
Table 15/2. Moon realizations [MR] and Sun realizations [SR] of <Ν> in the
pronunciation of 30 subjects representing 3 categories of native speakers of Iraqi
Standard Arabic.
15.6 Bibliography
Al-Nassir, A.A.(1993). SƯbawayh the Phonologist: A Critical Study of the
Phonetic and Phonological Theory of Sibawayh as Presented in his
Treatise Al-Kit b. Library of Arabic Linguistics, Monograph 10. London:
Kegan Paul International.
Carter, M.G (2004). SƯbawayhi: Makers of Islamic civilization. London: Tauris
Chomsky, Noam and Halle, Morris (1968). The Sound Patterns of English. New
York: Harper and Row.
Edwards, Harold (2003). The Sounds of American English. Cengage Learning.
Ladefoged, Peter (1982). A Course in Phonetics. New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich.
Littmann, E. (1948). Survivals of the Arabic Dialects in Arabic Literature.
Bulletin of the Faculty of Arts [Cairo University], Vol.10: 1-44.
Morris Halle and Clements G. N. (1983). Problem Book in Phonology.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Odisho, Edward Y. (1977) Has the Sound of <Ν> Changed? [in Arabic] Al-AqlƗm,
Vol. 13: 45-48.
———. (1980). The Sun or Moon Status of <Ν>. International Journal of
Dravidian Linguistics, Vol.9:1, pp.36-43.
Scully, C. (1973) The Problem of Unstressed Vowels and Coarticulation within
Consonantal Clusters in English. Journal of International Phonetic
Association, Vol. 3: 4-9.
Sibawaihi (1881). Le Livre de Sibawaihi [in Arabic]. Paris: L’Imprimerie
National.
Bathesta/Maryland: Iranbooks.
Chapter 16
Arabic /q ϕ/: A Voiceless Unaspirated Uvular

Plosive
In an attempt to demonstrate that a phonetically naïve native speaker of a
certain language fails to distinguish two phonetically similar sounds when one of
them has no phonemic status, Fudge draws on Sapir’s observation concerning a
Southern Paiute speaker. The observation was that when the Southern Paiute
speaker was asked to transcribe [pa$a] he produced papa, i.e. he replaced a
‘voiced bilabial fricative’ by a ‘voiceless bilabial plosive’ because the former
does not seem to maintain an autonomous status. These two sounds, as Fudge puts
it, are “positionally determined variants of the same linguistic element, or
allophones of the same phoneme” (Fudge, 1970: 77). Still in this respect, though
a contrary case to that of the Southern Paiute speaker, Fudge states, “Conversely,
the speaker of Arabic, even if phonetically untrained, differentiates with ease
between the initial consonants of the English ‘keel’ and ‘call’ (phonetically [ki:l]
and [SnÖN]), whereas the English speaker will not normally notice the difference
unless he is phonetically trained” (ibid.: 76). It is the validity of the claim that
“the speaker of Arabic can differentiate with ease between the Ks in ‘keel’ and
‘call’” that we would like to examine.
16.2 Discussion
In teaching the phonetics of English to native speakers of Arabic, the
repeatedly introduced examples to illustrate the allophonic variants of /k/
phoneme include those in words such as ‘key’ and ‘car’ (Gimson, 1970: 47). We
follow Gimson, among others, in telling our students that “the first [i.e. ‘k’] can
be felt to be a forward articulation, near the hard palate, whereas the second is
made further back on the velum. The difference is brought about by the nature of
the following vowel, [i:] having more advanced articulation than [#Ö]” (ibid). The
Arab students usually encounter serious difficulty in telling the phonetic
difference between the two Ks. After all, why should they be able to tell the
difference easily if similar Ks in Arabic are treated as positionally determined
variants of the Arabic phoneme /k/. The untrained speakers of Arabic are in no
better position than their English counterparts in distinguishing the allophonic
variants of their /k/ phonemes.
The question now is, why has Fudge chosen the speaker of Arabic as the
person who can easily differentiate the Ks in ‘keel’ and ‘call’? To answer this
question we have to examine first his transcription of those two words. We think
that the transcription of the former as [ki:l] and the latter as [qn:l], which he
emphasizes to be phonetic, ignores certain phonetic facts and consequently lacks
precision. We believe they should have been transcribed as [k*i:lÏ] and [k*n:lÏ]1.
Although in the appendix Fudge attempts to describe [q] as being different from
[k] only in the place of contact which is further back for the former (ibid: 95)
there are still certain points which render his transcription ambiguous. Firstly, he
does not mark the feature of aspiration which is characteristic of ‘k’ in stressed
word-initial position; secondly, he does not specify whether the ‘further back’
movement of ‘k’ in ‘call’ effects a change in the conventionally known zones of
articulation, i.e. velar to uvular or whether the change is within the same zone.
Despite the ambiguity, we have to identify Fudge’s [q] with what is
exemplified in IPA principles. In other words, it is identical with the Arabic [q]
which is a voiceless uvular plosive (IPA– The Principles, 1949: 11; 1999: 165). It
can not be identified otherwise since he clearly states that /k/ and /q/ in Arabic can
differentiate meaning, hence they must be assigned to different phonemes (Fudge,
1970: 80). Fudge is right in stating that /k/ and /q/ in Arabic are easily
differentiated, but we should not forget that the latter is not identical with the
initial sound in ‘call’. The phonetic difference between /k/ and /q/ in Arabic is not
the same as between the Ks in ‘keel’ and ‘call’. Both English Ks in the two words
cited are voiceless aspirated velar plosives. The only difference between them is
that one of them has an advanced articulation and the other has a retracted one. In
Arabic, however, a spectrographic study of /k/ and /q/ has shown that this
opposition is based on two well-known phonetic features: place of articulation,
i.e. velar vs. uvular and aspiration vs. nonaspiration.
Figure 16/1a and 1b. Spectrographs of Arabic sounds [k] and [q].

1
With the former [k] advanced and the latter [k] retracted.
Arabic /q ϕ/: A Voiceless Unaspirated Uvular Plosive 219
Figure 16/1a and 1/b represents a spectrographic specimen of the two

Arabic words <kalb ΐϠϛ> = “dog” and <qalb ΐϠϗ> = “heart” in the context of the
carrier sentences: /ka:f fi: kalb/ ‘k in kalb’ and /qa:f fi: qalb/ ‘q in qalb’. It is clear
from the spectrograms that /k/ is different from /q/ in the place of articulation
which is displayed by the excursions of the formant transitions in and out of the
given phonemes. The /k/ displays itself as a velar sound with a high F2 and Low
F1, whereas /q/ displays itself as a uvular sound with a medium or low F2 and
high F1. The other distinguishing factor, which is less well-known and rarely, if
ever, mentioned in literature, is the difference in the positive voice onset time
[VOT] values or the so-called aspiration.
Table 1 shows a considerable difference in the VOT values for /k/ and /q/
which is almost of the ratio of 1:4. This difference is the direct outcome of a
difference in the glottal aperture. The large VOT value for /k/ correlates with an
open glottis at the instant of the release of the supraglottal stricture and for a while
after it, whereas the very small value for /q/ correlates with a closed glottis at the
instant of the release of the stricture and possibly for a while before it. This
correlation between the glottal gestures and the difference in the range of
aspiration is consistent with Kim’s definition of aspiration as “the function of the
glottal opening at the instant of release” (Kim, 1970: 111).
Sound VOT for /Q/ VOT for /K/

Token #1 25 65
Token #2 0.0 60
Token #3 15 60
Token #4 10 60
Token #5 20 65
Average 14 62
Table 16/1. VOT values in Msec. For /q/ and /k/ in the context of the
Arabic words /qalb/ and /kalb/.
In light of the above information, the ‘k’ in ‘call’ is not identical with /q/,
not only because the former is still a velar in the place of articulation, though
somewhat retracted, but also because– and this is equally important– the ‘k’ in
that position is fully aspirated, whereas /q/ is unaspirated in all positions.
16.3 Conclusions
The claim that the native speaker of Arabic can easily differentiate the
English Ks in ‘keel’ and ‘call’ is a misconception, because for him, as for the
native speaker of English, the difference between the two Ks is an allophonic
variation. The misconception has arisen from the fact that the ‘k’ in ‘call’ has
been mistakenly identified as Arabic /q/ from which it is different in the place of
articulation and the presence and absence of aspiration.
16.4 Bibliography
Fudge, E. (1970). Phonology. New Horizons in Linguistics (J. Lyons, ed., 76-95).
Hammonsworth: Penguin.
Gimson, A.C. (1970). An Introduction to the Pronunciation of English. London:
Arnold.
Handbook of the International Phonetic Association (1999). Cambridge:
International Phonetic Association: The Principles of the IPA. (1949). London:
University College.
Kim, C.W. (1970). A Theory of Aspiration. Phonetica, 21, 107-116.
Klatt, D.H. and K.N. Stevens (1969). Pharyngeal Consonants. Quarterly Progress
Report, 93, 207-216.
Lisker, L. and A. Abramson (1964). A Cross-language Study of Voicing in Intial
Stops: Acoustical Measurements. Word, 20, 384-422.
Appendix
Chapter 1: Aramaic Version
#ì§ÐìÅÓì âÍglÁí Í#§ì ÐìÆtì ½ô Í#ì§ÐìÆÂ

ì ÖâÎ#FìÓâÍÔPD
GìÆÁì ÎìÏg#GéÏiì àÍÓìDg#
¬àÎtPhUí©#gkúÍgôD#GìÆ²ì ¾íÁ#
=híÐL#GìÐpì Q¾ÊÅôD#GìÆtì ½ô #2#GìÏúkàÍÓìD#GìÆìtô¾½#DúlæM©ÎÁ#
GìMLì #ÃúÖlú TíD#¿Ï÷DâÎÏ#
#§ì ®Q¢¾±#G¢ìÏÎúÖ#ÕéÂ©í #FìÓâÎÏìÔÐíL#GìÅhì ©æ #ÒILûÍ#aGçÆæs#Gõ²½íD#ì§ì½Ó#2#lPÔíÐ½#DúkÓíD#hí\g#GìÅàÍlL#ì§ÏúÎÖ
# #1GçÐtì Åì Dö #Gõµgîm#¿í©#ì§¾Q½ûm#ì§síhsígg#GìÐ¾ì ©æ #Gìkíh½#Õ÷¾Ï#GìÂÏì k#aì§UPlo#ÍìD
# # GçÐìÆì©gÎìÁ#DéjúÖâÎÅ#11
#G¢¢éÏìiàÍÓìDÍ#Gõ¶PÔ¢¢í©#G¢¢éÏìiàÍÓìD#Ô¢¢ìÆÐíL#ì§ÐìÅìÓâÍgl¢¢íÁÍ#ì§ÐìÅìÔQª¢¢síÓ#FìÓâÎÏìÔ¢ÐíL
#vâÎ¢LÍ#aG¢¢ìÆÏ#DéiàÍÝ¢¢ìLg#ÒI¢¢L#aG¢¢ìÏÝí©#GìÐ¢ìsúkâÍg#Dúl¢óôµ#h¢¢í\#I¢¢ì¾Ï#ì§PÎ¢¢Ö#G¢¢ìÆìÁÎìÏg
#I¢¢ì¾ºL#GéÏìj¢câÎÅ#G¢¢çÏàÍÝìLg#G¢¢ìÆìÐÆæÁ#Õ¢¢÷¾Ï#DúkàÍÝ¢¢ìL#G¢¢Lì kú g#abûl¢ÁìDg#I¢¢ì¾Ï#FìÓlPl¢¢ís
#I¢¢¢ì¾QµgānÁíg#R¢¢¢ó²íûÍ# F# Óì âÎÏìÔ¢¢¢ÐíL#Gìch¢¢¢úÖg#FìÓâÍÔ¢¢¢PEL#R¢¢¢ÆÂÐûÖÁíg#¿¢¢¢ÐéL÷Ó
1
1GìÐìÆì²½âÎÏ#GìÏ×ÜâÎLg#Gì\kâÍEL#ÔPEìÆìÂQpÁ
#DúlPlís# GìÐìÆì²½âÎÏ#Gìóì±âÎ\#hí\#Iì¾P#FìÓâÎÏìÔÐíL#GìchúÖg#FìÓâÍÔPDg#FìÓkûlítÁ
2
#SU¢©#Ô¢PEì±àÍÜlí±#GìÅìD#a1984#ì§Æè té L#1ì§ÐìÅìÓâÍglíÁ# FìÓâÎ²PÝíÏ#ÈàÎèÖ½#ÔPDg#RÅìÞ 3
#GìÆìtô½g#GìÐìÆì¾ìµ#Gìpì¹âÎ%#GìÂtæ L#RÂìÐo#GìTÔì ºô½#R½#DékâÎtÁíg#ÇìD# GìÅàÎÐpæÅ#GúÖìEL 4
#Gìª¢sôÓg#ì§TìÔ¢ºíL#Gé\j¢íÏ#ì§¢sôD#SlæM©âÎÁ#1+FìÓhí\#GìÐìÁúkìD#GìÆìtô½,#%GìÆìÁÎìÏg#GìÏúkàÍÓìD
#Õ¢÷¾Ï#G¢ìÐÆæL# al# PÝ¢íL#lPÔíÏg#RÆÏíD#GìÐìÁhíµ#GìµàÎpì±g#ì§TìÔºí½#Kì½ôD#aGçÐìÆìtô½#GõµàÎpì±
5
#h¢í\g#ì§TìÔ¢¹# aG# Åì hì ¢ñÖªíÁ#h¢í\#ÈæÎ¢Ï#K¢ì½g#ÒI¢LûÍ#1GçÆsæ #ì§½ì Ôí½#Iì¾ÔÁ#aì§QªsíÓ#¿í©

6
#G¢¢Æç Tān½# I¢¢ìslæs#ÓâÎ¢²Q¶íÅg#FìÓkûl¢ítÁûÍ#G¢¢ìÆìÁÎìÏg#G¢¢éÏìiàÍÓìDg#ì§Qª¢¢síÓ#¿¢¢í©#GìµàÎ¢pì±

7
# 1G# ¢ìÆìUñÖlíÁ#GìÆìÐpæÅ#hí\#FúÎèÖP#aÇPjÖíÅ#ÔÐéLg#FõÓúÎÁôDÍ#GçÂÂí©Í#FìÓâÍglíÁg#Gõ¶PÔí©
8
#ÓúlPÝ¢íL##ì§Q¢ÁkíÓ#Dìh¢\#Dìh¢QÖ©#RÂìÐ¢oíg#GìÐÁì h¢íµ#GìµàÎ¢pì±g#ì§TìÔ¢¹#FúÎ¢èÖ#GìÏÎúÖgûÍ

1
connection ˬΔϗϼϋ
2
academically challenging ˬϲϤϳΩΎϛ΍ ϱΪΤΗ
3
care about ˬϢϬϤϬϳ
4
experienced this challenge ˬϱΪΤΘϟ΍ ΍άϫ ΕήΒΘΧ΍
5
approximately ˬ˱ΎΒϳήϘΗ
6
historian ˬΥέΆϣ
7
trace back ˬΎϫέΎΛ΍ ϲϔΘϘϳ
8
intimidating ˬΔϔϴΨϣ ,§ì Æì©gníÁ
#ì§Lûk#ì§ìÆÁíg#ì§QªsíÓ#aÔPEìÍk#Kì½ôD#aÔPEì½âÎ¾íµ#ì§ÐúÊûÖÁ#FúÎèÖÏ#ì§Ðì¶ÆíÅìD#aFìÓâÎUÖPk
#R¢ÅìD#ÍìD#ÇPj¢ÖíÅ#ÔÐéLg#ì§Ík#ÃÐéL#¿í©#ÈàÎèÖ½#K÷¾¹íg#FõÓúÎÁôDÍ#GçÂÂí©Í#F÷ÓúÍgjíÁg
#1F# Óì âÎUìU¢sûÍ#FìÓâÎó¾¢ítÁûÍ#õ§Ðì ¢]í±Üíg#G¢ì\kâÍEL#I¢ì¾©í #FìÓâÎÅìh¢MªíÁ#ÈàÎèÖ½#FúÎèÖ#ÔPDg
#GìÐÅì Ôì Qª¢síÓ#FúÎ¢èÖÏ#K¢ì½#aK# ì¾QU¢s#ÎìÉ#Õ÷¾Ï#GìÐì¾¹íg#Dúlóôµg#ÔPEì²ì±k#R¾ªPhÏ#ÕúÊÐúÖ
#FúÎ¢èÖ#v÷E¢ì±g#K¢÷½úÍg# G# éÆìÏj¢ô#Dìh¢µâÎªÁ# aK# ì½Ô¢í²Á#G¢ìÐìÅìÓâÍglíÁ#´âÍD#Kì½ôD#agàÎ]¾íL
10 9
#§ì Ð¢ì¶ÆíÅDì #I¢ì½#FéÎ¢Ö#Gìch¢úÖÍ#1§ì# Æì¾MíµÔ¢æÁ#ì§¢ªíóµ#Dìh¢]í½#GìÐó ì Âí½# ÔPEìsàÍlì±#GétPkg 11
#G¢ìÐ¾íÉ#I¢ì½#FéÎ¢Ö#aÔ# ¢PGì]QÅÍ#1D# lú ¢óôµ#G¢úÖDì g#ì§Ïúl¢tí½#GìQóÂíÁg#Gì\kâÍD#Dìh\íg#ì§Âìsk

#§ì Ï×Ý¢¢\āÝÁ#K¢¢ì½g#Ö÷ÔÏúl¢¢tí½# §ì# Æì¹kígÔ¢¢æÁ#G¢¢ì\kâÍD#Dìh¢¢\#Ô¢¢Ðí½g#R¢¢½ôD#ì§Æì¾MíµÔ¢¢æÁÍ
12
#GìÅéj¢ \öD#G¢¢éÆìÐ©æi#1G# ¢ çÐìÆìÂÖâÎÍ#GçÐìÅìÔ¢ PgÍìÓÍ#GçÐìÆ¢ ìtô½Í#G¢¢ìÐì¶QóQ½àÎ±# ÕçÂÐ÷º¢ oôDg 13
#G¢çshæÉg#GçÐÅì# Ôì Qª¢síÓ#G¢çÐÅì âÍÓ#¿¢í©#ì§Ð¢ìÆ¾ì ¹# F# ìÓâÎÆì¾cíÓÔ¢æÁ#eÏíD#aDìh©âÎL#ÑíÏìhQ

14
#K¢÷¾Á#GìÂ\ì âÍÔ¢½#G¢÷óÂíÁ#h¢æLÍ#G¢çshæÉ#G¢éÅDí g# D# kú kú ÍâÎ¢É#K¢ì½Dô #Õ¢÷¾Ï#Kì½#aGìÐì¶QóQ½àÎ±

15
# #=Ô\íÔ¾íL#bûÎÏ#ÕéÁìhÉíg#ÍH Will Durant %ÔÅúkâÍg#ÀæÍ%g# FìÓâÎÆìTkÎìÁ 16
#1FÓì# âÍh¢Uí©g#Dú¢Å#ÓàÎ¢\Ó#G¢ìTÓâÎÁ#ÍìD#K¢ì¾Qóµ#FúÎ¢èÖÏ#G¢ìtQ±#G¢ìÂ©í #1§ì# ÆQ²¢s#FúÎ¢èÖÏ#ì§tQ±#FéÎÆQÅ

#G¢çp¹ì âÎ#GìÂ¹h¢í\#2#¸àÎUs#IìÆÁæ #Õ÷¾tQ±#Kì½Í#ì§QªsíÓ#2#kàÍÓìDg#GìÂæs#Õ÷¾¶Q¾#aFìÓâÎ#Dìh]íL
# #171Kì¾ºÐûÖ#hí\#´âÍD#ÎìÉ#Gì±E÷¹#¿í©#Gì±E÷¹#ì§Pn\#Iì¾tQ±#Kì½#1GìTlú µíg#GçÅEìÁÍ
#ì§Ð¢¢ìÆì¾¹# F# ìÓâÎÅìh¢ LÎì#Õ¢¢÷¾Ï#F×n¢ ìÁlæL#aG# éÅéj¢ \öDíg#e¢¢ÏíD#Ô¢¢ÅúkâÍgg#G¢¢ìÂì\âÍÓ#
18
#
#ÍH#Diakonoff#ÛàÎ¢ÅàÎºìÏg#e¢ÏíD#aGéÅéj\öD#GçÆTāmg#GçÆìTÔdíÁ#GìÆPD#aGõ¶PÔí©#GéÏiì àÍÓìDg
#GìU¢ìsâÎ#Õ¢÷¾Ï#K÷¾TâÎ¶½íhÁ#aì§Ðì©ÝæÁ#Gì]ñÅhíÁg#F÷ÓúÍgjíÁ#Ãí©#GìUPlíµ#Gì±ìÓÎìs#Õ÷¾Pg
# #=DúlìÁöDÍ#ì§ÐìÆì¾¹#FìÓâÎÅìhLÎìÁg
#G¢¢Â
ì ©í g#G¢¢
ì âÎÉ#Ã¢¢©í #Õ¢¢¾÷ dQU\#K¢¢½ì Dô #=ÔPEìÐ¾Â¢¢tí Á#19Dìh¢LÍâÎÁ#G¢¢tì Q±#FúÎ¢Öè Ï#K¢¢½ì #G¢¢Ïì kú àÍÓìD#G¢¢Â
ì ©í %
#Ô¢ÐéL#2#G¢çÂÂí©g# §ì# ¢Ïúóµ#FìÓâÎÆìÐÅíÔtæÁg#GìÐìÆìÐ¹#Gìóì¾±#hí\#eÏíDÍ##1ì§Ðì©ÝæÁ#Gì]ñÅhíÁg#GìÐìÁúkìD
20
#Î¢ìÉ#G¢çÂÂí©#Ñ¢ÖÐí¾¹g#G¢ìÐÅì Îú Éì #GìÆ¢ìt½ô #FúÎ¢èÖ#G¢ìtQ±#GìÐìÁúkìD#GìÆìtô½#aGéÏiì àÍÓìD#Gõº¾íÁ#híÐL#ÑÖÏûlÂªíÁ

# #21%1kàÍÓìDg###FìÓâÍkàÎúl²ÁôDg#GçÅhì \âÍD
#FìÓâÎÅìh¢ LÎìÁg#GìU¢ìsâÎ#G¢¢ìÆÏ#GìTúl¢oíg#GéÅéj¢ \öD#GçÁàÎÐ¢¢ìo#K¢¢ì¾±ìDÍ#ÛàÎ¢ÅàÎºìÏg#K¢¢ì½

complex ˬΪϘόϣ 9
variables ˬΕ΍ήϴϐΘϣ 10
invoked and considered ˬέΎΒΘϋϻ΍ ήψϨΑ άΧΎϳ 11
feasible ˬΎϬϛ΍έΩ· ϦϜϤϣ 12
aspects ˬΐϧ΍ϮΟ 13
dependence on ˬϰϠϋ ΩΎϤΘϋ· 14
regurgitate ˬέ΍ήΘΟ· 15
rhetorical conclusion ˬϪϴϓ ώϟΎΒϣ ΝΎΘϨΘγ· 16
Durant, W. The Alphbet: A Key to the History of Mankind, New York, Simon & Schuster, 17
1968, 283-84
annihilation ˬ˯ΎϨϓ 18
annihilated ˬ˴ϲϨ˶ ˰˵˰ϓ ,GìÐÅâÎ²Á#aGì¶½âÎóÁ 19
deportation ˬϱήδϘϟ΍ ϞϴΣήΘϟ΍ 20
21
Diakonoff, I.M. The Cambridge History of Iran, “Media”, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Pres, 1985, 124
Appendix. Chapter 1: Aramaic Version 223
#FìÓàÎ¢ TÜ#G¢¢úÖìEL#ÑÖÏíÓâÎ¢ ÆìÂÐûÖ#G¢¢ìÆÏ#HâÎ¢ ¶æÂ©âÎÁ#aGõ¶PÔ¢¢©í #G¢¢Ïé iì àÍÓìDg#ì§ÐìÐ¾ÿ Â¢¢tí Á

# ##1GìÆìÁÎìÏg#GéÏìiàÍÓìDÍ#G÷¶PÔí©#GéÏìiàÍÓìD#ÔìÆÐíL#FìÓâÎÏìÔÐíLg#DéiâÎoíÞ#DékækâÎtÁûÍ
#G¢étPj±#G¢÷óÖú líÍû #FìÓâÎÏìÔ¢ÐíL#G¢úÖDì g#FìÓâÍÔ¢PD#¿¢í©#FúÎ¢Ö#ÈæÎ¢Ï#GéÏâÎÊûÖÁ#hí¹Í
#§ì Uí¶½íh¢Á#K¢ì½Dô #FìÓâÎÏìÔ¢ÐíLg#FìÓkûl¢ítÁ#RtQÅ#FúÎÖè Ï#Kì½#aHìÔÏúlsíg# Dçh©âÎL#ïÒíEQÊío 22
#G¢¢úÖìÞ#ÈàÎèÖ¾UPl¢¢o#aDéjPl¢¢ís#G¢¢çoôD#¿¢¢í©#ì§Q¢¢ÆL#FìÓâÍhÖ¢¢ìo#Dìh¢\#K¢¢ì½g#Ç¢¢òÁg#G¢¢éÆìÐ©æig
#GéÏjì ¢ì\Dö ##GçÅhì ¢æ©#¿¢ûÖ#RÂìÐ¢oíg#G÷±jí#ÔìÆÐíL#Õ÷½#Gét#GìÉlæÖ#GúÖìD#GìchúÖÍ#1FìÓâÎÏìÔÐíL
# #=Õ÷¾Ï#DúlìÁöDg#ÍH#Parpola Kì½àÎ±lí±#GìÆì²¾íÁg#GéÆìÐ©æj½#R½#Délµ##hí¹
#Iì½Ô¢PD#FìÓàÎ¢TÜ#G¢úÖDì #aG# ¢ìÆÁì ÎÏì g#GéÏiì àÍÓìDg#ì§ÐìÆ¾ì Pg#FìÓâÎÐìQÖg#ì§Âí\Ôí Áíg#FìÓâÎÐì¶ÆíÅDì #2#¸âÎUs
#Ô¢PEìÆÂ ì ÖâÎ#aG# ¢ìÐÁì kú Dì #GìÆ¢ìt½ô g#FõÓh¢í\#G¢étPj±#Fïnð ¢ªô½g#K¢ø¾¾ì Áí #1g1Ö 23a§ì# ÐìÆì²½âÎ¢Ï#FìÓâÎÐì¶ÆíÅìD#´ìD
#I¢ì¾Ï#ì§Æì¾cíÓÔ¢æÁ#FìÓâÎÏìÔ¢ÐíL#G¢úÖDì #1G# ¶õ PÔ¢í©#G¢éÏiì Íà ÓìDg#G¢ìÆÏ#FõÓhì ¢½ÍìÓ#aÔPEìÆtì ½ô Í#ÔPEìÅÓì âÍglíÁÍ
#F# Óì âÍgl¢íÁg#FìÓâÎ¢Æì¾MíÐÁ#¿í©#GìÆÏ#DìhÖú pæLg #24õ§ì©híÏg#GìÆìÐÆæÁ#hí#+FìÓkækâÎtÁ GìtÐì±g#GìÏëÝíÁÍ,
# #251FìÓâÎÆìÂ¾ÿ tíÁg#ì§ÏìÓDö #¿ûÖ½#ÇPjÖíÅ#ÔÐéLg#GìÐLñ lûÊL#ì§ÐìÅÔì ÁâÍD#HìÓâÍÔPDÍ#ì§ÏúkàÍÓìD
#FõÓÍú# hÖ¢ìo#aFìÓhí\#DúlÁEéÁ#hí\#ÎìÉ#Kì½àÎ±lí±#Õ÷¾TælµâÎÁ# aGìÐì®Q½âÍkàÍÓìD#hí\#eÏíD 26
#GìÐìh¢¢¢ìµìD#Õ¢¢¢éÆìÐ©æk#aG# ¢¢¢úÖìD#gâÎ¢¢¢L#1F# Óì âÎÏìÔ¢¢¢ÐíL#G¢¢¢úÖDì g#GéÅiì læ ¢¢¢ítÁûÍ#G¢¢¢çÆÆì ¾ô Ðí

#GìTlú ¢o#Ô¢PDìgàÎ#K¢ì½#K¢ì½àÎ±lí±#GìÐ®ì Q½âÍkàÍÓìD#GìÆ²ì ¾íÁ#1Õ÷¾Ï#GìÐì¶ÆíÅìD#ÔPEìÆìûkÔæÁ
#Õ¢÷¾Ï#G¢#÷âÎ²í#´ìD#K¢ì½ôD#aG# ¢ìÏkú àÍÓìD#G¢ìÂ©í g#ì§Ð¢ìÆ¾ì ¹#FìÓâÎÅìh¢LÎìÁg# GìPkàÍD÷Ô½#Õ÷¾Ï 27
# #1FìÓâÎÏìÔÐíLg#FìÓâÍÔPÞ#kælítÁíg#ÔPEìÆì²½âÎÏÍ# ÔPEìsàÎtì\ 28
# #=FìÓâÎÏìÔÐíL#Ãí©#Gõ±ìÓÎìs#GéÆìÐ©æi#12
#G¢çsgìD#ì§¢ì½Ó#ÓàÎ¢\Ó#ÈàÎ¢èÖ½#bûkh¢ìog#bāÝ¢ìÁ#FìÓâÎÏìÔ¢ÐíL#G¢úÖìD#Ãí©#Gõ±ìÓÎìs#GéÆìÐ©æi
# ##1GçÐìhìµìDÍ#GçÐìÅìÔÁâÍDÍ#GìÐì¶QóQ½àÎ±#=GçÐìQoàÍD
# #GìÐ¶ì QóQ½àÎ±#GìÆÐì ©æk#=2.1# #
#2#G¢úÖ#aGìÐìµú©#GìÆìó½âÎtL# ÔPEìÆìpØâÎ#DúlPÜ#FúÎèÖÏ#GìtQ±#GìUìsâÎ\#GúÖìD# #
29
###FìÓâÍkàÎ¢ ¢úl²ÁôDg#ì§¢ ¢¾ì²Å#köÔ¢ ¢ìL#2#aG# ¢ ¢ìÐì¶QóQ½àÎ±#G¢¢¢ìÆìÐ¹#h¢¢¢í\#e¢¢¢ÏíD#Ö÷Ô¢ ¢oíDÔítÁ

##+1923,#ÈE¢¢ìoâÎ½gûÍ#+1920,#rækÎQ¢¢og#G¢¢çÐì¾ÐéL÷Ó#ràÎµ÷Ô¢ìÏg#FìÓkûl¢ítÁûÍ#G¢¢çQ¾íâÍDg
#G¢¢tì Uì ]æL#G¢¢Ðç Æì Â
ì ÖâÎ#F÷ÓÍú jQ¢¢p\íg#G¢¢µõ gæm#GìÂ¹h¢¢ í #G¢¢ìPgÍâÎÁ#Õ÷¾¢ tQ±#ÑÖÏûÎ¢ ìÉg
#G¢úÖìÞ#Wélìog#ÔPEìÆQÁíDÍ# ÔPDìÔPÔí\#Õ÷¾Ï#Gìó±âÎ#GìÐµú©#GìÆìó½âÎs#1GéÏìiàÍÓìD
30

22
multidimensional ˬΓΩΪόΘϣ ΩΎόΑ΃ ϱΫ
23
scientific ˬΔϴϤϠϋ
24
data ˬΕΎϣϮϠόϣ
25
Parpola, Simo, Assyrians after Assyria. Paper presented at the Sixty Sixth Assyrian National
Convention, Los Angeles, 1999.
26
Assyriologist ˬΕΎϳέϮηϵ΍ ϢϟΎϋ
27
notion ˬΓήϜϓ aGìÆÐì ©æk
28
objectively ˬΎϴϋϮοϮϣ
29
typically ˬ˱ΎϴΟΫϮϤϧ
30
feverishly ˬ˱ΎΜϴΜΣ
#Ã¢í©# F# Óì âÎ¢ÐìÅkú ÓíD#G¢çÐÆì Ðì ¹#G¢õµgîn½#G¢éÏiì àÍÓìDg#FìÓâÎ]¢tí\#Wél¢ìog#GìtQÆL#FìÓâÎÏìÔÐíL

31
#ì§ìÆÁûÍ#ì§ÏìÔìÏ#Ö÷ÓâÍkE÷#Õ÷½#GéÆµ#¸ú©g#DúkÓíD#kíÔìL#2# 1GçÐì²¶ìÅ#GéÅìiÓâÎÏ#ÑÖÐí¾¹
32
#aÔPEì¶QóQ½àÎ±#GìÂQsk#GçÁàÎ\Óíg#DúlíD#ÎìÉ#GéoôDÓâÎtÁ#ÈàÎèÖ¾tQ±#GéÏiàÍÓìDg##ì§Lûk
#G¢ìÐµì ú ©#GìÆóì ½âÎ¢sg#G¢éÐ ì âÍi#Déjóì ¢sôD#Ñ¢ÖÐí¾¹#1ÔPEìÐ¾íÉ#ÑÖïÐíµgîn½#ÈàÎèÖ¾UPlo
#F÷ÓöDg# G# Æç ¢ìoÎìÉÔæÁg#Dúkh¢æpL#G¢éÏiì àÍÓìÞ#GìÆÏ#GéLâÍÔíÁ#÷§Ðì síihíÁ#ÎìÉ#ì§²í¾íÁg#GçLìÔ¹Íû
33
#G¢¢Tì lú µ#köÔ¢ìL#2#¸ú¢©g#DúkÓíE¢L#ÈàÎ¢èÖ½#rôDÓâÎ¢tÁûÍ#Èúl¢PDÍ#G¢ìQ¹kâÍÓ#2#ÈàÎ¢èÖ½
#G¢ìÆÏ#K¢ì½#G¢ìÆÁì ÎìÏg#G¢éÏiì àÍÓìDg# Ñ# ÖÏûlU¢æp½#GìÆÏ#DékâÍlítÁ#Kì¾ûÖ½ûÍ#1GìÐìÁhíµ#GìÐì¾ÐéL÷Ó
34
#FìÓì âÎÏìÔ¢ÐíL#G¢úÖÞ ì #G¢ìÐµì ú ©#GìÆó ì ½âÎ¢sg#ì§Ð¢ìÆ¾ì ¹#ì§Túlo#1Gõ¶PÔí©#GéÏìiàÍÓìDg#FõÓìh½ÍÓì

# #GçÐìÆìÂÖâÎ#F÷ÓúÍjQp\íg#FìÓâÍÔPD# Gìóì¾]í½Í#Gìsúl²í½#Õ÷¾Ï#GìÐì¶QóQ½àÎ±# Gì¶píÁ#hí\
36 35
# #=GìÐÅì Ôì ÁâÍD#GìÆÐì ©æk 2.2

#ì§ÐìÅìÔ¢ÁâÍD#Ö÷ÓâÎÐìÅìÔ¢ìÐL#G# ¢ìÏúkàÍÓìD#GìÂí©g#GìâÎÉ#Õ÷¾¹g#ì§dQok#FìÓâÎÆìÂÐûÖ# #
#Déj¢ QÖm#+G¢¢Qç Lúk,#G¢¢çÐì¾ìLâÎÏ#Ñ¢¢ÖïÐí²Q¾íÏg#FìÓâÎÆìÏh¢¢ûÖÁ#2#I¢¢ì¾Ï#G¢¢ìªìUÆæL#aì§¢ ÏúkàÍÓìD
#1D# úU¢¢©#Dúkìgg#ì§ÏìÔPÔ¢¢s#FìÓl¢¢íp©#¿¢¢ûÖ½ûÍ#l¢¢ípªísÓíg#Dúkìg g#GúÊ¢¾ô²L#Ç¢¢í½#Ñ¢¢ÖÐíÏnæ\g
#h¢í\#e¢ÏíD#FìÓâÎÏ# Ôì ¢ÐíL#G¢úÖÞ ì # G# ¢ìÆÏ#G¢÷¶Q²©# Ô# ¢PEúÖUæÅ#G¢ìÆìÁÎìÏg#GéÏìiàÍÓìD#ÑÖÐí¾¹
38 37
#G¢¢ì©Í×m#h¢¢í\g#G¢¢ì\kâÍEL#ì§ÐìÅìÔQª¢¢síÓÍ#ì§ÐìÅìÔ¢ ÁâÍD#ÑÖÏíÓâÎ¢ ÐìQÖg#G¢¢ìÆì¾MíÐÁ#GìÅàÎó¢¢oôD

#ÎìÉ# DéjQ¶íÏ#FõÓhì ½ÍìÓ#ÔPDg#ì§Qt#Iì¾Ï#Kì½#1%FìÓâÎÏúkàÍÓìD%#=eÏíD#GìªPhÏ#GìÐìÅìÔÁâÍD
39
#1G# éÐìÆìÏiâÎ¢oÍ#GçÏìh¢¾í¹#G¢éÏlôµ#RtÐì±g#RªìL#aGìÐìÁúkìD#GìÆìtô½g#Kø¾ì¾íÁ#GéÅéj\öD#FõÓúÎ±ìÓÎìs
#2#G¢ìÐÁì kú Dì #GìÆ¢ìt½ô #G¢ìÆÏ#Õ÷¾²ô ÅâÎ¢Á#aì§ÐìLúkíD#FìÓâÍglíÁg#FìÓâÎÅìhMªûíg#ÇòÁ#ÔPD#´ìDÍ
#GìPh¢úÖ#G¢ìÆPD#1§ì# Ð¢ìLúkíD#I¢ì¾P#ì§ÐìÅìÔÁâÍD#ÑÖÏíÓâÎÏìÔÐíLg#GìÆÏ#GéÏâÍgÎìÁÍ#aÑÖïÏíÓúÎ²æo
#G¢éÏâÍn]íÁ#aG# çÏìh¢¾í¹#´ìD#GéÏìj¢ì\öD#GÆç# ¢ætLûÍ#aÄ# ÷E¢ìµg#GéÐìÆìÏiâÎo#FõÓìh½ÍìÓg#bûÎÏ#GìÏ×n]æL
#bûl¢ÁìDg#I¢ì¾Ï#FìÓlPl¢ís#vâÎ¢LÍ#GéÏiì àÍÓìD#Ãí©#FìÓâÎÏìÔÐíLg#GìÂQÂí\#GìLâÎ\#hí\#GìÆÏ
#G¢ìÏúkàÍÓìD#G¢ìÐìúlµâÎg#Gì©Í×m#1GéÐìÁìiìDÍ#GçÐì¾UìLÍ#GéÏìiàÍÓìDg#GìÐúÖìÁâÎs# Gì×mâÎÁ#Ãí© 40
#Ö÷ÓâÎÆ¢ìslé L#aÔ# PDú²¢ís#G¢ìp¹âÎóÁûÍ#G¢ìÐ¶ì# QóQ½àÎ±#GìÆìÐ¢pæÅ#_¢PÍk#GìMíÉ#hí\#Õ÷¾Pg

#G¢ìÂ©í #ÔìÆÐíL#GìÆ¾ì MíµÔæÁÍ#GìÍk#Gì±Îìs#hí\#Õ÷¾Ï#Gì¶Tì g#aGìÆìÏûkÓ#Öékhæog#GçÁìhûÖ#Ãí©
#1GìUì#GìpØâÎ#GúÖìÞ#Õ÷¾Ï#GéÅâÎÂtûÊÁ#aÔPEìÅÎú Éì #GéÏiì àÍÓìD

natural and legitimate eligibility to citizenship ˬΔϋϭήθϤϟ΍ϭ ΔϴόϴΒτϟ΍ ΔϨσ΍ϮϤϟ΍ ϕϮϘΣ 31
with all the privileges that ensue ˬΎϬόΒΘΗ ϲΘϟ΍ ϕϮϘΤϟ΍ Ϟϛ 32
refugees ˬϦϴΌΟϻ 33
claim ˬϢϬ΋ΎϋΩ· 34
campaign ˬΔϠϤΣ 35
distortion ϪϳϮθΗ 36
emotionally ˬ Ύ˱ ϴϔσΎϋ 37
espouse ˬϥϮϨψΘΤϳ aGìÆÏ#G÷¶QM\ 38
older generations ˬϦδϟ΍ ϲϓ ΔϣΪϘΘϣ ϝΎϴΟ΃ ,GçÆtæ L#DéU© 39
blend ˬΞϳΰϣ 40
##
# ##GìÐÆì ²ì ½âÎÏ#GìÆÐì ©æk 2.3
#GéÏìj¢ câÎÅ#Ã¢¢í©#G¢¢éÏìiàÍÓìDg#K¢¢ì¾ÖíÏ#h¢¢í\g#G¢¢ìÆÏ#GçÁìh¢ ûÖ#G¢¢ìÆìÐ©æk#G¢¢úÖìDg#F÷ÓúÍìj¢ ìÁ# #
#G¢ìÏ×ÜâÎL#h¢í\#Õ¢÷¾Ï#DúlÂ ì ÉâÎ¢Ág#Ç¢òÁ#G¢éÏiì àÍÓìD#ÔìÆÐíL#_í]ºtíÁg#Iì¾Ï#Gì¶pí©#1GétPj±
#G¢úÖìD#¿¢í©##GéMPÔ¹#ÍúÎèÖÏ#GétQ±g#GçÂìÐoíg#ì§Lûk#ì§ìÆÁ#1FìÓâÎÏìÔÐíL#GúÖìD##¿í©#GìÐìÆì²½âÎÏ
#K¢ì½g#ÒH#FìÓâÎÏìÔ¢ÐíLg#FìÓâÍlPlítL#ì§Uìt\#ÓâÎhµ#¿í©#GéÐÆæL#ÍúÎèÖÏ#GétQ±#FìÓàÎTÜ
#G¢¢úÖìD#¿¢¢í©#GçÂìÐ¢ o#GìÂ¹h¢¢í\#Ç¢¢í½#Fðn¢ \#aG# éÏìj¢ ì\öD#÷§ìÏj¢¢íp©íg#Gì\Ô¢¢æ#1GìTúl¢ pô½#G¢¢ìÏÓìD
#1+1988,#¬àÎ¢tPhUí©#gkúÍgôDÍ#a+1990,#ÚæPÔ¢¢Áí Í#a+1961,#ÛîmàÎ¢X#ÈàÎ¢X#1g1Ö#aF# Óì àÎ¢TÜ
#ÓâÎ¢²½#ÑÖÐíÆÐì ©æj¢½#DìhÆì ¢pí½Í#DékâÍl¢ítÂí½#G¢ìÍk#GìÏÜú âÎL#EìÆÏ#DéhPlo#GçÁàÎÐìo#GéÅDí
#aF# Óì âÎÏìÔ¢ ÐíL#IìTlú ¢ pô½#Dúl¢ PlíÁ#G¢¢Åì àÎìEL#Õ¢¢¾÷ Ï#DúU¢¢©#ÛîmàÎ¢ X#ÈàÎ¢ X#1FìÓâÎÏìÔ¢ ÐíL
# #1HìÓkûlítÂí½#GìÆÏ#G÷ó±âÎíg#¬àÎtPhUí©#gkúÍgôDÍ#ÚéPÔìÁg#Gìº²æÖL
#ÑÖÐíÂìÐoíg#GéÏìjcâÎÅ#GçÁàÎÐìo#ÈàÎèÖ½#_íslì±g#Iì¾Ï#ì§Ðì¶ÆíÅìD#aGìÅlé \öD#GìMÉé #2# #
#GìÏ×ÜâÎLg#GçÁàÎÐìo#2# aì§¾æÁ#ÓâÎÁàÎÐìog#GìpìâÎpL#GéMPÔ¹#GìÆÏ#GétQ±#GçÐìÅìÔQªsíÓ
41
#G¢ìÆÏ#Dúl¢ìÁDö #a§ì# ¢¾æÁ#ÓâÎÁàÎÐ¢ìog#G¢ìp ì âÎpL#ì§Qª¢síÓg#GçÁàÎÐ¢ìog#ì§Lûk##ì§ìÆÁ#1DúlPlís

#612#ì§èÆ¢étL#G¢éÏìiàÍÓìDg###F# ìÓâÍkàÎ¢úl²ÁôDg##ì§¾ì²Å#Ãí©#ÈàÎèÖ¾¶Q¾#GéÏìiàÍÓìDÍ#kàÍÓìDg
#DúkâÎ¢ É#G¢¢ìÆìÐÆæÁ#1GìÁàÎ¶Q¢¢o#G¢¢úÖìD#kíÔ¢ìL#2#G¢¢ìÏlô¹#G¢¢ìÆTām#h¢¢í#ÍìD#Gì]Q¢¢tÁ#Äìh¢µ#2
#G÷µÔ÷ ¢ìÏgíg#G¢ìÆÏ#GçÂì Ô¢ô±#K¢ì½Dô #aD# DéiækâÎ¢tÁ#GçÆPÔ¢íÁ#G¢çÏ×ÜâÎL#GìÆÏ#Kì½#DéjÁEéÁ#GìchúÖg
#§ì ]Q¢t\#1G# ¢ìQUÅ#ÄàÎ¢]ìÅg# #FúÍn¢æ\Í#FìÓâÎ¢QUÅ#eÏíD#ì§ÐìºQpì¾¹#DìÓâÎÏúl²æog#ÍìD#ì§¶PÔí©
#GìLkú #aÔPEì²QcíD#FìÓàÎTÜ#GúÖìD#¿í©#GìÆÏ#GéÐÉâÎÖÁíg#GçÏàÍÝìLg#GìÆìÐÆæÁg#bûlô¹híÁg#Iì¾Ï
#ÇæÂÐ¢ûÖÁíg#K¢ì½àÎ±lí±#àÎÂQ¢o#Ç¢í½#ÔPD#FõÓhí\#GéÏjì câÎÅ#Gõ²Q¾íÏ#ÔìÆÐíL#2#1Õ÷¾Ï#DúkàÍÝìL
#G¢éÏìiàÍÓìDg#ì§Qª¢síÓ#¿¢#©í #S¢ì\g#R¢ªìLg#GéÅjé ¢\öD#Ô¢PDÍ#1F# Óì âÎÏìÔ¢ÐíL#G¢úÖÞ ì #kæltí ÁûÍ
í # D# éiìÓÍìÓg##K¢¢ì¾®QÉ#Î¢¢ìÉ#ÈàÎèÖ¾QTÔ¢¢íÁÍ##ì§¶Q¢¢©#ì§¢ PÍ×m#Dìh¢ \#2#aG¢¢Æì Áì ÎìÏg
#ïÑ¢ ¾í 42
#G¢¢éÏìiàÍÓìD#Ã¢¢í©#ÑÖÏíÓâÎÏìÔ¢ ÐíLg#ì§Túl¢ o#ÍìD#FìÓkûl¢ ítÁ#K¢¢ì½g#GìÐìÏúkâÎ¢ o/G¢¢Ðì Áì kú Dì #GìÆ¢ tì ½ô

# ###1GçÐÁì híµ
#GìÐìÅìÔ¢ ÁâÍDÍ#G¢¢çÐìÆúÖUÅæ# #G¢¢étæig#ì§íh¢ íhÁíg#G¢¢ìtQÆL#Õ¢¢÷¾Ï#K¢¢ì½#G¢¢úÖìD#R¢¢Ï×ÜâÎL# #
#DékâÎÖTíÔ¢s#a§ì# QÅìÔ¢©âÍhíÏÍ#ì§¾Q¢¾Á#GìtÙíÅ#Dìh\#eÏíD#1ì§ÐìÆìÐ\öD#FìÓâÎÏìÔÐíLg#FìÓûlítÂí½
#ÇPj¢ÖíÅ#Ô¢ÐéLg#ì§¢Ík#G¢ì©kíDg#Dúl¢²í©#Ã¢í©#ì§ÐìÅÔì Qª¢síÓ#FìÓâÎÏìÔÐíL#R½#ÔPDg#ÈæÎÏ
#ÍìD#ì§¢ÏúkàÍÓìD#ÍDì# #ì§ÏúéÁâÎ¢s#ÈôD#aI# ¢ìÆÁæ #I¢ì¾ªQUÅíg#ì§¶PÔ¢í©#FìÓâÍgl¢íÁ#Dìh¢]¾¹#Ãí©Í
#§ì ¢ì½Ó#¿¢í©#G¢ìÐÆæL#Õ¢÷¾Ï#G¢ìtQ±#GúÖDì # RÅúl\âÎLg#ÈæÎÏ#GéÏâÍgÎìÁ#1ì§ÐìÁúkìD#ÍìD#ì§Ðì¾ÐéMìL
43
#kælítÁûÍ#¬éhìÏg#GìÐìoàÎÂìÅÍ#GìÐìtìÅöD#Gìµgîm#Õ÷½#ÔPD#Gì±àÍÜlí±#hí]¾¹#=ÔPEìÁhíµ#1Gõóì±âÎ\

general text ˬϡΎόϟ΍ κϨϟ΍ 41
remnants ˬΎϳΎϘΑ ,GçÆìtÐì±# #42
investigation ˬ˯ΎμϘΘγ΍ 43
#¿¢¹#¿TâÎ¶½íg#Õ÷¾Ï# Gì\âÍlL#·í²íÁ#aGìÆìÏûkÓ#ÍHÍ#1GìÐìÅìÔQªsíÓ#Õ÷¾ìLâÎÏÍ#Ö÷ÓâÎÏìÔìÐ½
44
#Déilú ¢¢s#¿¢¢í©#G¢¢éÐÆæL#G¢¢ìÆÏ#K¢¢ì½g#R¢¢ÅìD##FìÓâÎÏìÔ¢¢ÐíLg#GìTàÍl¢¢ìoÍ# G# ¢¢ìÆì²ÏānÁ#G¢¢ìóì±âÎ\

45
#§ì Q¢ÆL#G¢ì\kâÍDg#ì§ÏúÎ¢tí#a§ì# PÔ¢í\#Õ¢÷¾Ï# G# ìÐì©âÎ¢o##aGìÏìÔQ½Ó#Gìóì±âÎ\Í# 1FõÓÔípÁ

47 46
# #1FìÓâÎÐìQÖg#GçÐìtìÅöD#FõÓúÎTîÜ#¿í©# GìÐìÆìtQÅ#GìÆì¶oâÎ±#GìUúÖQ½#GçÐìÆì²½âÎÏ#Déiúls#¿í©
48
#GìÐÁì kú Dì #GìÆtì ½ô g#Kì¾¾ì Áí Í#aÕ÷¾Ï#GìÏúkàÍÓìD#GìÏúkàÍÓìD#GìÐìÁàÎÆµ#ÕéÂæs#Gì±àÍÜlí±#hí\#eÏíD

#FéÎ¢Ö#a#§ì ÐìÆPl¢ÖíÅ#FìÓâÍgl¢íÁg#G¢ç©âÎMíÁ#2#GìÏÔæsÍ#a#ì§Ðì]QtÁ##ì§PgÍìÔL#GìÆÏì gÎìÁÍ
#h¢í#ÖékÍæ âÎ¢g#¿¢ûÖ½# a§ì# Æ¢Q®Ö#SÔ¢ìÏg#FìÓâÎ¢ÐìÆºí ÏíD#¿¢í©#G¢éÏâÎÊûÖ#aGì\ÔæÁ#hí#R½
49
#FúÎ¢èÖ#ÔPD#1ÔPEìÅìhUí©ÔæÁ#GìÏlæsÍ#GìÐÉâÎÖÁ#v÷Eì±g#Õ÷¾Ï#Gì]Qt\íg#GìÐìÆì²½âÎÏ#GìÏúkâÎÁ
#G¢úÖDì g#ì§ÂíÁÔí ¢½#G¢éÆ ô âÎÊÁ#ÍúÎÖè #RtÐì±g##FúÎÖè Ï#ì§Ðì¶ÆíÅìDg# GéÐÅæi#GìLúk#ïRÆÐí©#Äìhµ
50
# #1GìóÖlíÁ
#GéÐÅæk .3
# #GçÐÆì tì ½ô Í#GçÐÅì Ôì PgÍìÓÍ#GéÐÅì ìÓâÍgjíÁ#Gõ²ì¾\âÎs#13.1#
#ÈàÎ¢¢¢èÖ½#Ô¢¢¢PDg#GéÆ ì ií Ô¢¢¢æÁ#GçÐÆì ¢¢¢ìt½ô Í#GçÐÅì Ôì ¢¢¢PgÍìÓÍ#GéÐìÅìÓâÍgj¢¢¢íÁ#Gõ²ì¾\âÎ¢¢¢s
#1F# Óõ Îú ¢ÁôDÍ#G¢çÂÂí©g#ì§Qª¢síÓ#Î¢ìÉ#G¢éÏnæ\#R¢tÐì±g#Iì¾Ï#ì§ÏìhìÐ©#aì§Ðìº²æÖ#FìÓâÎÅìhMªíÁ
#GìÐìºPÔ¾Ð¢¢ìo#Õ# éÆ¢ìtô½#Õ¢¢÷¾Ï#Õ÷¶½âÎ¢óÁ#GìÐìÆPÔ¢¢PlL#G¢¢ìÂí©g#ì§¢Lûk#ì§ìÆ¢Áíg#Õ¢¢÷¾Ï#Dúkúl¢s
#Dúkúl¢sûÍ#=G# ìÐ¢ìpQ¾ÊÆPD#eÏíD#GìªPhÏ#Õ÷¾tQ±#DìÓlííg#aGìÐpì ÂìÅ#GìÆtì ¾ô L#Õ÷²¾ô \âÎtÁûÍ
#G¢÷¶QM\# Ô# ¢PEìÆì kígÍ#Gì¶PÔ¢í©#G¢ìÏkú ÝæÁ#ÕéÆtì ½ô #Õ÷¾Ï#Õ÷¶½âÎóÁ#GìÏkú ÝæÁ#GìÂí©g#Õ÷¾Ï
51
#Õ¢÷½#Ô¢Ðí½g#§ì# Ð¢ìÆñ Óí Í#ì§Ðì©Ý¢æÁ#G¢ì¹læÁDì g#G¢ìÂ©í g#Õ÷¾Ï#Dúklú s#´ìD#1GìÐLì kú Dì #GìÆtì ½ô #GìÆÏ

#§ì PgÍìÔ¢¢L#K¢¢ì½Í#aG# çÐìÐÆì²¢¢oíg#FìÓâÍgl¢¢û#K¢¢ì½Í#aG# Ðç Æì PÔ¢¢ì½#Ã¢¢í©#ì§ÐìÆ¢¢ìt½ô #FìÓâÎÅìÔ¢¢ÐíL
#ì§PgÍìÔ¢ L#G¢¢ìÆìÏgÎìÁÍ#GìÐìÐÆì²¢ o#GìÆ¢ ìtô½g#Õ¢¢÷¾Ï#K¢¢ì¾ì¾íÁ#Ô¢¢PEìÆì¾¹#GìPh¢¢úÖ#aì§Ðì¶Q½àÍÔ¢¢ìµ
1GìÍk# Gìdì±âÎÖ#GúÖìD#¿í©#Iì¾Ï#DìhúÖo#FìÓâÍÔPD#GtÖìD#1GéÁàÎèÖkg#FìÓâÎÐì¶Q½àÍÔìµ
52
##
# #GìÐ¶ì QóQ½àÎ±#Gìp¹ì âÎ#hí\g#ì§¾ì²Å#13.2
#G¢ìÐ¶ì QóQ½àÎ±#ÕéÆó ì ½âÎ¢s#FéÎ¢úÖg#G¢ìÂ¹#aGìÐì¶QóQ½àÎ±#Gìpì¹âÎ#hí\g#ì§¾ì²Å
#1Ö# ÷ÓâÍgl¢¢íÁÍ#ÕéÆ¢ ìtô½Í#Õ¢¢éÂí©#Õ¢¢÷¾¹g#FìÓâÎÅìh¢ LÎìÁg#ì§¢ ¾æ©#Õ¢¢¾÷ Ï#K¢¢½ì #aG¢¢ ì Ík

44
self defense ˬβϔϨϟ΍ Ϧϋ ωΎϓΩ
45
distortion ˬϒ˷ϳΰ˴ ˰˵ϣ
46
proved ˬΓΪϛΆϣ
47
pursuit ˬϲόγ
48
subjective judgment ˬ(ϲϋϮοϮϣ ήϴϏ) ϲΗ΍Ϋ έ΍ήϗ
49
hybrid ˬϦϴΠϫ
assumption ˬΕΎοήΘϓ· a§õ Ðì Uít]íÁ 50
51
gradually ˬ˱ΎϴΠϳέΪΗ
52
conversion ϝϮΤΗ
#G¢õº¾íÁÍ#DéiàÎ¢úl²ÁôD# >#Gõ²ì\âÎ¢pL#K÷¾ô²ÅâÎÁ#RtÐì±#G÷¹#GìÐì¶QóQ½àÎ±#Gçpì¹âÎ
53
56
aG# ¢ì\âÎÁg#ì§¾ì²¢s#Ç¢íÏ# GìM½ô g#ì§Ðì¾tíL ÔPEì²ì±k#SÔÐìÁ#ÍìD#K÷¾Qóµ#RtÐì±#G÷¹
55 54
#K¢ì½Í#Ô¢PEì²±ì k#R¢¶¾ìg#FõÓÍú Ô¢PD#G¢ìÆÏ#K¢ì½#GçÆ¢ìt½ô Í#F÷ÓúÍgj¢íÁÍ#GçÂÂí©#GìÆPD

# #1ÕéMô½g#ì§Ðì¾s#ÍìD#GìtìÅlíLg#Gì\âÎÁg#ì§¾ì²síg#FìÓÎìÁ#ÓâÎ½âÎ¾í¶L#SÔÐìÁg
# #DkÍlt#Iì¾Ï#ì§¶QÆo#a§ì ÆìÂQpÁ#ÍìD#ì§ÆìlÁ#a§ì ÆÏì g#Dìh]¾¹#13.3
57
a§ì# ÐìÏúkâÎ¢Á#FìÓâÎ¢TÜ#Dìh\#ÓâÎ²½#aì§ÆìÂQpÁ#ÍìD#ì§ÆìlÁ#aì§ÆìÏg#Dìh]¾¹
#´ìD#FìÓâÎÏìÔ¢ÐíLg#G¢ìµìgâÍm#1F# Óì kækâÎ¢tÁ#Ô¢PEìÆÆì ÂÐûÖÔæÁ#G¢ìÏÎúÖg#Iì¾Ï#ì§¶QÆo
#ÍìD#G¢¢ìµìgâÍm#aÑ# ÖÏíÓkûl¢ ítÁ#K¢¢ì½g#1D# ékækâÎ¢ tÁ#R¢¢tÐì±g#G¢¢ìÆÏ#Gì¶QÆ¢¢o#HìÔTúl¢ o
# # 1GçÆÐì ¾íÝæÁ#GçÐÆì Mì Éí #ÍìD# GéÆìÆ¶íÐÁ#GçÐìUìsâÎ\#GçÆPg#GìÆÏ#GìÏúÎÖæL#FìÔTúlo
59 58
# ###=ì§Ïúlsíg#Kì¾QUs#14
#§ì Ïúl¢tí½#Kì¾QU¢s#h¢í\#G¢ìp¹âÎóÁ#Õ÷¾¢tQ±#aGéÐÅæi#ì§ì½Ó#GéÅíDg#FìÓâÎÆìÏhûÖÂíL
#GçÐÁì h¢#¢íµ#G¢¢¢éÏìiàÍÓìDg#ì§Qª¢¢¢síÓÍ#G¢¢¢çÐí\g#FìÓâÎÏìÔ¢¢ÐíL#¿¢¢¢í©#G¢¢¢ìÐìÐÅæk#G¢¢¢ì®ì½âÎ±g
# #1ì§¶PÔí©#ÇPjÖíÅ#ÔÐéLg#DéiàÎÂì©#ÑÖïÐíMìUs#ÑÖÐí¾¹gûÍ
# ##=GìÐ¶
ì QóQ½àÎ±#Gì²¾ì \âÎs#4.1
#1g1Ö#aG# ¢ìÆìÏûkÓ#GìÐÅæk#¿í©#GìÐÆæL#Õ÷¾Ï#GìtQ±#Gì²ì¾\âÎs#GúÖìD#¿í©#GìsúkâÍg# #
#aG# ¢ìÆTām#G¢úÖDì #kíÔ¢ìL#2#Ô¢PEì²¶íÅ#ÍìD#Gì]Q¢tÁ#Äìhµ#2#GçÆæs#612#kàÍÓìDg#ì§¾í²Å
#I¢¢¾ì Ï#K¢¢½ì #1G# ¢ìÏúkàÍÓìD#G¢¢ìÂí©g#G¢¢ìÐìÆì¾¹#K¢¢ì¾ìLâÎ\#e¢¢ÏíD#ì§UQ¢¢t\#G¢¢tì Ðì±#K¢¢ì½g#K¢¢÷½úÍ
#§ì ¢¶ì¾#e¢ÏíD#GìUQ¢t\#v÷E¢ì±##GìÐ¶ì QóQ½àÎ±#Gìp¹ì âÎ#hí\g#ì§¾ì²Åíg# ì§ÆìÅÎúÖÔæÁ 60
#ÍìD#G¢¢¢éÁàÎèÖkg#ÍìD#G¢¢¢ìQóÅ×nQLg#F÷ÓúÍkàÎìj¢¢²ÁôDg#G¢¢¢çÂÂí©#1Õ¢¢¢éÂí©g#ì§Ð¢¢¢ìÆì¾¹
#G¢ìpì¹âÎ#=F# ìÓâÎ¢ÆìºÏíD#Dìh¢]¾ºL#1G# ¢ì\k# âÍD#G¢úÖìEL#ÈàÎèÖ¾¶Q¾#Kì½#GçÐì¾ìâÍDg
#ÓàÎ¢ ¢\Óíg#÷§¢ ¢ì©iíDÍ#aÕ# ¢ ¢÷¾]Q½Ó#F÷ÓúÍiàÎ¢ ¢úl²ÁôD#ì§¢ ¢ì½Ó#G¢¢¢éÅíDg#G¢¢¢ìÐì¶QóQ½àÎ±
#DéiàÎ¢¢©m#G¢¢çÂÐ÷¾µûÍ#GçÅhì ¢¢\âÍDÍ#F÷ÓÍú iì ÓíÞ#G¢¢éªQ¾±#ÈàÎèÖ¾¢¢tQ±#ÑÖÐíÆìó½âÎ¢¢s
#1GìtPl±#GìÂæs#hí\#ÈàÎèÖ¾Q¶s#ÍìD#GìÐìÁhíµ#ÑÖÐíÂæt½#ÈàÎèÖ½#GéÁâÎ#ÑÖÐí¾¹g
#1F# Óì lé ¢\öD#G¢ì\kâÍD#Dìh¢]íL#GìÏÎúÖg#Kì½Í#G÷±âÎ¾]ítÂí½#GìÏÓìD#Kì½# FìÓâÎÆìÏÎúÖ#GúÖìD
61
#K¢ì½Dô #G¢ìÐ¶ì QóQ½àÎ±#G¢ìp¹ì âÎ#h¢í\g#ì§¾ì²ÆíL#Gì¶¾ì#hæL#GìÂí©g#FìÓâÍp\#Dìh\

53
coup d’etat ˬΕΎΑϼϘϧ·
54
suddenly ˬ˱΍έϮϓ
55
heart attack ˬΔϴΒϠϗ ΔΘϜγ
56
stroke ˬΔϴϏΎϣΩ ΔτϠΟ
57
controversial ˬϝΪΠϠϟ ΓήϴΜϣ
58
subjective ˬ(ϲϋϮοϮϣ ήϴϏ) ϲΗ΍Ϋ
59
bias ˬίΎΤϨϣ
60
reasonable ˬΔϟϮϘόϣ
61
outcome ˬ ΝΎΘϧ
#G¢¢¢ìÐ¶ì QóQ½àÎ±#Gõ²¾ì \âÎ¢ ¢s#I¢¢¢ì¾©í #SÓìDg#Ç¢¢¢ô±Dì #G¢¢¢ìÏÎì¶Á#G¢¢¢÷¹#ì§¢ ¢Lûk#Ö÷Ô¢ ¢ìÆÁ

#G¢¢ìÆÏ#K¢¢ì½#ì§ÐìÅÔì Qª¢¢síÓ#FìÓâÍhÖ¢¢ìoÍ#GìóQ¢¢t±#G¢¢ìÐÅæk#1G# Ðç Æì ¢¢ìt½ô Í#GçÐÅì Ôì ¢¢PgÍìÓÍ
#FõÓúÎÁôDg#F÷ÓúÍiâÎúl²ÁôDÍ#F÷ÓúÍgjíÁÍ#GçÆìtô½Í#GçÂÂí©g#FìÓâÎÅìhLÎìÁ#DékâÍlítÁ
#G¢ìpØâÎ#Ç¢í½#Ô¢PD#1ÔPEì²Qó\#GìÐì¶QóQ½àÎ±#ÑÖÐípì¹âÎg#ì§¾í²Æû#GçÐìÁhíµ
#Iì¾¢tQ±#½l¢¢æLg#ì§èÆPh¢¢Á#1G¢¢ìÆìÏûkÓ#G¢¢ìÐì¾ÐéL÷Ó#G¢¢ìTúlµ#2#FìÓâÍÔ¢¢PD#G¢¢úÖìD#¿¢¢í©
#K¢¢¾ì Ðí\Í#K¢¢¾÷ Qóµ#ÈàÎÖè ¾¢¢tQ±#DúkÓíD#ïÑ¢ Æí LûÍ#GçÐ¢ pì ÐíÉg#G¢¢çÅâÎÐ¾æÁÍ#ì§Tæl\âÎ¢ Á
#G¢¢ìÐìÆììD#G¢¢ìÂí©#G¢¢ìÆPD# Õ# ¢ ÷½#Dél¢ s#Sn¢¢ìÅg#G¢¢ìÐì¶QóQ½àÎ±#G¢¢ìpì¹âÎÍ#GìÐ¢ ìpÐíÉ
62
#2#G¢ìLkú #Ç¢ô±Dì Í#Gé©j¢ô±#ÇÏékÔ¢íL#Ç¢ô±Dì #GçÆÏì Îì¶Á#ÈàÎÖè ½#FéÎÖ#GìQÆììDg#DúkÓíDÍ

#FõÓúÎÁôE¢L#K÷¾Q¶¢sûÍ#DúkÓíDg#G¢ìâÎÉ#2#GéªQóµ#ÈàÎèÖ¾tQ±#DéiàÎ©m#GÅç hì \âÍD
#DékâÍl¢ítÁíg#G¢ìÅél\öD#GìpØâÎ#hí#ÔPDúkàÎUì©#bûlô¹híÁg#Iì¾Ï#ì§]Qt\#1GéMUì s
#K¢ì½Dô #Õ¢÷¾¶Q¾#K¢ì½#GìÏÔì Ðì TÎ¢ìo#Dìh¢ìÏâÎ\g#ì§¾ì²Æ¢íL#1GìÐÅæk#GúÖìDg#Kì¾QUtí½#Õ÷¾Ï
#ÈàÎ¢èÖ½#G¢éÆµ#gàÎ¢]¾íL#K¢ì½#G¢çÂÂí©Í#G¢ìÐQì ÁàÎÅ# àÎ¶PDÍ#G¢ìÐì¶QóQ½àÎ±#Õépì¹âÎ
#§ì ÐìÆÂì ÖâÎ¢#ÑÖÏíÓâÍÔ¢PÞ#ÈàÎÖè kækâÎ¢tÁ#´ìD#K¢ì½Dô #ì§Ðì¶QóQ½àÎ±#ÑÖÏíÓâÍkEé\
#G¢¢ìÆìÐ©ækg#ì§¾íM¢ í¶L#G¢¢ì®ì½âÎ²L#Ç¢¢ô¾²ìÅ#K¢¢ì½#G¢¢ìÅìD#Gìch¢¢ûÖ#1ì§ÐìÅìÓâÍgl¢¢íÁÍ#ì§ÐìÆ¢ ìtô½Í
#FìÓâÎÅìh¢LÎìÁg#FìÓkâÍÝ¢¢½#Ô¢¢PEìÆì¾¹#ÇéLl¢¢ìo#h¢¢æLÍ#¿¢¢æªL#GìÂQ¢¢sk#ÛâÎ¢ÅÎì¶ìÏgíg
#Õ¢÷¾Ï#Dúklú ¢s#1Ô# ¢ÅúkâÍg#Õ¢÷¾Ï#HâÎÂQ¢skíg#e¢ÏíD#kàÍÓìDÍ#FéÎ¢ÆQÅ#ïÑÆí Líg#ì§ÐìÆì¾¹
#G¢ìÐ¶ì QóQ½àÎ±#G¢ìp¹ì âÎg#Õ¢÷¾Ï#Dúklú ¢s#1I# ¢ì¾¾Q²Å#ì§Ðìd¢sækDì #ì§ÆPh¢Á#FéÎÆQÅg
#ÈàÎÖè ¾¢tQ±#G¢õ²½íDg#DõE¢Á#´ìDÍ#GéÏjì pæ©g#Iì¾Ï#ì§ÆìÆ ô āÜÔæÁ#1Õ÷¾]Q½Ó#kàÍÓìDg
#FìÓâÎÅìh¢LÎìÁ#Õ¢÷ó¾ì ±#FéÎ¢úÖg#G¢ìÏÝìÁ#K¢ì½#Déilú s#GéÅDí #2#hí\#´ìD#GìÆPD#1Kø¾Qóµ
# #1GìÏúkàÍÓìD#GìÂí©g#ì§ÐìÆì¾¹
## GìÐÆì tì ½ô #Gì²¾ì \âÎs#4.2
#G¢éÅDí g#I¢ì¾Ï#ì§]Q¢t\#aÕ# ¢éÂ©í #ì§ÏìÔ¢ÐíL#G¢ì\kâÍDÍ#Gì²¾ì \âÎs#GúÖDì g#GìÆÐì ¹#Gì©hì Q½# ##
# #1GéÐÉâÎÖÁ#RtÐì±#FïðnµâÎÅ#GìtÂí\
# G¢¢¢çÁàÎ\Ó#FúÎ¢¢èÖ#Ô¢¢¢Ðí½#kàÍÓìDg#FìÓâÎ¢¢º¾íÁg#ì§¢¢¾í²Å#kíÔ¢¢ìL#2#´ìDÍ#Äh¢¢¢ìµ#2#4.2.1
63
#¿í©g#÷§ì©iíD#1GéÐìÁìiìÞ#GéÏìiàÍÓìDg#GçÂÐ÷¾µ#ÔÐéL#GéÂQsi#GéÐìØúlÉâÎQX#ÍìD#GìÐì¶QóQ½àÎ±
#Ñ¢úÖkâÍDÍ#UPÝ¢Åíg#õ§Æì Ph¢Á#aG# ¢ìpØâÎ#e¢ÏíD# 1D# çgìh¢]íL#ÍúÎ¢èÖP#K÷¾PhÉ#ÑÖÐíÁàÎ\Ó
64
#h¢í\#1k# àÍÓìDg##FìÓâÍkàÎ¢úl²ÁôD#ÎìÉ#GçÅìh\âÍD#ÍúÎèÖP#aGìÐÁì úkìD#GìÆìtô½g#GéÅàÍjóÆôµ#ÈúlúÖÍ

##FìÓâÍkàÎ¢ úl²ÁôD#Î¢¢Éì #G¢¢té QU\#ÍúÎ¢ Öè P#G¢¢Öç Éì #FõÔ¢ Æì PhÁ#G¢¢éÅíDg#Õ¢¢÷¾Ï#FìÓÔ¢¢ípÁ#Dúkúl¢ s
###1GéÐìÁìiìDg#GçÅìh\âÍD#ÎìÉ#GçÖìÉÍ#kàÍÓìDg
# #=ÀìÔÅîmàÍkg#ì§ÐìÅíÓ#eÏíD#ì§Ðì©ÝæÁ#Gì]ñÅhíÁg#GìÐìÅúÎìÉ#GìÆìtô½#Õ÷½#FéÎèÖ#GìÐìÁúkìD#GìÆìtô½#4.2.2

62
disintegrated ˬϝϼΤϧ΍ ϚϜϔΗ
63
boundaries ˬΩϭΪΣ
64
overlapped ˬΕϭΎϔΗ ˬ ϞΧ΍ΪΗ
#Fïnð ªô½#GìLkú g#Iì¾Ï#ì§ÆìÏÎúÖÔæÁ#aGì]QtÁ#Äìhµ#2##ì§QÆìÏûkÓ#FìÓâÎ²½íDg#Gì\Ôæ

#GìÂÐ÷¾µíg# GçÁàÎ\Ó# ¿í©g# DéiàÎÂìªL# F÷ÓÍâÍÝÁ# ÍúÎÖè Ï# GétQ±# GìÐÁì kú Dì # GìÆtì ½ô g
#F÷ÓÍú iì ÓíDÍ# ÇPjÖíÅ# ÔÐéL# Õ÷¾Ï# GìtUì \íg# aGìÆQÂís# GìÅlú ÖípL# GìªPhÏ
#GçÁàÎ\Ó#¿í©#DéiàÎÂì©#GéÐÁì iì Eì L#Gì]¾ô ±âÎÁ#FúÎÖè #GìtQ±g#F×nªô½#Kì½Dô #1ÕéÅÍú kæh
ì gí
#Fðnï ªô½# ÑÖÐí¾º½# Õ÷½# K÷¾©# Gì]QtÁ# Äìhµ# 2# GìÆÐì Áí Ó# Dúkgì # 2# kàÍÓìDg
# #1Gésiì âÍg#lPÔíÏÍ#FõÓúÍhÖìp½#Gì¶QÆo#Õ÷¾Ï#K÷½#FìÓÔípÁ#Dúkúls#GúÖìD1GéÅjé \öD
#G¢¢ìÐì©ÝæÁ#e¢¢ÏíD#Ö÷ÓâÎ¢ÐìÅúÎúÊL#ì§Âí\íÔ¢Á#FúÎ¢èÖÏ#K¢¢ì½#G¢¢Ðì ìÁúkìD#GìÆ¢ìtô½g#FìÓâÎ¢Ík#4.2.3#
#ì§²í¾]¢ít½#DçgàÎ¢Uì©#GçpcâÎóoôD#ÈàÎÖ½#FéÎÖ#+ÔÐéM²í½Dì ,#ÖõÓúÍÓìDg#Gìpì¹âÎ#1FìÓâÎ¾ì¾íÁg
# #1§ì UPÔ¹íg# GçÐìÆì¾ìµ#GçÆìÐÊæÖÍ# GéÐìÅìÓiâÍÜ#Gçpì¹âÎg
66 65
#G¢¢ìÏúkâÎ#G¢¢ìÐìÁúkDì #GìÆ¢tì ½ô #ÖéU¢¢©#aÖõÓúÍÓìDg#ì§¢píºíóÁíg#GìÏúkâÎ¢s#2#G¢¢Öú

#GúÖìD#1FìÓâÎÐì]QtÁíg#Déiìgg#GìÏúkâÎs#¿ûÖ½#ì§UPÔ¹íg#GìÏ×ÜîÜ#Gìpì¹âÎ#Ãí©#GìlìÏ
#G¢ìÂôÓ#h¢í\#gàÎ¢]¾íLg#aD# ìh¢¶íªÁ G# ¢ìÐÆì Öì¹#G¢ìpdí#Ô¢ìÆÐíL#Õ÷½#FéÎÖ#GìÏkú âÎÁ
67
#Ô¢PEìÅÎú Éì #G¢ìÂ©í g#GìóQt±#Gìpdí#ÔìÆÐíLÍ#aÕ÷½#FúÎèÖ#³÷¾ìÏg#FúÎèÖ#FðÝìÁ#Gìslí²Á

#DéiàÎ¢¢Âì©#aG# ì]Q¢¢tÁ#Äìh¢¢µ#2#GìÐìªQU¢¢s#Dúkìgg#G¢¢ìÁìÓâÎ#1Õ# ¢¢÷½#FúÎ¢¢èÖ#¬éh¢¢ìÏ
.GìÐìÁúkìD#GìÆìtô½g#Kø¾í¾íÁ#ÈàÎèÖ½#DéÎèÖ#ÇPjÖíÅ#ÔÐéLg#ì§Lûk#ì§ìÆÁûÍ#GìPkâÎog
68
#aG# ìÏúl²¢æoÍ#GìÐìÅìÓúÎ²¢æo#1g1Ö#aGçÆìtô½g#GçpdíóL#Gì²ì¾\âÎs#bānì\#ÈôD#DúlìÁâÍg#ÔÐí½#4.2.4
#GéÆ¢ìsiâÎ±Í#aG# Ðì Â ì Ð¢és#ÑÖÐ¢íslætL#G¢ìÆÏ#GçÆÐì \öD#aGìÐìÁúkìDÍ#GìÏúkàÍÓìD#aÑÖÏûÍkôÓg#ÒIL
#GçÆ¢ ìtô½g#ì§¢ Lûk#ì§ìÆ¢ Áíg#_íM¢ tì\g#I¢¢ì¾Ï#ì§Ð¢¢ìÆìÐ¹#1G# ¢ ÷Íi#G¢¢ìÆÏ#K¢¢ì½#ÑÖÏíÔ¢ ìÆÐíL#Ô¢¢PDg
#§õ ]ì ¢tí\#ÑÖÏíÔ¢ìÆÐíL#FúÎ¢èÖ#Ô¢PDgûÍ#aD# çgìh¢]í½#GìÆÏ#GéMPlíµg#RÅìD#ÔPEìÆì¾PgÍ#aGçÐÂ ì Ðés
#G¢úÖÞ ì #G¢ìpØâÎ#e¢ÏíDÍ#1G# ¢ìÐÅì Îú Éì #GìÆ¢ìt½ô #hí\#ÈâÍkæÎâÎÁ#aGìÆìûkÔæÁ#GìkíhL#õ§ìÐìÐÁìg
#K¢ì¾¾ÂíÁ#V¢ì¹âÍlL#GìÂQ¢sk#Õ¢÷¾Ï#G¢tQ±##aD# lú \ÍìÔ¢Á#GìÆTāmg#GìÐ¾ì ÐéMLì #GìÆtì ½ô #aGìÆìÐ©æk
##ì§Ð¢ìÆÐì ¹#GìÆ¢ìt½ô #h¢í\#2#lPÔ¢íÏg##ì§©íhP#GúÖìD#Ãí© # 1GçÐ¾ì ÐéMLì #õ§]ì tí#GìÆPD#GìÐÁì kú Dì
69
#Gì\Ô¢ô#ÑÖÏíÔÆì ÐíL#ÍúÎÖè #ÔPD#GétPj±#GçÆé tì ½ô g#Kø¾¾ì Áí g#GìºÏíD##ÇPjÖíÅÔÐéL#ÎìÉ#FúÎèÖÏ

#FõÓúÎ±ìÓÎ¢¢ìsg#Ô¢¢PEìÆì©híÁ#I¢¢ì¾Ï#ì§Æì¾MíµÔ¢¢æÁ#1D# éjPl¢¢ísÍ#G¢¢÷Íi#DéiâÎ¢¢oæíD#aG÷ºPj¢¢ìÏ
# G# ¢çÐ¾ûÊÁ#GìÏúkâÎ¢tL#ÈàÎ¢èÖ½#FéÎ¢èÖ#ÇPj¢¢ÖíÅ#Ô¢¢ÐéL#Î¢¢ìÉ#GçÆ¢ìtô½#ÓíEìQÊ¢¢ío#´ìDÍ#Ô¢¢íÐÆìÏûkÓ
70

Logographic ˬΔϠϣΎϛ ΔϤϠϛ ϞΜϤΗ Δϣϼϋ ϭ΃ ΰϣέ ϭ΃ ϑήΣ 65
Syllabic ˬϲότϘϣ 66
theocratic ˬϲσ΍ήϗϮϴΛ 67
Diringer, D. The Alphabet: A Key to the History of Mankind. New York, Funk & 68
Wagnalls, 1968, 200; Toynbee, A.J. A Study of History (abr.D.C. Somervell), New York: Oxford
University Press, 1947, 19.
69
Lambert, M. A. The Babylonians and Chaldeans, Peoples of Old Testament Times. (ed.)
Wiseman, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973, 118.
vulnerable ˬϦϴο͉ή˰˴ό˰˵ϣ 70
#G¢ì\kâÍD#G¢úÖìEL#1G# ¢ìÐÖú ÁôD#ÑÖÐíÆ¢ìt¾ô ½#R¢¶¾íóÁ#F# Óì l¢íÍû #ÑÖÐíÆ¢ìt½ô g#ì§²ì¾]¢ís#R¾Míµg

# #1GìÐLì kú Þ
í #GìÐÁì kú Dì #aFìÓlíûÍ#aGìÐìÁúkìÞ#GìÏìhì¹íDÍ#aGìÏìhì¹íÞ#GìÏúéÁâÎs#Õ÷¾²ô¾\âÎs
#G¢étQ±#G¢ìÆÁì ÎìÏg#G¢éÏiì àÍÓìD#Ñ¢ÖÐíQLg#G¢çÐÅì âÎ¹g#GìÐÆì ¢ìslæsÍ#GìÐì¾ìLâÎÏ#Kì¾ìM½âÎL###4.2.5
#=S# kàÎ¢sìD#=SkàÍùÓìD#=G# éÐìÏiâÎ¢o#=GéÏìiâÎo#=GéÏìiàÍÓìD#=RÅìÔpPkàÎoìD#=eÏíD#aGéªPhÏ# GìÆÏ
##Gõ²¾ì \âÎ¢s#GìÂ¹h¢í\#¿¢í©#bû\ì #ÈôD#GìÐÁì híµ#ÕéslætL#v÷E±ì g#GìÏÝíÁ#aGì¹lísÍ#=SkàÎoìD
#Gõ²ì¾\âÎ¢sg#DúkÝ¢¢íÏ#G¢¢úÖìD# 1GìÆ¢ìtô½g#G¢¢çÐìÆì¾Pg#G¢¢çÅàÎÆìµg#G¢¢õµgānÁ#GçÐìÂÐ÷º¢oôDÍ#G¢¢çÐìÆì¾ìµ
71
1FìÓâÎµgānÂí½#ì§¶QÆo#Iì¾Ï#Kì½#Ö÷ÓâÍlPlísÍ#GçÆìtô½#ÔìÆÐíL#Õ÷¾Ï#GìÏìhìÐ©#aGçÐÂ ì Ð÷ºoôD
## =GéÐìÅìÓâÍgjíÁÍ#GçÐìÅìÔPgÍìÓ#Gõ²ì¾\âÎs####4.3
#§õ ¢ìtôÓÍ#FõÓÎúì ÆìÐ²¢ípÁûÍ#G¢çpdíg#ì§¢Lûk##ì§Æì ¢Á#a§ì# Ðì]Q¢tÁ#ì§PgÍìÓ#Ñí]ìÅhû# #
#ÔÐéL#Iì½#_íMtì\g#Iì¾Ï#Gì¶pí©g#Çô±ìD#1Gì¶ì¾#ÈàÎèÖ½#DékâÎs#ÇPjÖíÅ#ÔÐéLg#GçÐìÅìÔPgÍìÓ
#GéÆ ì ií Ô¢æÁ#õ§Ðì ¾ì Ph¢L#ì§ÐìÅÔì ¢PgÍìÓ#FìÓâÍÔPD#Dìh\#eÏíD#FìÓâÎÐì]QtÁ#Äìhµ#2#ÇPjÖíÅ
#G¢çpcàÎóoôÞ#I¢ì½#FéÎ¢µâÎÁ#FìÓâÎÐì]QtÁíg#_íMtì\g#bāÝÁì #FìÓâÎóQt²íL#GìÆPD#aGétPj±
#FìÓâÎÂ¾¢ís#K¢ì½g##ì§¢Lkû# ##ì§Æì ¢Áíg##ì§²ìÐ¢tíL#FìÓgàÎ¢Uì©Í#G¢ìÂÐ÷¾µ#Õ÷¾¹g#GçÐÐì Áìg#GçÆìÆÐíºÁ
#FìÓâÎÐì]Q¢tÁíg#Ç¢ìD#1G# ¢ìÂÐ÷¾µ#Î¢ìÉ##ì§ÐìÅÓì âÍgl¢íÁÍ##ì§ÐìÅÔì ¢PgÍìÓ#FìÓâÎÏÍìDg##ì§ÏúlLûÍ
#ÍúÎ¢èÖÏ#G¢ìtìU]æL#GçÐìÁhíµ#GçÆñÂÐûÖÁ#aGìÂÐ÷¾µ#GúÖìDg#GìÂ¾ì©#ÓâÍEQÊíog#ì§PgÍìÓ#Iì½#FéÎÖ
#2#G¢ìLúl½#Iì½h¢PlÉ#FìÓâÎÐ# ]ì Q¢tÁ#FìÓl¢í#1G# éÅéj¢\öDÍ#G¢çÐì¾ÐéMìLÍ#GéÏìiàÍÓìDÍ#GéÐìÁìiìÞ
#G¢çÂÂí©#Ô¢ìÆÐíL#FúÎ¢èÖ#Ô¢PDg#GéÐÅì Óì âÍgj¢íÁÍ#GçÐÆì tì ½ô Í#GçÐìÅìÔÁâÍDÍ#GçÐìÆìÂÖâÎ#GéÆìsiâÎ±
# F# Óì âÍn¢Pní©Í##ì§¢oúl±#Õ¢÷½#FéÎ¢Ö#GçÐÅì Ôì PgÍìÓ#Gõ²¾ì \âÎsg#GìÐìÆìÐ¹#Gìóì¾±#1ÇPjÖíÅ#ÔÐéLg
72
#a+G# ¢ìÐì¾QUìLÍ#G¢ìÏúkàÍÓìD,#GìÏhì ¢ì¹Dí #Ô¢PEìÆ¾ì PgÍ#GéÅjé ¢\öD#GçÆtì ½ô g#Gì±ÎìtL#GìÐÁì kú Dì #GìÆtì ½ô g

#GçÐì]Q¢¢tÁíg#GìÆ¢ ìtô½#Õ¢¢÷½#FéÎ¢ èÖ#aì§ÐìÏkâÎ¢ o# Ö÷Ô¢ ¶í²û#Ô¢¢PEìÆì¾PgÍ#aG¢¢ìÐìÁúkìDg#ÒI¢¢L
73
#GçÐì]Q¢¢tÁíg#GçÐìÆ¢ ìtô½Í#GéÐìÅìÓâÍgj¢¢íÁ#õ§ìÐ¢ ì¾Pg#Ñ¢¢ÖÐí¾¹# a°ûkh¢¢í½#°ûkg#2Í#1GçÐ]ì Åñ h¢¢Áí

74
#GìÏúkâÎ¢o#ÍìD#GéÐìÏiâÎ¢oÍ#GìÐ# ìÏkâÎ¢o#GìÂÐ÷º¢oôEL#G¢¢éÏlôµ#ÈàÎèÖ¾¢¢tQ±#ì§Ðì©Ý¢¢æÁ#Gì]ñÅh¢¢íÁg
#FúÎ¢èÖP#aFìÓâÍgl¢¢íÁÍ##ì§¢PgÍìÓ#Ã¢¢í©#GìÏìÔ¢ÐíL# aG¢¢ìÐì²¶ìÅ#G¢¢ìÅél\öD#Gì²ì¾\âÎ¢sÍ#1G# éÏìiâÎ¢oÍ
75
#G¢¢Ðì Æì Â
ì ÖâÎÍ#GìÐÅì Ôì ¢ ÁâÍD#G¢¢ ì âÍk#h¢¢\í #Õ¢¢¾÷ Pg#R¢¢ÆÏíD#G¢¢çÐìÁàÎÆµ#G¢¢çÖìíg#Gì²ì¾\âÎ¢ s
#GìÐìÆìÂÖâÎ#GìtÆô¹g#ì§QªsíÓ#ÎìÉ#GçÆTām#ÒékÓ#ÔìÆÐíL#ÔPDg#DúkàÎpæÐ½#·ô¾íóÁíg#GìÐì¶ÆíÅìD
#¿¢í©#ÈàÎèÖ¾dQ²¢s#a§ì ¶PÔí©#G÷µÔ÷ Ïì gíg#RÅìDÍ#GçÐ]ì QtÁ#GçÐÁì àÎÆµ#GçÆÂ ì sæ #1ì§ÁâÍD#Dìh\íg
# ##1GçÐì¾ÐéMìLÍ#GéÏìiàÍÓìD#GçÆìÂæt½#ÔPEìÆì¾¹#ÈàÎèÖ¾²QsÍ#GìÅìh\âÍD##Õ÷¾¹
#h¢í\g#ì§¢sâÎÉkíg#Õ¢#÷¾Ï#G¢ìPÎÖg#¿ÐéL÷Ó#ÎìÉ#DúkàÎ©m#GìÅìh\âÍD#hí\#Õ÷¾P#ÇPjÖíÅ#ÔÐéL####

Odisho, Edward Y. The Sound System of Modern Assyrian (Neo-Aramaic). Wiesbaden: Otto 71
Harrassowitz, 1988,
consolidation ˬΰϳΰόΗ 72
variety ˬϪΠϬϠΑ ,Öðnªô¾L 73
gradually ˬ˱ΎϴΠϳέΪΗ 74
concomitant ˬϡίϼϣ 75
#G¢çÐÆì Â
ì ÖâÎ#Gõ²¾ì \âÎ¢s#ÈàÎ¢èÖ½#FéÎ¢Ö#ì§Q¢Æ±#G¢úÖDì #Î¢ìÉ#1F# ÷ÓúÍgj¢íÁg#GìÆìûkÔæÁ#GìÆìÐÆæÁ
#GìÆ¢¢ìtô½g#ì§Æíó¾¢¢ítÁ#1G# Ðé Æì ¢¢ìsjæsÍ#GéÆ
ì ií Ô¢¢æÁ#GéÐÅì Óì âÍgj¢¢íÁÍ#GçÐÅì Ôì ¢¢PgÍìÓÍ#GçÐÆì ¢¢ìt½ô Í
#Î¢ìÉ#FìÓâÎÆìÂ¾¢tíÁg#ì§¢oúl±ûÍ# aG# ¢ìÏkú âÎÁ#h¢íª¾æL#FúÎ¢èÖP#GìÐÁì kú Dì g#GìºÏíD#aÄ÷E¶ì LGìÐLì kú Dí
76
#Ô¢PEìÆ©ì híÁ#ì§Qª¢síÔ½#Õ¢÷¾Ï#DékâÎÖÆíÁ#aFìÓâÎÐì]QtÁíg#GìÐìÁhíµ#GìÆpæ\#FúÎèÖPg#GìÂÐ÷¾µ
#Î¢ìÉ#GçÐìÆìÂÖâÎÍ#GéÐìÅìÓâÍgjíÁÍ#GçÐìÆìtô½#Gõ²ì¾\âÎs#ÈàÎèÖ½#F÷ÔÏâÎÁg#GìÍk#Dìh©âÎM½ûÍ
# #1GìÂÐ÷¾µ#GúÖDì
#G¢ìÐìÆìÂÖâÎ#GìÂæs#a19#a18#a17#Déihì L#ÔPEìÆì¾PgÍ#aGéÏìjì\öD#DéiìhLíg#Iì¾Ï#FìÓlPlís
#´ìDÍ#1GéÐìÏiâÎ¢ o#aGìÏìiâÎ¢ o#aG¢¢éÐìÅiàÍÓìD#aG# ¢ éÏìiàÍÓìD#Õ¢¢÷¾Ï#G¢¢ìPÎÖ#G¢¢éÏìiàÍÓìDg#G¢¢ìÐìÅúÎìÉÍ
#Dúkìgg#G¢ìÁìÓâÎ#Õ¢÷¾ªQUÅíg#GìÐ¢ìpQ¾ÊÅôD#GìÐìÅâÎ¹#Ãí©#ÑÖÏíÔ±íÓÎìtÁíg#Iì¾Ï#FìÓlPlís
#e¢ÏíD#G¢éÏiì àÍÓìD#h¢íÐL# G# ¢ìÆÏì læ\#K¢ì½g#K¢ì¾Mí¶Á# ûÍ#G¢ìÆìÏÎì¶Á#GìÐìÅâÎ¹#Õ÷½#FéÎÖ#lípªísÓíg
77
#G¢ìÆPD#1G# ¶õ PÔ¢í©#G¢éÏiì àÍÓìD#Ã¢í©#GìÏÔì ¢ÐíL#GìÐÅì Ôì Qª¢síÓ#G¢ìÐ©ì ÝæÁÍ#GìÐìÅìÔÁâÍD#ÑÖÐíÐìÅâÎ¹

#G¢¢¢ìtÆô¹##h¢¢¢í\#¿¢¢¢í©#l¢¢¢ípªísÓíg#Dúkìh¢¢L ‘Assyrian’#GìÐ¢¢ìpQ¾ÊÅôD#G¢¢¢ìÐìÅâÎ¹# ÓâÎ¢¢¶QLíg 78
#K¢ì¾Mæ ½âÎMÁ#v÷E¢ì±#K¢ì½g#K¢÷½Íú #aG# éÏìiâÎ¢o#ÍìD#G¢éÏìiàÍÓìD#eÏíD#GìªPhP#líM©íhL#GìÐìÆìÂÖâÎ

# #=Õ÷¾Ï#DúlìÁöDg#´îmàÎX#ÈàÎXg#GìÂìÔô²L
#aGéÁàÎèÖkg#ì§Ðì¶Q½àÍùÔìµ#ì§PgÍìÔ½#ÈàÎèÖ¾ªQTÓíg#GçÐì]QtÁ#¿í©#GìTÓâÎÁ#Õ÷¾tQ±#%GìÏhì ¾í¹%#GìÐÅì âÎ¹#hí¹
#ÈàÎ¢¢¢èÖ¾æLâÎµg#%G¢¢¢¢ìÏkú àÍÓìD%#79Dú¢¢¢ÖÅí Í#G¢¢¢¢ìÁDì Ó#G¢¢¢¢ìÐÅì âÎºL#G¢¢¢¢éÏlôµ#ÈàÎÖè ¾¢¢¢¢tQ±#GéÐÅì iàÎó¢¢¢¢pæÅ
#1lípªísÓíg#Dúkìgg#GìÁìÓâÎ\#2#GúÖ#ÈàÎÖè ¾]ô¾±âÎÁÍ
#G¢¢ìÆìÐ©ækg#FìÓkûl¢ ítÂí½#FúÎ¢ èÖP#Dúlô¹gâÎ¢ Á#GìÂìùÔ¢ ô±#2#´îmàÎ¢ X#ÈàÎ¢ Xg#G¢¢ìtQÅ# #
#GéÏìiàÍÓìD#Ãí©#ì§ÐìÆìÂÖâÎÍ#ì§ÐìÅìÔQªsíÓ#FìÓâÎÏìÔÐíL#ÈàÎèÖ½#ÔÐí½#%GìÆìÁÎìÏg#GéÏìiàÍÓìDg%
#aÔ# ¢PEìÁhíµ#1´ # mî àÎ¢X#ÈàÎ¢Xg#GéÆÐì ©æj¢½#Ô¢PEìÆ¾ì ¹#¿¢¹#ÈæÎÏ#K÷¾TâÎ¶½íhÁ#GìÅDì #1Gõ¶PÔí©
#GçÐÅì Ôì ¢ÁâÍDÍ#G¢çÐÆì Âì ÖâÎÍ#GçÐÅì Ôì Qª¢síÓ#G¢çÆÏì Îì#G¢ìÆÏ#K¢ì½#G¢çÐìÁàÎÆµ#GçÖìíg#Gésjæs
#ÕÅé jì ÂíªL#GìÏlôµ#Õ÷¾Ï#GìtQ±#ì§QªsíÓg#GìÏkú âÎs#2#Egypt#“Ô²ôDg”#DúkÓíD#1GçÆ¾ì cíÓÔæÁ
#“Mudaraya G# ¢ìÏúkìgâÎÁ”#Gì¶PÔ¢í©#ÕéÂ¢æs#2#Kì¾Q¶s#Õ÷¾Pg#ì§ÆìÏÎúÖÔæÁg#a“ÇPkÝæÁ”#eÏíD
###1G# ¢ìTlñ ªíÁg#G¢çÂÂí©#Î¢ìÉ#G¢ìÐÅì Îú Éì #aG# ¢çÐÅì ÎìÏg#FìÓâÎ¢Ðì©Ýæ#Õ¢÷¾Pg#“Ô²ôD”#Õ÷¾Ï#Kì½Í
#G¢¢ìÁÓæk#Õ¢¢÷¾P##“Assyrian”#“ÇìÏ¢¢oíD”#ÍìD###“Assyria”##“GìÏ¢¢oíD”#G¢¢ìÐìÅâÎ¹#aÔ¢¢PEìÆÏì kû ÓûÍ
#¢¢sg#G¢¢ìºÏíD#“Ashshur”#“kàÎ¢ sìD”#G¢¢ìÐìÅÎìÏ#G¢¢ìÐìÅâÎ¹#2#Kì¾Q¢¢t\#GìÐ¢ ìpQ¾ÊÅôD#GìÆ¢ ìtô¾L
#Ç¢Ï÷ÓkíÓ#eÏíD#GçÐìÅÎìÐL# ÔPDìÓàÍÓìD#ì§QÉâÎÖÁ#Iì¾Ï#ì§tQ± “double sh” +us,#ì§²Q²©
80
#¢sg#K¢ì¾µì #G¢ìUÖÏì# g#FìÓàÍÓìD#ÈàÎ¢èÖ½#Ô¢Ðí½#G¢ìÐÅì ÎìÏg#ÒI¢L#+G# ¢çÐìÅÎìÏg#GìÂÊQo,#“ss”

#Dúl¢¶æ©g#FìÓâÎÏÎ¢ìtL#ì§]¢ít\#Dìh¢\#ÑÖÐíÆ¢ìt¾ô L#K÷¾Q¢t\#GçÐìÅÎìÏ#ÍúÎèÖ#SÎúÖ#ÈôD#1##“sh”

76
unrivalled ˬωίΎϨϣ ϥϭΩ Ϧϣ
77
indisputable ˬεΎϘϧ ϥϭΩ Ϧϣ
78
attachment ˬϕΎμΘϟ΍
79
illustrious ˬϕ΍˷ήΑ
80
orthographically rendered ,Ύ˱ ϴΑΎΘϛ Ζ˴Ϥγ
˶ έ˵
#ÈEìÏ¢oíD”#ì§]ít\#ì§PlLâÎÁ#FúÎèÖ#GìÏÎúÖ#Kì½#ÕúÊÐúÖ#a“kàÍùÓìD”#Õ÷¾Pg#“kàÎsìD#”#GìÐÁì kú Dì
#”#“qÅE¢¢Ïì kàÍÓù Dí ”#FúÎ¢èÖ#G¢¢ìtÐì±g#FúÎ¢èÖÏ#ì§ÆìÏÎúÖÔ¢¢æÁÍ#aGìÐìÆ¢pô¾ÊÅôD#GìÆ¢ìtô¾L#”#Assyrian
#GéÖâÎÂ¢¢ítÁíg#G¢¢ìÐìÅâÎ¹#Ã¢¢í©#Õ¢¢÷¾Ï#G¢¢ìÂì]¾æLg”Aththurites#”#“rôÔ¢ÏúkàÍùÓíD”#ÍìD#”Aththurians
#1#§ì ÐìÅÔì Qª¢¢síÓ#ÑÖÏíÓâÎ¢ ÆQÁíÞ#Õ¢¢¾÷ Ï#F×n¢ Áì læLÍ#Õ¢¢Qé L#ÑÖÏíÓâÎ¢ ÐìQÖ½#G¢¢éÏìiàÍÓìD#G¢¢ìÆÏ
#Õ¢÷¾Ï#G¢ìtQ±#“kùÓíD”#Dúl¢¶æ©#2##a§ì# Ðì©Ý¢æÁ#Gì]Åñ h¢íÁg#GçÆ¢ìt½ô #G¢ìLkú #Î¢ìÉg#Iì¾Ï#FìÓlPlís
#GçÏÎ¢ís#FõÓÍú ÓìD#Ñ¢ÖÐíÁÓækg#G¢ìpdí#Î¢ìÉ#ÔÐí½g#GçÆtì ½ô #ÎìÉ#1”GéÏìiàÍÓìD#”#GìÐìÅâÎ¹#Kì¾Qt\
#Î¢¢ìÉ#+ș#ÍëìÓ,#FìÓàÍÓìD# +ș#ÍëìÓÍ#į#ùÔ¢ ½í gì ,# “G¢¢º÷ Q¹i#+Óù ,#ÍëìÓÍ#+âg,Ôù ¢ ½í gì #”#FõÓúÍÓìD#Ã¢¢í©
81
#G¢¢ìÐì¹kâÍÓ#GìÆ¢ ìtô¾L#I¢# ¾ì Pg#e¢¢ÏíD#ùÔºì Â¢¢oæ #FìÓàÍÓìE¢ L##ì§²ô¾\âÎ¢ tÁ#I¢¢¾ì Ï#ì§¢ tQ±#kàÍùÓìD

#FìÓâÎÏìÔ¢¢ÐíL#Õ¢¢¢÷¾Ï#DékâÍl¢¢¢ítÁ#ÛîmàÎ¢¢X#ÈàÎ¢¢X#aÔ¢¢¢PDìÔQ½ÓûÍ#1G¢¢¢ìÐìÆÁækìDÍ#G¢¢¢ìÏìgkâÎµÍ
#G¢éÏiì àÍÓìD#Ã¢í©#ÑÖÏíÓâÎÏìÔ¢ÐíL#Õ¢÷¾Ï#GìTlú ¢oûÍ#aGéÐìÆìÏiâÎoÍ#GéÐìÁìiìEL#Ä÷Eìµg#GéÏìiàÍÓìDg
#ÍúÎ¢èÖÏ#Gõ±Óì Î¢ìs#ÔPEìÅÔì Qª# ¢síÓ#aG# ¢éÐìÁìiìDÍ#Gõ¶PÔí©#GéÏìiàÍÓìD#aÑÖÏûÍkôÓg#Çô±ìD#G÷¶PÔí©
#ÔPEìÐÅôÓ#1ì§QªsíÓg#GìÏúkâÎs#2#GúÖ#GìÆìÁÎìÏg#GéÏìiàÍÓìD#ÖéÎìÉ#GìÆÏ#DúlìÂ©íg#GçÂÐ÷¾µ#ÎìÉ
#GéÏìiàÍÓìDg#ì§ÐìÆìÂÖâÎÍ#ì§ÐìÅìÔÁâÍD#FìÓâÎÏìÔÐíM½#ÛîmàÎX#ÈàÎX#Õ÷¾Ï#GìTlú o#ÔPEìUQcÓûÍ
#GìÐìÅìÔQª¢síÓ#Kì¾Ðí¹#¿í©#gàÎ]¾íL#ÕéÆìÐ©æk#Õ÷¾Ï#GìÐìÆLûÍ#Gõ¶PÔí©#GéÏìiàÍÓìD#Ãí©#GìÆìÁÎìÏg
#Dìh¢\íg#Dúl¢íD#Î¢ìÉ#GéLâÍÔ¢í#F÷ÓDì #K¢ì½g#Dìh¢¶íªÁûÍ#GìÍk#Õ÷¾Pg#Dúlóôµ#hí\g#ì§Ïúltí½
#Dúl¢óôµ#G¢úÖÞ ì #Dél¢ìsg#GìÁàÎÐ¢ìo#h¢í#ì§ÆìÏÝíÁÔ¢æÁ#I¢ì¾Ï#Kì½# 1Dìh©âÎL#ÔíÐìÅìh\#ì§Pn]íÁ
82
#GéÐÅì Óì âÍgj¢íÁÍ#GçÐÆì tì ½ô #Gø²¾ì \âÎs#¿í©#ÔPEì²QcíD#ì§¾ìcÓ#Kì½g#aì§Æì¾MíµÔæÁ#Gì\kâÍD#Dìh]íL

1GìÂÐ÷¾µ#ÍH#¿í©#ÈàÎèÖ½#eQ²síg#GçÐìÅìÔPgÍìÓÍ
# ##
# #GìÆìÁÎìÏg#GéÏìiàÍÓìDg#FìÓâÎÐìÆìºÏíD#15
# ##ì§ÐìÆìÂÖâÎ#FìÓâÎÐìÆíºÏíD 5.1
#G¢¢Öú Eì LûÍ#“G¢¢éÏìiàÍÓìD#”#ÑÖÐíÐìÅâÎ¢ºL#Ñ¢¢ÖÐíÆìÉ#I¢¢ì½#R©h¢¢ìÏ#G¢¢éÏìiàÍÓìD#aG¢¢Æì Áì ÎìÐL# #
#aÔ# PDúlPl¢ís#1Ñ# ÖÏíÓâÎ¢ÐìQÖg#ì§Ðì©h¢û#Dúl¢óôµ#hí\#ÈàÎÖè ½#ÔÐí½#1GéÅjé \öD#GìLkú #GìÐìÅâÎ¹
#Ã¢¢¢í©#ì§¢ ¢ÏúkàÍÓìD#ÑÖÏíÓâÎ¢ ¢ÐìQÖg#FìÓâÎÏìÔ¢ ¢ÐíLg#FìÓkûl¢ ¢ítÁ#ÓâÎÆìÐÅôÔ¢ ¢½#G¢¢¢ìóì±âÎ\#¿¢¢¢¹
#FìÓâÎ¶QÆ¢o#Ô¢Ðí½g# Kì¾QóíL#Gìskú âÍg#hí\#GìUQt\#Õ÷¾Ï#GìtQ±# aGìÐìÆìslæs#ÑÖÐíÂÖâÎ
84 83
#DúlPÝ¢L#GìPh¢úÖ#G¢ìÆPD#Èúl¢PDÍ#¸ú¢©#Î¢ìÉ#FúÎ¢èÖP#GìÏkú àÍÓìD# GìtÆô¹#ÓâÎQìâÎo#1Õ÷½Dô

85
##G¢ìÆÏ#G¢éPlLâÎÁg#ì§Ðì©Ý¢æÁ#Gì]Åñ h¢íÁ#Î¢ìÉ#GéLjì ¢µûÍ#DúlìÁkâÎ¢Ág#ì§¢¾æªL#Ñ¢ÖÐíÆìÐÆæÁ#Õ÷¾Ï

81
do not have interdental fricatives ˬ(ΔϴϧΎϨγ΍ ήΒϋ) ΓϮΧέ Ε΍Ϯλ΍ ΩϮΟϭ ϡΪόϟ
82
monodimensional perspective ˬΪόΒϟ΍ ΔϳΩΎΣ΍ ήψϧ ΔϬΟϭ
83
ϦϴϳέϮΛ΄ϛ ϢϬΘϳϮϬϟ ϥϮϳέϮηϵ΍ ϒϳήόΗ ϊϣ ϖγΎϨΘϣ
consistent with the modern Assyrians identification of themselves as Assyrians
84
redundant and unwarranted ˬ˯ΎϨόϟ΍ ϖΤΘδϳ ϻ ϞσΎΑ ήϣ΃
85
population concentration ˬΔϴϧΎϜδϟ΍ ΔϓΎΜϜϟ΍ ˬϲϧΎϜδϟ΍ ΰϛήϤΘϟ΍
##ì§Æì ¢Áíg#Ä÷E¢ì¶L#bûÎÏ#GìÏ×n\íg# Iì¾Ï#DúlìÁâÍgg#ì§¾æ©# 1ì§Ïúóµ#ì§ÐìÆítÁûÍ#FìÓâÎTìÓÍìÔ½

87 86
#àÎÊìºQ¢sg##ì§èÆPh¢ÁûÍ#aG# ¢ì¹læÁDì g#Dçh¢Ðí#GçÅhì ¢\âÍD#Î¢ìÉ#I¢ì¾Ï#DúlÂ ì ©#GéÏìiàÍÓìDg#ì§Lûk

#80,000#G¢¢ìÐìâÍk#K¢¢ì½#Ñ¢¢ÖÐíÆìÐÆæÁg#G¢¢ìºÏíD#ì§¢Lûk#FìÓâÎ±ìÓÎ¢¢ìs#G¢¢úÖìDg#ÈàÍl¢¢óÆôµ#I¢¢ì¾P
#G¢ìtQkûÍ##ì§ÐìÆÂ ì ÖâÎ¢#Ö÷ÓâÍÔ¢PEL#Õ¢÷¾Ï#G¢ìÆÁâÎÖÁ#G¢ìÏúkàÍÓìD#GìÂí©##1Õ÷¾Ï#GìÆµì gāmÔæÁ
#ÑÖÏíÓâÍÔ¢¢PDg#ì§¢¢¶ì¾ó í ½#K¢¢ì¾Q\g#G¢¢ìÁnæÉ#G¢¢ìÆP#FìÓâÍgl¢¢íÁÍ#GÆì# ¢¢ìtô½g#ì§¢¢¶ì¾íg#Õ¢¢÷¾Ï
# #1#ì§ÐìÅìÔQªsíÓÍ##ì§ÐìÆìÂÖâÎ
#aGìÐìÁhíµ#GìÐì¾ÐéL÷Ó#GìTúlµ#kíÔìL#ÑÖïÏíÔúÖìTíDg#DúkÓíD#2#ÑÖÐíÐ±âÍgkíg#GìÅìh©#2# #
#G¢¢ìp¹âÎóÁ#GìÐÅì Ôì ¢¢ÁâÍDÍ#G¢¢ìÐ¶ì QóQ½àÎ±#G¢¢ì©Í×m#h¢¢í\#G¢¢ìPÎÖ#ÈàÎ¢¢èèÖ½#Ô¢¢Ðí½#G¢¢éÏìiàÍÓìD
#e¢ÏíDÍ#aD# ú U¢©#G¢ìÏlô¹#Gì\Ô¢æ#1G# ¢ìÐ±îÜë #GìÐ¢ìpÅì kâÎ±#FúÍn¢æ\#hí\#Õ÷½#ÔPDÍ#ÔPDú²ís
#G¢éÅægiâÎÁ#GéÏìiàÍÓìD#GçÂÐí¾©íg#Kì¾ÖíÏ#hí\#aGçPùÔªíLg#GìMíÉg#FìÓâÎÅâÍlóí½# DìhìU©#eì±âÎÖ 88
#G¢¢Ðì ¶ì QóQ½àÎ±#G¢¢tç QÅ#Õ¢¢½÷ #Ô¢¢PDg#G¢¢Ïì kú àÍÓìD#G¢¢Ðì

ì lú µâÎg#G¢¢ì©Í×n½#ÈàÎ¢ èÖ½#h¢¢ô½ÍâÎÁ
##ì§ÐìªQU¢s##FìÓlípªíL#ÕéÏúkâÎs#2#GúÖ# GìÏàÎ\ìg#Kì¾Ðí\#Õ÷½#GéÆµ#Gì©Í×m#GúÖDì #1GçÐÅì Ôì ÁâÍDÍ
89
#DúlLâÍh¢Á#Õ¢÷¾Ï#G¢ìtQ±g#G¢ìÐÐì LlíÉ#G¢ìÅàÍm#Î¢ìÉ#Ô¢PEìÆì¾PgÍ#¸ú¢©#ÎìÉ#DúU©#Dúkìgg
#Õ¢÷½#Ô¢PDÍ#a§ì# ÐìÆìó½âÎ¢s#FìÓâÎÏÍìDg#GìÁìhûÖ#hí\#Õ÷¾P#Gì©Í×mg#GìºÏíD#aÖéiàÎÂìªL#ÔPDìÔìÏ
#G¢ì©Í×m#a¸ # ú¢©g#DúkÓíD#2#l¢íM½# 1G# ¢õ±àÎ¾\íÓgûÍ# F# ìÓâÍlPl¢ísg#G¢çLÓÎìÁ#ÎìÉ#GçÁâÎÐíµ
91 90
#G¢¢çoìDÓâÎs#Ñ¢¢ÖÐí¾¹g#G¢¢ìkíg#2#¿¢¢æª½#aG# Æì ì kû Ô¢¢Áæ #G¢¢Ðì Âì Âí©#GìªÏì âÎ¢ o#Õ¢¢¾÷ Ï#G¢¢Ðì Æôµ

1GéÅéj\öD#GéÏìiàÍÓìD
# #=#ì§ÐìÆtì ½ô #FìÓâÎÐìÆºì ÏíD 5.2
#aÑ# ÖÏûÎ¢ìÉ#G¢ìÆÏ#DúlìÂ©íg#F÷ÓúÍìiÓíD#ÑÖÐí¾ºL#GìÆÏ#FìÓâÍp\#Dìh\#GéÏìiàÍÓìDg#ÒIL
#FìÓÍ×Ý¢Á#ì§¢Lûk#ÑÖÏíÔ¢ìÆÁ#1G# Æì ¢ìt½ô #h¢í#gàÎ¢]¾íL#ÓæÍÝú ¢Áíg#Ç¢òÁg#ì§]íº¢tíÁ#I¢ì¾Ï#Gì¶pí©
#G¢ìÏkú àÍÓìD#e¢ÏíD#ÑÖÐíÆ¢ìt¾ô ½#RÖÂ¢ítÁ#G¢÷¹#GéÏiì àÍÓìD#ÔPEìÆ¾¹#1GçÆìtô½#lPÔíÏ#ÍìD#ÇÏékÔíL
#I¢ì¾Ï#Gì¶pí©#1GìÐìÁúkìDÍ#GìÏúkàÍÓìD#ÔìÆÐíL#GÐìÅìÔQªsíÓÍ#GìÐìÆìtô½#GìÆìskâÎ±#Gì©ìhQL#Kì½#hí¹
#GìÏkú âÎ¢o#ÍìD#G¢ìÐÁì kú Dì #GúÖÁì âÎ¢t½#R¢¾Mìµg# Ñ# ÖÏíÓâÎÏúkàÍÓìE¢L#GçÐì±Î¢ìo#GìÆPg#GìÂ¹hí
92
#G¢¢µì gîm#ÈàÎ¢ Öè ½#Ô¢¢PDg#SgÎ¢¢Áì g#G¢¢Ïé kú àÍÓìD##G¢¢Æì Ï#DéiàÍÝ¢¢Lì #1Ñ# ÖÐíÆ¢ ìtô½g#G¢¢ìÐìÅâÎ¹#e¢¢ÏíD

#aÑ# ÖÐíÆ¢ìt½ô g#G¢ìÆÏ#G¢éÏâÍgÎìÁ#K¢ì½Dô #aG# ¢ìÂÖâÎÍ#K¢ì¾Lì âÎÐL#G¢éÏiì àÍÓìD#Ñ¢ÖÐíÆÉì #RÖÂítÁíg
#G¢¢ìÏúkàÍÓìD#2#K¢¢ì½#Õ¢¢÷¾Ï#G¢¢ìÐìÁúkìD#G¢¢ìslæs#2#aG¢¢Ðì Tì lñ ªíÁÍ#GìÐ]ì Åñ h¢¢Áí #aÖïðn¢ªô½#ÑÖÏûÍkôÔ¢L
# ##1Gì¶PÔí©

86
immigration and displacement ˬϱήδϘϟ΍ ϞϴΣήΘϟ΍ϭ ΓήΠϬϟ΍
87
ironically enough ˬΔΑ΍ήϐϟ΍ Ϧϣ
88
reaction ˬϞόϓ Ω˷ έ
89
gained momentum ˬΔόϓ΍Ω ΓϮϗ ϰϠϋ ˬϢΧί ϰϠϋ ϞμΣ
90
cabinet ˬΓέ΍ίϭ
91
parliament ˬϥΎϤϟήΒϟ΍
92
ultra Assyrianist ˬϥϮϓήτΘϣ ϥϮϳέϮΛ΃
#Dúkìgg#GìÏúkâÎ¢ tL#G¢¢éÏìiàÍÓìDg#GçÅìh¢ \âÍÞ#GçÐì]Q¢¢tÁ#Gç]Q¾¢¢síg#ì§Ð¢¢ìóÁ#Äìh¢ µ#2# #

#ÓàÎ¢\Ó#K¢¢ì¾ìLâÎ\g#ì§Pl¢¢o#FìÓâÎ¢ÐìÆìºÏíD#Dìh¢\#Î¢¢ìÉ#FúÎ¢èÖP#G¢¢ìÏúkàÍÓìD#GìÆ¢ìtô½#=l¢¢ípªísÓíg
#FìÓâÎÐìÆíºÏíD#GúÖìDg##ì§UQt\#FúÎèÖ##ì§tQ±#1#Gì¶pí©# Ö÷ÓâÎÆì¾¹íÔpæÁÍ# ì§Ðì¾Líg#GìÅ×Ý½âÍD
94 93
#GìÆ¢ìt½ô #2#DìgúÍâÎog#GìÆìtô½g##ì§¶ì\kûÍ#GéÏìiàÍÓìDg#ì§Lûk#ì§ìÆÁíg# FìÓâÍkàÎLg#Gìóì¾±#FúÎèÖP

95
#kíÔ¢ìL#2#1G# ¢étPj±#GçÅhì ¢\âÍDÍ#GõóU¢ís#Ô¢ìÆÐíL#GìÍk#GìÐìÅ×nªô½#GìÆìskâÎ±Í#FìÓâÎÏúl²æog

#G¢éÏìiàÍÓìD#G¢õ²Q¾íÏ#GìÂ¹hí\#Ãí©#Gç]Q¾s#GéÅíD#ÈàÎèÖ½#F÷ÔÅâÎÁ#aG÷ºPjìÏ#GçÆæsg#Kì¾Âí©#hí\
#GìÏlú ²¢æo#GìÆ¢ìt½ô #h¢í\g#ì§Ïúl¢L#FìÓl¢íÍû #a§ì# UPÔ¢ºí½#RÁkâÍD#ïÑíÆLíg#F×nªô½g#FìÓlìUªû
#G¢ìÆTām#ÍH#2#G¢úÖÍ#aG# Æì ¢ìt½ô g#FìÓhí ¢\#ì§¢¶í²Áí #Dìh¢\#Õ÷¾Âæ\âÎÆÁ#Gìóì±âÎ\#GúÖìD#1GìÐìÅàÎÆìµ
#aGìÐìÅ×nªô½#GìÆìskâÎ±g#FìÓgúkgûÍ#FìÓâÎÏúl²æog#FìÓhí\#GìpcàÎóoôD#Iì¾Ï#ì§PÎÖ#ì§¶í²íÁ#GúÖìD
# §ì# dìU¢ \#I¢¢ì¾Ík#h¢¢í¹Í#1D# ìgúÍâÎ¢ p½ûÍ##ì§UPÔ¢¢ºí½#G¢¢ìÐìÅúÎìÉ#F×n¢ ªô½#h¢¢í\g#ì§Ïúl¢ L#1g1Ö
96
#Gì¶ìÐ©#1GìÆìtô½g#FìÓíh\#ì§¶í²íÁg#FìÓâÎÐìÅúÎìÉ#IìÂí©#Iì¾Ï#Iì¾Ík#aDçgìh\#Ãí©#GéÏìiàÍÓìDg
#GìÆ¢ìt½ô #Õ¢÷¾Ï#G¢ìÐó ì Á#=F# Óì h¢í\#GìÆ¢ìt½ô g#ì§Âí]Æí ¢Á#kíÔ¢ìL#Déigì #Ç¢ÏékÓíg#bûl¢ÁìDg#ÇíMô½#Õ÷¾Ï
#>¸ú¢©#Î¢¢Éì #GçPÔù ¢ªìLg#G¢¢Mì Éí g##ì§ÂìÐ¢µíg# G¢¢Áì næÊL#ì§¢¶ì¾ûÍ#FìÓâÎÆì¾Mí\Ô¢¢Áæ g#Gõº¢pì ½
97
#§ì ÐìÆ¢ítÁíg#ì§¢¾æ©#ÈàÎ¢èÖ½#FéÎ¢Öíg#G¢ì¶µì líLg#GìTlú µûÍ#>GéÐìÅìjPDÍ#GéÐìµìjQ©#ÔìÆÐíL#GìTúlµûÍ

#G¢¢Ðì ¾ì ÐéLÓ÷ #G¢¢Tì lú µíg#GìÅhì ¢ªæ L##ÑÖÏíÔÐìÆ¢tí Á#kíÔ¢Lì #G¢¢éÏìiàÍÓìDg#ì§ÆìûkÔ¢¢æÁ#FìÓâÎ¢TìÓÍìÓÍ
#GìÂ¹h¢í\#Î¢ìÉ#G¢çÐÆì Â ì ÖâÎ#ÑÖïÏÓí Îú ±ìÓÎ¢ìsÍ#a¸ú©g#GìÐLlûÊL#ÑÖÏíÓâÍÔPD#1GìÐÁì híµ
#F÷ÓúÍìiÓíÞ#ÈàÎèÖ¾¶Pn\#ì§Lûk#ÑÖÏíÔìÆÁ#1Kø¾Q½íg#ÈàÎèÖ½#FéÎÖ#ÈúlPDÍ#¸ú©g#õ§ìÆPhÁ
#ÑÖÐíÆìtô½#R¶¾íóÁíg#GìÍk#râÎÆPhÅûÎQµ#ÔPDg#GìºÏíD##ì§ÐìÐLlíÉ#Gì¹læÁìDÍ#´ækâÎÏg
#FõÓh¢í\#G¢õ²í½#K¢ì½g#1Ô# ¢PEì½âÎ¾íµ#Õ÷¾Ï#Dúlìt±#GìÆìtô½#HúÎìÉg#Gì¹læÁìEL#ÔPEìÆì¾PgÍ#aGìÐÂ ì Ïæ
#FõÓìh¢½ÍìÓ#«¢íLkíD#ÍìD##Ôì½Ó#2#lPÔíÐ½#GìÆtì ½ô #GìÐÁâÎ#v÷Eì±g#Iì¾Ï#Gì¶pí©#aGçLÓì ÍìÓg
#G¢ìtÆô¹#Õ¢÷¾P#GìÆ¢ìt½ô g#FìÓl¢ìóÆí½#ÔPDg#GìÏgì àÎ#DúlUío#aFìÓkâÎÁgôÓ#Dìh\#Kì½g#1GéÅjé \öD
#G¢¢ìÏúkàÍÓìD#G¢¢ìÐìúlµâÎg#G¢¢ì©Í×nL#G¢¢éÏgâÎÖÁ#a¸ # ú¢ ©g#G¢¢ìQLlûÊL#GìÆ¢ ìtÐì±#G¢¢ìÏúkàÍÓìD
#§ì ¢²í¾Áí g#GìÐÁì h¢íµ#G¢ìÐ©ì ÝæÁ#e¢ÏíD#GìÏkú àÍÓìD#GìÆtì ½ô g##ì§píºó í Âí½# FìÓnPní©#Ö÷ÓâÎÁhí¶ÁûÍ
98
#DúlÂ æ ÉâÎ¢Á#Õ¢÷¾Ï#G¢ìtQ±#GìÏÔì ¢¹âÍg#GìÆ²ì ½âÎÏg#Gìpdí#1GçÐì¾æ©Í#GéÏúÍjís#GìÐìsúkg#DúkhæpL

#GìÐìÆìtô½#GìÐì©ÝæÁ#eÏíD#GìÐìpQ¾ÊÅôDÍ#GìÏìgkâÎµÍ#GìÐìLúkìD#GìÆìt½ô #ÃíªÂ ì ©í #aGìÏúkàÍÓìD#GìÆìtô¾L
#R¢¢¢UÖìÏ#h¢¢¢í\Í#ÇPl¢¢¢pæ©g#Dúkìgg#G¢¢¢çÐì¶QóQ½àÎ±#FõÓúÎ¢¢ÆíºÏíD#ÈôD#1G¢¢¢ìÆìÏûkÓ#G¢¢¢ìÏúlcâÎÅ
#R¢UÖìÏ#ÑÖÏûkàÍh¢L#GéÏìgiâÎµ#ÈôDÍ#aFìÓâÍkEé\g#ÍìD#GìÏìÔìÏ#GìÆìó½âÎsg#Gìµgîm#GéÏìgiâÎ¶½
###ì§ÐìÆ¢¢¢ìt½ô Í#ì§ÐìÆÂ ì ÖâÎ¢ ¢#FìÓâÍÔ¢¢¢PD#ÈàÎ¢ ¢èÖ½#FéÎ¢¢¢úÖg#G¢¢¢ìÂÐ÷¾µíg#F÷ÓúÍjQ¢¢¢p]í½#G¢¢¢õµgîm

93
erosion ˬϞϛ΂Η
94
high level of mutual unintelligibility ˬϢϫΎϔΘϟ΍ ϡΪϋ Ϧϣ ϝΎϋ ϯϮΘδϣ ,Gì¶pí©#Ö÷ÔÐíÁlì±
95
illiteracy ˬΔ˷ϴϣ΍
96
intermingle ˬϞΧ΍ΪΗ
97
threat ˬΪϳΪϬΗ
98
serious initiative ˬΓΩΎΟ ΓέΩΎΒϣ
# 1FìÓâÍÊíÅg#GìÅél\öD#GìokâÎ±#hí\#Õ÷½#FéÎúÖ#hæL#GìÏúkàÍÓìD#GìÆìtô½#ÕúÊÏH#a#ì§ÐìÅìÓâÍglíÁÍ
99
#ÑÖÏíÔ¾ì¶¢ tíL# G# ¢ Ðç ¹ì ām#SÎ¢¢Öú #K¢¢½ì #ÍìD#GìÏÔì ¢ Ïì #GìÆó

100
ì ½âÎ¢ s#R¢¢Æìµ#K¢¢ì½#G¢¢éÏìgiâÎµ#ÈôD#K¢¢ì½ôD
##1Gì¶ì¾óí½#ÀðmìD#hæL#GìÏúkàÍÓìD#GìÆìtô½#ÕúÊÏH#aGéÅéj\öD#Ãí©#ÑÖÏíÔUûÖPÍ
# #ì§ÐìÅìÓâÍglíÁ#FìÓâÎÐìÆìºÏíD 5.3.2
#Gì]ñÅh¢¢íÁ#Î¢¢ìÉ#GéÅéj¢ \öD#F÷ÓúÍjQ¢¢p\íg#FìÓâÍgl¢¢íÁg#FìÓâÎÐÁíh¢ L#aì§¢ ÏúkàÍÓìD#FìÓâÍgl¢¢íÁ
#G¢éÐ¹ì iâÍÓÍ#G¢éÐLì iì Dí #e¢ÏíD#GéÅjé ¢\öD#F÷ÓÍú gj¢íÁg#ì§¢Lûk#ì§ìÆ¢Á#Ã¢í©#I¢ì¾Ï#ì§±ìÓÎìs#aì§Ðì©ÝæÁ
#Ô¢PEìÆÐì ¹#Õ¢÷¾Ï#F×n¢ìÁk#aG# çÆ¢ìtô½#lPÔíÏ#ÍìD#ÇPkÔíL#ÑÖÏíÓûÍāÝÁ#aGìdìsâÎ±#Kì½g#1GéÐìojì±Í
#§õ Ðì ¢ì¾Pg#ÈàÎ¢èÖ½#Ô¢PD#G¢úÖDì #Ãí©#1GçÆìtô½#lPÔíÏ#ÍìD#ÇPkÓíg#ÑÖÏíÓâÍglíÁ#ÓâÎÐìÆíºÏíD#¿í©
#1GéÅjè ¢ ¢\öD# F÷ÓúÍj¢¢¢PÔíÏÍ#F÷ÓúÍjQ¢¢¢p\#2#G¢¢¢ìÆÏ#ÑÖÐ¢¢¢ísúl±íg#GéÅéj¢ ¢\öD#GéÐìÅìÓâÍgj¢¢¢íÁ
101
#FìÓèh¢¢é©g#G¢¢¢ç©àÎTìÓ#ÔPE¢¢¢ìtPl±ûÍ#ì§PgÍìÔ¢¢L#G¢¢¢ìÆÏ#GçÐì]Q¢¢¢tÁ#=ì§ÐìÁh¢¢¢íµ#ÑÖÏíÔ¢¢Ðì¾Pg
#FìÓâÎÐì]Q¢tÁíg#GìÐÁì h¢íµ#G¢ìÐÖú ÁôD#GìÆ¢ìt½ô #FúÎ¢èÖP#aGìÐìÁúkìD#ÑÖÐíÆìtô½#=ì§QÆìÏûkÓ#1Gì]Åñ híÁg
##1§ì# ÐìÅÓì hè ¢é©#ì§¢tôÓô Í#ÑÖÏíÓâÎÏúl²¢æogûÍ#G¢ìÐÁì ÎìÏ# ÑÖÏígúÍâÎog#GìÐì©ÝæÁ#Õ÷¾P#Kì¾úÖ½ûÍ
102
#Iì¾¢p¹ô# âÎóÁíg##ì§ÏìgàÎ¢#FìÓèhé©#Iì¾P#Gì]ñÅhíÁg#FìÓèhé©#aÔPEìÅÓì âÍglíÁÍ#ÔPEìÅÔì QªsíÓ

#1GìÆìÁÎìÐ½#Iì¾Ï#Õé\âÎ¾²íÁÍ#GìÐìÁúkìD#GìÆìtô¾L#H×mìiöÞ
#FìÓíh\#ì§Ðì¾Pg#Dìh\#alípªísÓíg#DúkìhL#GéÏìiàÍÓìDg#FìÓhí\#GìÐìÆì©híÁ#GìÂìÏâÎµ#Ãí©# #
#Ã¢í©#Ñ¢ÖÏíÓâÍglíÁg#FìÓâÎÏìÔ¢ÐíM½#Ô¢PEìÐ¾íÉ#I¢ì½#F×nÁì kíg#ì§Âæ\âÎÆÁ#Iì¾tQ±#ì§Ðì¶ÆíÅìDÍ
#¿¢¢í©#Õ÷¾dQ²¢¢s#G¢¢çÐìÁàÎÆµ#GçÆìÂ¢æsg##ì§²í¾]¢¢ísg#DìgàÎ¢ Uì©#G¢¢ì²í½#h¢¢í\#1Gõ¶PÔ¢¢©í #G¢¢Ïé iì àÍÓìD
#>kàÎ¢sìD#=G# ¢çÐìÁàÎÆµ#GçÆìÂ¢ætL#GéÏlôµ#ÈàÎèÖ¾tQ±#FõÓhí\#FõÓìh½ÍìÓ#1#ì§ÏúkàÍÓìD#FìÓâÎ±ìÓÎìs
#>¬àÎ¢ ¢tP#GçÆÂ ì ¢ ¢æs#Ã¢¢¢íªÂ
ì ©í #>ÄûÂ¢¢¢ís#>kàÍÓìD#>ÈâÍhí\l¢¢¢ípPD#>Wæ]Æ¢¢¢ío#>ÈàÎÉl¢¢¢ío
#G¢éÏìiàÍÓìDg#FõÓúÍìgEé©Í#GçÐúÊí\#DéjÖís#1FìÓâÎÐì]QtÁ#kíÔìLg#Gì¹lísÍ#ÇìÆí\àÎÏ#>¬àÎtPhUí©
#G¢ìÂÏì âÎµ#G¢úÖDì #1G# Ðç ]ì Q¢tÁ#GéÅjì ¢câÍgÍ#FõÓÍú gì E¢é©#Ã¢íªÂ ì ©í #G¢÷âÍnÁ#ÈàÎÖè ¾tQ±#Gõ¶PÔí©
##ì§¢tQ±#FìÓâÎ¢ÏúkàÍÓìDg#FìÓhí ¢\#G¢ì\âÍk#I¢ì¾©í g##ì§QÅkâÎ¢µg#G¢ì±E÷¹#Õ÷¾Ï##GìPÎÖ#GìÐìÆì©híÁ
#G¢úÖUæÆL#Õ¢÷¾Ï#Dú¢Â©#Ñ¢ÖÐíM½ô #G¢éÏiì àÍÓìDg#ì§¢Lûk#ì§ìÆ¢Á#ÄâÎ¢ÏgôDg# #Ç¢ô±Dì #1#ì§Q¢ÆL#Iì¾Ï
#Dúl¢íD#Î¢¢ìÉ#Dúl¢ìU©#Õ¢¢÷¾Ï#K¢¢ì½##GìÐìÅìÔ¢ÁâÍD#G¢¢úÖUæÅ#G¢¢Öú Dì #G¢¢Æì PD#aFìÓâÎ¢ÏúkàÍÓìDg#G¢¢ìÆì¾Ðí\
#K¢ì¾Ðí\Í#DéiÎ¢ìóÁ#GçÐ¢ìp¹ì âÎÍ#GéÐ ì ÓìiÔ¢o#G¢ìÐ¶ì QóQ½àÎ±#Dçh¢©âÎL#ÓúlìÁ#FìÓâÎsàÍlì±g
#ì§Ð¢ìóÁûÍ#a§ì# Ðì¶QóQ½âÎ¢±#FìÓâÎÅìhMªíÁ#ÈàÎèÖ½#ÔÐí½#GìÆìÁÎìÏg#GìÏúkàÍÓìD#1GìÐìQÁâÎÅâÎ¶PD
#2#G¢¢ìÆÏ#G¢¢÷¶Q\ûk#GìÏìÔ¢ìÏ#GìÆìó½âÎ¢s#ÍìD#FìÓâÍkE¢¢é\g#ì§Ð¢¢ìÆµíg#G¢¢çÐì¶QóQ½Î±#ÑÖïÐ¢ítQÆ½
#G¢¢ìpì¹âÎg#G¢¢ìÆTānL#Õ¢¢÷¾Ï#GìÆìÏÎúÖÔ¢¢æÁ#Sh¢¢ÆæÁ#¿¢¢¹#aG¢¢Öú Dì #Ã¢¢©í #K¢¢½ì Dô #1FìÓâÍÔ¢¢PÞ#SÓìDg
#GìtìÐ±#Gésjæ\#GìLúk#Ö÷ÓàÎ\Óíg#Õ÷¾Ï#Dúl²ªíÁ#hí\#GìÆìÁÎìÏg#R¶QóQ½àÎ±#1Ä÷Eµì g#GìÐ¾ì ÐéLÓ÷

further survival ˯ΎϘΑ ϭ΍ ΔϣϮϤϳΩ 99
fair ˬϒμϨϣ 100
minorities and majorities ˬΕΎϴΒϠϏϷ΍ϭ ΕΎϴϠϗϷ΍ 101
ÑÖÏíÔÁānÂûÖÁ 102
# ###1DéhQU©#GìÆÏ
# #GìÂì\âÍÓ#16
#ÍìD#FìÓâÍlPl¢¢ítL#ÈôD#aI# ¢¢ì¾Ï#GéÅâÎÂ¢¢tûÊÁ#ÇPj¢¢ÖíÅ#Ô¢¢ÐéLg#ì§¶PÔ¢¢í©#ì§Qª¢¢síÓ# #
#G¢ìºÏíD#aD# gç hì ¢\#Ã¢í©#F÷ÓÍú gj¢íÁg#GìUÖú PÍ#¿ì¶síg#ì§Ðìské #ì§Ðìkú àÎÆì±#FìÓkàÍÜ#a§ì ÆìāÝL
#¿¢Q²Å#GéÅjé ¢\öD#G¢çÖÉì Í#aÔ# ¢PEìÏÍìD#ÈàÎèÖ½#GéÐ\Í#ÈàÎèÖ¾dQU\#GçÖìÉ#FìÓâÍglíÁÍ#GÆì tì ½ô g
#1F# ìÓÎ¢ìÁ#2#ÈàÎ¢èÖ¾¶Pl±#ÍìD#GéÅéj\öD#Äìhµ#Gìsék#ÈàÎèÖ¾²ô¹âÎÁ#´ìDÍ# aDçgìh]íL#ÈàÎèÖ½ 103
#GçÐÅì Ôì ¢PgÍìÓÍ#GçÐÆì ¢ìt½ô Í#G¢çÐÆì Â ì ÖâÎ#G¢÷âÍiÍ#GçÁàÎ\Ô¢í½#Iì¾²Q¢s#ì§UûÖPÍ#¿í¶s#GúÖDì

#Õ÷¾Ï# Kì½mkâÎªÁ#FìÓâÎÏìÔÐíL#¿í©#GìsúkâÍgg#Çô±ìD#1ÑÖÏíÔìÆÐíL#FúÎèÖ#ÔPDg#GéÐìÅìÓâÍgjíÁÍ
104
#K¢¢ì½ôD#FìÓâÎÏìÔ¢ ÐíLg#FìÓkûl¢ ítÂí½#G¢¢ì²ì½âÎ\#Ô¢¢Ðí½#aG¢¢ìÐìÅìÓâÍglíÁÍ#GìÐìÆ¢ ìtô½# DúkàÎ¢ µm#Î¢¢ìÉ 105
#ÈôD#GéÆìíiÔ¢æÁ#DçgàÎ¢Uì©#GìÆÏ#GìÏúÎÖæLg# F÷ÓìjPlís#õ§ì©híÏg# ì§Ïìh]cíD# §ì tìÐÊû

108 107 106
#G¢úÖDì #1§ì# ÐìÅìÓâÍgl¢íÁÍ#ì§ÐìÆìtô½#FìÓâÎÏìÔÐíLg#FìÓâÍÂÉûÍ#FìÓâÎÍk#ÇíÆÐí©#Äìhµ#_íLÔíÁ

#ì§¢ ¶ì¾ûÍ#aFìÓâÎ¢ ÐìÆQÁíDÍ#aFìÓl¢¢ìt±ûÍ# aG# çÆì²ô¾]¢¢ítÁ#K¢¢ø¾Ðí#Dúkæl¢ ítÁíg#G¢¢ì\kâÍD#I¢¢ì¾Ï
109
#K¢ø¾Ðí\#2#G¢étPl±ûÍ#aÔ# ¢PDúÂÉ#K¢ø¾Ðí\#GéÅDí #GéªPhÏ#RtÐì±g#K÷½Íú #1F÷ÓúÍgjíÁÍ#GçÆìtô½g

#G¢¢ìpì¹âÎg#ì§Ð¢¢ì²ì±k#ì§¢ ¶ì¾ûÍ#ì§¢ ¾ì²Å#1G# ¢ çÐì¶QóQ½àÎ±#G¢¢çpì¹âÎg#Gõ±àÎ]¢¢ìo#ÍìD#GéÏàÍj¢¢ìL
#Õ¢÷¾Ï#Kì½#Kì½Dô # aÔPEìÆì©híÁ#Iì¾Ï#ì§Æì¹kígÔæÁ##kàÍÓìDg#FìÓâÍkàÎúl²ÁôDg#GìÐì¶QóQ½àÎ±
110
#Õ¢#¾÷ ¹g#ì§Ð¢ì²±ì k#FìÓâÎÅìh¢LÎìÁ#DékâÍl¢ítÂí½# K# ¢ì¾Ðí¹#GúÖìÞ#ì§]í¾²íÁg#GìÆìÐ©æk#GìÆì¹kígÔæÁ

111
#Déihì ¢½#G¢ìÆÏ#G÷¶QÆ¢o#G¢çÐ¶ì QóQ½àÎ±#K¢ì½#GçÂÐ÷º¢oôD#Ñ¢ÖÐí¾¹#1Ö÷ÓâÍglíÁÍ#ÕéÆìtô½Í#GìÂí©

#G¢ìÆÐì Ææ#Ô¢PEìÐ¾íÉ#Õ¢÷½#bān¢ì\g#bāÝ¢ìÁ#G¢ìpØâÎ#GúÖDì #1ÔPEìÆì¾¹#¿¹#R¶¾ìg#G÷ºPjìÏ
#FìÓlíûÍ#aGìÐÁì kú Þ ì #GìÏhì ¹ì Dí Í#aGìÏìhì¹íÞ#GìÏúéÁàÎs#GìÆìtô½#³ô¾]ísg#ÈàÎèÖU©íg#Déiìgg
#GìÆ¢ìtô½#Õ÷¾Ï#GìÆôó½âÎtÁíg#Çô±ìD#GìÆìÁÎìÐ½#Gì]ô¾±âÎÁ#Õ÷¾Ï#GìtQ±#GìÐìÁúkìD#1GìÐLì kú Þ í #GìÐÁì kú Dì
#GìÆ¢ìt½ô #ÈôD#1G# Æç ¢æs#G¢ì²½íD#2#lPÔ¢íÐ½#GìÂÐ÷¾µ#ÍH#¿í©#FìÓâÎÆìÂÿ¾tíÁg#FìÔPgÍìÓÍ#GìÐìLúkíD
#aG# ¢ìÐÅì Óì âÍglíÁ#G¢#ìsìÓâÎ¹g#ì§¢¾æªL#GéÅéj\öEí½#ÔPDúóµ#RÂ¾ìs#FìÔÁâÍD#Dìh\íg#FìÓâÍglíÁÍ
#ÍìD#Dúkìg#h¢í\g#Gì\Ô¢æ#ÔPDúÂÉ#GìÂìÁíÓ#FìÓíh\#FìÓâÍÔPÞ#FìÓâÎÂ¾ìsg#Iì¾Ï#ì§ÐìÆìÐ¹
#_¢ítÐæ ÊíÁ#bāÝ¢ìÁg#1F# ìÓâÍgl¢íÁÍ#GìÆ¢ìtô½#ÓâÎÆìÏûkÓíg#FìÓâÎÏìÔPD#Iì¾ôµlíªÁ#ÑÖÏûÎìÉg#Déiìg
#Dúl¢ íD#Î¢¢ìÉ#G¢¢éLÓâÎÁ#R¢¢tÐì±g#K¢¢÷½úÍ#aÇ# Pj¢¢ÖíÅ#Ô¢¢ÐéLg#ì§Qª¢¢síÓ#Î¢¢ìÉ#Ô¢¢PDg#K¢¢ø¾ìM½âÎM½
#FìÓâÍÔ¢¢PD#2#FàìÓâÎÆìÐÆ¢¢ítÁíg#G÷ºPj¢¢ìÏ#Gç\Ô¢¢æÁ#1g1Ö#aG¢¢ìÐìÅìÓâÍglíÁÍ#GìÐìÆ¢ìtô½#K¢¢ì¾ìM½âÎLg

clashed ˬ΍ϮϣΩΎμΗ 103
entangled ˬϚΑΎθΘϣ ,Gì¶æLkâÎ##104
web ϙΎΒη ˬΞϴδϨϟ΍ 105
probing ˬ˯ΎμϘΘγ΍ 106
synchronized ˬϊϣ ΔΘϗ΍ϮΘϣ ϭ΍ ΔϨϣ΍ΰΘϣ aÃí©#FìÓâÎÏÎìtL#aÃí©#ì§ÐìÂ]ì½##107
diachronic data ˬΔϴΨϳέΎΗήΒϋ ΕΎϣϮϠόϣ 108
dynamics 109
conceivable ˬϪϠϴΨΗϭ ϩέϮμΗ ϦϜϤϣ 110
principle, rule ˬ΃ΪΒϣ ˬαΎϴϘϣ 111
#GìÐÅì Ôì Qª¢síÓ#G¢ìÏÜú âÎL#¿¢¹g#ì§Æ¢ìslí±ÔæÁ#Kì½#ì§Æì Á#SÎúÖÍ#aFìÓâÍglíÁÍ#GìÆìtô½#ÓâÎÆìÏûkÓíg

#ì§Q¢ÁkíÓ#Dìh¢]¾¹#1Ö# Ó÷ Íú gj¢íÁÍ#ÕçÆ¢ìt½ô #Ô¢ìÆÐíL#FìÓâÎ±ìÓÎìs#ÖéÎÉì #GìPÎÖ#ÔPDg#GìÂÐ÷¾µíg
#ì§Q¢¢ÁkíÓ#e¢¢ÏíD#aÇ# Pj¢¢ÖíÅ#Ô¢¢ÐéLg#F÷ÓÍú gj¢¢íÁg#Dú¢¢ÂÉ#G¢¢ìÏ×ÜâÎL#¿¢¢í©#I¢¢ì¾Ï#ì§Q¢¢ÆLíg
#FìÓâÍgl¢íÁÍ#GìÆ¢ìt½ô #ÓâÎ¢ÆìÏkû Óíg#FìÓâÎÆìÐÆ¢ítÁí#¿¢í©#ÔPEìkíD#GìÐÊûÖÁíg#K÷½úÍ#aâÎÂì¾QÁg
#GéMPÔ¢¢¹#Déjìó¢ sôDg#FìÓâÎ¢ Ðì©Ýæíg#_í©h¢¢ìÏg#I¢¢ì¾Ï#ì§¶QÆ¢¢o#1GçÆó ì ½íÔ¢ tæÁ#Ñ¢¢ÖïÐ¾í Ðí\Í
#ÈàÎ¢ èÖ½#FðÝ¢ ÁFìÓÓîmàÍkg#G¢¢ì±E÷¹Í#ÈàÍÔ¢¢pæÖìLg#ì§ÂæÐ¢ ìµ#e¢¢ÏíD#alPÔ¢¢íÏÍ#GçÆ¢ ìtô½#ÇÏékÔ¢ Lí
# #1ÑÖÏíÓâÍglí#SlæÖÆíÁÍ#Gõ¶PÔí©#GéÆìtô½g#FðnÁæi#Slìsg#GçÆìÆtí¾ÁûÍ#GéÐì®Q½àÎÐ¹iíD
#Dìh\# GéLâÍl¶í# R¾UPÔ¹# GìÐÂ ì ¾æ©# GìÏÜú âÎL# GúÖDì g# ÈælÁìDg# éªLì # GìÁìÓâÎ# #
#Gõ²Q¾íÏ# ÔPD# GìÆÁì ÎìÏg# ÈæÎÏ# GìÏhì \# 1GìtQÅ# hí# GìÐó ì Âí½# ÔPDú²sí # §ì ¾QµÓ# §ì ÆìÏg
#Gì\kâÍEL# GìÆÏ# DékâÍlítÁíg# RÅìDÍ# FìDàÎ¾Á# GúÖEì L# GétQU\# GéÆÐì ©æi# Ãí©# Gõ±ìÓÎìs
#aKì½àÎ±lì±#GìÆ²ì ¾í#ì§Lûk#FìÓâÎMÐíó¾ìLâÎµ#ÇéLlæ ¶íÁg#GìokâÎ±#GúÖìEL#éªLì #1ì§ÐìÆì²½âÎÏ
# #1ÓlìMÆè Éí #ì§ÐìÆPlÖíÅ#FìÓâÍglíÁg#FìÓlPlís#ì§Æô¶½#G÷óìÁg#Õ÷¾Ï#G÷âÎ²ííg
# #=E©ÎMÁ
#1DÔÏnÐ¾ÊÅD#DÔ\ÜD#ÎÉ#EÏÜÎLg#E©ÎM#Òn\

Chapter 2: Aramaic Version
#ì§Æì¾Ðí\Í#ì§Æìkû ÔæÁ#ì§Ðì¾Pg#Dìh\#=GìÆtì ½ô #ÓâÎÆìÏkû Ó

# #§õ ¶ì PÔí©#F÷ÓÍú gjíÁg
#¬àÎtPhUí©#gkúÍgôD#kàÍÔ¹àÍg#GìÆì²¾íÁ#híÐL
# ##GìÐìpô¾ÊÅôD#GìÆìtô½#2#GìÏúkàÍÓìD#GìÆìtô¾½#DúlæM©âÎÁ
GìQ½úkÔoàÍD#RÅhæo#aâÎÁkíg#kúnì½âÎÉ#ÈâÎÂQ¾Q±#híÐL
# #GìÅkú ãMªíÁg#F÷ÓÎú ÅìjQªÁ
ì§¾í®Á#ÎìÉ#GìÐìpô¾ÊÅôD#GìÆìtô¾L#GìpPl±#Õ÷¾tQ±#¬àÎtPhUí©#gkúÍgôD#kàÍÔ¹àÍg#GìÆì²¾íÁg#DúlÁEæÁ#GúÖDì
.Harrassowitz Verlag – g ì§pPl±#Dìh\#a 14 (2002)g#GìÆìÐÆæÁ# Mediterranean Language Review
1
.Wiesbaden
# #GçÐì\ìÓâÎ±#F÷ÓúÎÅìjQªÁ##11
# # DìhUì ©# eì±âÎÖ# hí\# eÏíD# ÔPEìÆì kíg# GìÏlæL# Õ÷¾tQ±# GìÉlæÖ# GúÖDì g# GìLlís
2
#GéÏiì àÍÓìDg# Gì¶¾æ\#ÓâÎL# GçÐÆì Åì ÎúÖÔæÁ#lPÝLûÍ# GçÐÅì âÍÔìTkÎìÁ#¯÷¾Á#GçÂì Ôô±#GìÂ¹hí

5 4 3
#Õ÷¾P#Ô\íÔ¾íL##1GìÁàÎ¶Qo#GúÖDì #kíÓ#ì 2#ÍìD# Ãµ# 612g#ì§èÆétL#FéÎÆQÅg#ì§¾ì²Å#kíÔìL#2

6
:(Will Durant)#ÔÅúkâÍg#¿éL#a GúÖÂítÁ#GìÅhì ÖíªÁ#híÐL#GìÂì Ôô±#GìchúÖ#hí\

7

#GéÉjæÖg# §ì ¾í®Áíg# GìÏúkàÍÓìD# GìÆìtô½g# §ì ìÆÁíg# FìÓâÎÁâÎÐìo# vék# aéÂìÐÆæL# ÔÐéLg# hPÍìg# ¿Ï÷EQÅìg# Dúl¶íÐÁ# 1
##1õ§ìÐÆìÂQ# lPÔíÏ# ÖõÔìtQU\íg# §ì ¾æªL# GìÏúkàÍÓìD# GìÆìtô¾½# ÕéÅælæMªíÁg# RÆæÁ# Õ÷¾MQ¾# aGéÏìiàÍÓìD# GçÐìhì¹ìD
#Kì¾¾ÂíÂUì¹âÍkgûÍ# Kì¾¾ÂíÁÜúkâÍÓg# aGìÐìÉâÎÖg# GçÅúÎªíg# FìÓÜûkíÔÂíL# R½ôD# ÖélæÏâÎÖ# ´ìD# ¿Ï÷EQÅìg# GìÆì²¾íÁ
#GìÆìtô¾Líg#õ§ì¶pí©#õ§ì]tí\#Ãí©#Gì¶ìTgûÍ#Õ÷¾Ï#EìLkâÎµ#ÑÖïÐí¾ì¹âÎog#GìÏúl²æo#ÇíÆìtô¾L#õ§ì]tí\#2#GìLúkg#ì§]íºtûûÍ
#GúÖDì #Gìµ##1GìÆÂ
ì Q#GìÐìhì¹ìD#ÖélÁEéÁ#ÎìÉ#¬àÎtPhUí©#gkúÍgôD#kàÍÔ¹àÍg#GìÆì² ¾íÁ#híÐL#Gé]ô¾±âÎÁ#GìÐìpô¾ÊÅôD
#GìÐìÏkâÎo# GçÆìtô¾L# ÔPEìÆ¾ì Pg# aFìÓâÎÆìÆtí¾Áíg# Kì¾¶í\# ÎìÉ# Õé©úkg# ÓâÎÍk# GìµÍ# Ö÷ÓhíÆoûÍ# ì§ÆìÂQ# Ö÷ÓlíÐûÖ
#Oûk# FìÓlíÐûÖ# ÈæÎÏ# Kì¾LâÎµ# ´ìD 1ì§Lûk# SÓâÎMÐíó¾íLâÎµ# ÈæÎÏ# GéLâÍl¶íÁ# aGìÐìpô¾ÊÅôDÍ# GìÐìLúlí©# aGìÐì¹ãÐpì¾¹
#GçÐìÆQÂ¾í©#GçÐí#Õ÷½EéÅâÎsg#aGçÆsæ #35#2#lPÔíÏg#Gìkú #hí\#aFìÓâÍlìL#¬àÎtP#Gì]ìÆÁ#2#ì§ÅúkÓÎìÁÍ#ì§ÆìÂQ
# # 1+2004,#ì§èÆés#GúÖìDg#lìÏöD#Gì\líÐL#RÅhæog#ì§èÆPhÂíL#GìcíÞ
#1Õ÷¾Ï#GìÐìÆì²½âÎÏ#GìÐìÁhíµ#GìtQÅ##1Õ÷¾Ï#Gì²Q²©#GìÏúkàÍÓìD#GìÆtì ô¾½#GçÐìhì¹ìD#FõDàÎ¾Á#GìchúÖg#ì§ÂíÉkíÓ#2#ÇítQÅ
#ÇíÆìtô½g# F÷ÓàÍjìÏ# ÈàÎÖ¾]íó²í\gûÍ# Iì¾Ï# ì§Q¾ÁûÍ# FìÓlPÔí© ÇíÆìt½ô g# §ì ÂQog# bûn]íÁg# Õ÷¾P# GìÅél\öD# GìtQÅ# ÍH
1Fú¶íÏ#ÇíÆìtô¾L#ÑÖÏíÔ©íhPg#ì§\ûÍlíÁ#2#R¾ìs#Kì½g#ÈíÓâÍglíÁgûÍ
reaction 2
rhetorical 3
difficult to rationalise 4
fate 5
AD#aGì]QtÁ#kíÔìL#Gìµ#%%#_í]ô¾²íÁ#hæL#´ìD#DúlÁEéÁ#GúÖìEL##1#BC#Gì]QtÁ#Äìhµ 6
distinguished historian 7
#1FìÓâÍhUí©g#DúÅ#ÓàÎ\Ó#GìTÓâÎÁ#ÍìD#Kì¾Qóµ#FÎú Öè Ï#GìtQ±#GìÂ©í # .8ì§ÆQ²s#FúÎèÖÏ#ì§tQ±#FéÎÆQÅ

#Gçpì¹âÎ#GìÂ¹hí\#2#¸àÎUs#IìÆæÁ#Õ÷¾tQ±#Kì½Í#ì§QªsíÓ 2#kàÍÓìDg#GìÂæs#Õ÷¾¶Q¾#a9FìÓâÎ#Dìh]íL
# #1Kì¾ºÐûÖ#hí\#Kì¾±ìD#ÎìÉ#Gì±E÷¹#¿í©#Gì±E÷¹#ì§Pn\#Iì¾tQ±#Kì½#1GìTúlµíg#GçÅEìÁÍ
# ##
#ì§ÁûÎµí # Dìh\# ÓâÎL# GúÖDì # eÏíD# GìÐÆì ¾ì º¾¹Í Gì©àÎóìµ# Oúk# GìÂì Ôô±# hí\
11 10
#DúlPlís# FéÎÖú g# §ì ÆìÏÎúÖÔæÁ# Iì¾Ï# Kì½# Déigì # §ì sûÍ# ÇPlpæª½# GìLkâÎµ# Äìhµ# 2# Iì½DéÎÖíg
#FìÓâÍÔPD#Dìh\#eÏíD#kàÍÓìDg# §ì Ðì¾ÂítÁ#FìÓâÎÅìhLÎì#gâÎ]¾íL#Kì½#Õ÷¾Ï#FúnÁì kíg#ÒIL
12
#GìÏkú àÍÓìD#GìtÆô¹g#FìÓâÎÅìhLÎì#´ìD#Kì½Dì #aGìÐìoãìÐo#Gìpì¹âÎ#hí\#eÏíDÍ#ì§ÐìQØúlÉàÍEéÉ

#GçÅhì ÖíªÁ#ÔPD#Gìºsì âÎ±#Kì½g#GìÁÓì ##1FìÓâÍglíÁ#Dìh\ûÍ#GìÆtì ½ô #hí\g#DúlÁì #GìÂ©í #hí\#eÏíD
#Kì½# Kì½ôD# aÔPEìoãìÐoÍ# ÔPEìQØúlÉàÍEéÉ# kàÍÓìDg# FìÓâÎÅìhLÎìÁ# GìÆÏ# HâÎ½âÎMíµg# GéÅjé \öD
#Õ÷½ÔPDg# a(Diakonoff)# ÛàÎÅàÎºìÏg# aGìpØâÎ# Gµì # # 1HìÓâÍglíÁÍ# IìÆtì ½ô gûÍ# IìÂ©í g
# ##=Õ÷¾Ï#DúlìÁöD#aGìÐ©ì ÝæÁ#GìhíÁg# FõÓÎú ÐìÆPhÁ#Ãí©#GçÂQÂí\#vâÎL#DéiâÎoíD
13
#GìÂí©g# GìâÎÉ# Ãí© 14Õ÷¾dQU\# Kì½ôD# =ÔPEìÐ¾ÂítÁ# DìhLæ ÍâÎÁ# GìtQ±# FúÎÖè Ï# Kì½# GìÏkú àÍÓìD# GìÂ©í
#ÔÐéL#2#GçÂÂí©g 15ì§Ïúóµ#FìÓâÎÆìÐÅíÔtæÁg#GìÐìÆìÐ¹#Gìóì¾±#hí\#eÏíDÍ#1ì§Ðì©ÝæÁ#Gì]ñÅhíÁg#GìÐìÁúkìD
#ÎìÉ#GçÂÂí©#ÑÖÐí¾¹g#GìÐìÅúÎìÉ#GìÆìtô½#FúÎÖÏ#GìtQ±#GìÐìÁúkìD#GìÆìtô½#aGéÏìiàÍÓìD#Gõº¾íÁ#híÐL#ÑÖÏûlÂªíÁ
# #1kàÍÓìDg#FìÓâÍkàÎúl²ÁôDg#GçÅìh\âÍD
# Õ÷¾QÆæâÎóÁ# # ÔPEìÔí Á# vâÎL# (Parpola)# Kì½àÎ±lì±# aÔPDúlPlís

17 16
# #=Õ÷¾Ï#DúlìÁöDÍ#kàÍÓìDg#ì§¾ì²Æí½# ÈàÎÖ¾ªQLÓíg# GçÐÆì

ì âÎÉÍ#GçÐpì Qì o# GçshæÉ
20 19 18
#2#GìÂ¹hí\g#Iì¾Ï#FìÓlPlís##1Õ÷½DéÎÖ#Kì½#GéÏìiàÍÓìDg#GìÅìhLÎìÁÍ#GìÐì¾ÂítÁ#GìÁlô±#hí\g 21Iì¾Ï#GìÐ¾íÉ
#ÈàÎÖ¾tQ±# GéÅjì Âì©g# GìÆìÐÆæÁ# hí\Í# aGéMQ¾oûÍ 22K÷¾LâÎ# ÈàÎÖ¾tQ±# kàÍÓìDg# §÷ Lì ií # §õ Æì PhÁ
#GìÂôÓg# §ì Æìkû ÔæÁ# ì§ìÆÁ# Dìh\íg# Iì¾Ï# ì§ÆìÏÎúÖÔæÁÍ# 1ÑÖÏûlÂªíÁ# ÔÐéL# 2# GéÐÅâÎtÁ# ÔPDúóµ
#GìÍk# DúkÓíD# hí\# kàÍÓìD# Kì½ôD# # .24GéÅjì Â æ ªís# híÐL# Gìl±# Õ÷¾tQ± 23GìtPl±ûÍ# Gìµlí

destroyed, laid to waste 8
blow 9
too absolute 10
categorical 11
total annihilation 12
civilisations 13
merged 14
forceful deportations 15
specifically 16
evaluated, assessed 17
events ,ç§ìÐÁûÎµí 18
political and physical 19
followed 20
it is clear 21
destroyed 22
aristocratic class 23
conquerors 24
Iì½E÷¾s# Kì½# GçÐÅì ÏãhÁ# GéÅàÍjóÆôµ# 2# líM½# §ì ÏìhÐì ©# FìÓâÎÐí\Í# aFúÎÖÏ# DúÂ© 25
ÔPEìpQUoûÍ
1#(Parpola 1999: 1)
#ÔÅúkâÎÏg#a GéÐ¾ì ¶ì Pgìi#GéÆÐì ©æi#ÇÏékÓ#GçÅDí #ÔìÆÐíL#ÔPDg#GìÆsì kâÎ±##aGúÖìD#Ãí©

26
#FìÓâÎÅìhMªíÁ#Dìh\#Õ÷½ÔPD#aGìÅlé \öD#GìMÉé #ÍH#2#Kì½àÎ±lì±Í#ÛàÎÅàÎºìPgûÍ#aGìMÉé #hí\#2

#2# GìtìÆïÐíÆLíg# ì§QªsíÓ# ÎìÉ# GçshÉæ # GìLkú g# GìÆsì kíhÁ# Gì¶sì âÎ±# ¿í©# §ì Ík# lPÔíÏ
27
#áÖ½ì ÔPD# Ö÷ÓâÎÂQ# 1Gì¶PÔí©# GìÏkú àÍÓìD# GìÂ©í g# Gì¶¾æ\# Ãí©# Õ÷½ÔPDg# # FìÓâÎÁãÐíg 28
#ÍìD#GìÂ©í #Çì¾±#hí\#ÈôDg#R©æhÁí #E÷¹g# GçÆÂ ì Ðí¶Á#GçpcàÎóoôD#ÑÖÐí¾¹#Ãí©#FìÓâÎÏìÔÐíL

29
#Gì©gì ãÐ½# 1Kì½# ÍìD# §ì Ðì²±ì k# FìÓâÎÆì¾óíLÔô# GìÆÏ# GçÐ¾ûÊÁ# §ì ÐìÆìÂÖàÎ# FìÓâÍÔPD# Dìh\
31 30
#ÑÖÐí¾¹#ÈàÎÖ¾]ûÊÖû g#Iì¾Ï#ì§ÏúÝ½íD#aHìÔ¾ì²Å#kíÔLì #2#kàÍÓìDg#FìÓâÎÏúl\ì Dö #Iì½DéÎÖ#GìÁ

#GìtìU\gûÍ#FìÓâÍkàÎúl²ÁôD#Dìh\#eÏíD#kàÍÓìD#ÈàÎÖ½GìÏælLâÎÁg# #GçÆÂ ì Ðí¶Á#GçpcàÎóoôD
32
#a+GìUPÔ¹ûÍ#FìÓÍæ âÍÝÁ,#GìÆtì ½ô #aGìÂ©í #aGìÐìpìQo#Gìpì¹âÎ#aÖçgàÎUì©Í#Gìº¾íÁ#aGì©kíD#=GìÆÏ

# ###1FìÓâÍglíÁg#GçÐÅì Îú Éì #GéÅjé \öD#FçnµâÎÅ#RÅìD#ÑÖÐí¾¹Í#ì§PgÍìÓ
# FìÓâÍhUí©# eì±âÎÖ# Dìh\# ÈàÎÖ½ÔPD# GçÆÂ
33
ì Ðí¶Á# GçpcàÎóoôD# GçÅDí # ÑÖÐí¾¹
# #FìÓâÎÐì²±ì k##1FìÓÎìÁgûÍ# FìÓâÎÆìÏÎì¶Áíg#GçÐ±ì Óì ÎìsÍ# #GçÐÆì
36 35 34
ì âÎÉ#GçoàÎÂìÆ½#ì§tPl±
#ì§líÏ#FìÓâÎÆìÏÎì¶ÁûÍ#GçÆÂ ì Ðí¶Á#GçpcàÎóoôD#GìÂ¹hí\g#FìÓÎìÁg# #FìÓâÎÐìkíg#°ûkgûÍ 37
# GìÉlæÖ#GúÖDì #ÎìÉ##1GçoàÎÂìÅ#GçÅíÞ#FìÓâÍhUí©#eì±âÎÖ#¿í©#GìÆÏ#GéÐ½ôÓ#GéÅéj\öD#GìÂ¹hí\g
38
#GçÅDí g# 2# hí\# ¿¹g# FìÓâÎÆìÏÝíÁÔæÁg# EétPj±# G÷iíh½# # ÔPEìÁhí¶Á# _ûÊÖû # hæL 39
#GçÅDí # Çí¾QÂQskíg# ÇìÁãÏD# # 1FìÓâÎÆìÏÎì¶Á# GìÐÆì ¶í½# Õé½÷ ÔPD# GçÆÂ ì Ðí¶Á# GçpcàÎóoDô
#õ§Ðì ÆìÏg#DìhUì ªí½#GìÆÏì ÝìÁ#vâÎL#FéÎÖú #hæL#aFéÎúÖg#ÇìÁ# ¿¹#a GìÏàÍÝìL#hí\#a GçÁâÎ\Ó 41 40
#GçpcàÎóoôD# # 1FìÔÏúkàÍÓìD# FìÓâÍkâÎúl²ÁôDg# Gì¶¾æ\# ÓâÎL# # GçÐsì àÎtì\Í# DélPjís# vâÎL

42

densely 25
radical views, ideas 26
dialectic interpretation 27
relevance 28
constituents 29
are vulnerable 30
instantaneous extinction 31
constituents 32
reaction 33
physical 34
survival 35
suddenness 36
gradualness 37
study, research 38
primarily 39
extents 40
investigator, researcher 41
objective 42
#+Ì,#aGçÐìÆìâÎÉ#+O,#aGçÐìpìQo#+D,#=Géséi#GçÅíD#ÓàÎ\Ó#ÈàÎÖ¾]íúk#hæL#GçÆìÂÐ¶í Á
1GéÐìÅìÓâÍgjíÁ
#GéÐìÅìÓâÍgjíÁÍ# GçÐìÆìÐ¹# aGçÐìpìQo GçÆìÂÐí¶Á# GçpcàÎóoôD# # 12

# #FìÓâÍÔPD##Dìh\íg
#1g1Ö,#GìÐpì Qì o#Gìp¹ì âÎ#aGìº¾í#Õ÷¾Ï#FúnÁì k# GìÐìpìQo#GìÆìÂÐí¶Á#GìpcàÎóoôD
43
#ÍH#Õ÷¾Pg#GìpÐíÉ#GìtUì \#aÕ÷½Dô #GìÆÏ#DìhÆì oíg#GéÐ ì âÍi#GçoDì ÓâÎs#ÑÖÐí¾¹Í#+GìÆìó½âÎs

#Gìpì¹âÎ# híÐL# GéÆôó½âÎtÁ# GìÆÏ# GétQ±g# GçÅìh\âÍD# RÅìD# 1ÑÖÐí¾¹g# GìÐsì ké # GìoDì ÓâÎs
#kàÍÓìÞ#ÍúÎÖÏ#FéÜâÍkíÓg#RÅìD#ÔPEìÆì¾Pg#aÑÖÏûÎÉì #Õ÷¾Ï# #GìÆºì síg#GìtÆô¹#Ãí©#GìÐìpìQo
44
#GìpcàÎóoôD# # 1GìÐÆì Ðì ¹# GìÆÂ ì Ðí¶Á# GìpcàÎóoôDg# # Kõ½âÎÖ½# GìÆÏ# FúnÁì k# a §ì Ðìslsæ

46 45
#aFìÓÎ±ìÓÎìsg# §÷ Ðì Åì Óì âÍgjíÁ# FõÓÎú Æì Á# ÑÖÐí¾º½# Õ÷¾Ï# GìtUì \# GìÐÅì Óì âÍglíÁ# GìÆÂ ì Ðí¶Á
# #1GéÅjé \öD#GçÐÁì ÎìÏ#DçhÐì ©ûÍ# FõÓÎú ÆìÐ²ípÁûÍ#ì§PgÍìÓ#aGìÆtì ½ô #ÔPEìÆ¾ì Pg
47
##
# #GçÐìpìQo 2.1
#FìÓÍkàÎúl²ÁôDg#ì§¾ì²Åíg#Dçghì ]Âí©# #GìÆÏ#FìÓâÎÏÍìEL#ÔPEìÅÎú Éì # Gõ²Q¾íÏg#Çô±Dì
48
#ì§¾ì²Æí½#Õ÷¾Ï#FúnÁì k#ÔPDúlPlís#GìÁàÎ¶Qo#GúÖDì #GìÆPD#aÃµ#612g#ì§èÆétL#Iì½DéÎÖ#kàÍÓìDg

#Õ÷½DéÎÖ#GìÏúkàÍÓìD#GìÐìpìQo#Gìpì¹âÎg#FìÓÎìÁ##1FéÎÆQÅg#ì§ÐìhíÁ#ì§ÐìdsækDì #ì§Æè PhÁíg
#GìÆìó½âÎsg#GìÂì½âÎsÍ#Èúlí\g#ì§èÆPhÁíg#ì§¾ì²Å#kíÔìL#2#aIúÊÏH#kíÔìL# 2#GçÆæs#GìÂ¹hí\
#GétPj±# GçÁàÎ¶Qo# GìÆÏ# GìÂsì k# GétPj±# Gõ²Q¾íÏ# # 1GìÆÏì kû Ó# £ô¾¾ìLâÍD# kàÎsìD# Gìº¾íÁg
#606#a+Parpola, 1999)#Kì½àÎ±lí±#ÓàÎ²½##Ãµ# 609#=GìÏkú àÍÓìD#GìÐpì Qì o#Gìp¹ì âÎg#FìÓÎìÁg
#qÊìoÍ# +Smith, 1960,# Ôæ# ÓàÎ²½# Ãµ# 605Í# +Sykes, 1969,# qºÐìoì # ÓàÎ²½# Ãµ
# ###1+Saggs, 1984)
#kàÍÓìDg# FìÓÍkàÎúl²ÁôDg# GìÐpì Qì o# Gìp¹ì âÎg# Iì¾Ï# Gé©âÍhíÁ# ÔPEìlµ# GúÖDì
#aFìÓÎú#ÈôF# DúlPÔo#Õ÷¾tQ±#GìpÐíÉÍ#Kì¾²ô ÅâÎÁ#Õ÷¾tQ±#GìÏlú \ì Dö #Gìº¾íÁ#aÕ÷¾Ô\
49
1 GÆì Ïì lætL#ÍìD# GìÐµàÍlªíL#ÍìD

51 50

political 43
Õ÷¾Ï#GìÐì\ 44
Assyria proper 45
elements 46
traditions 47
are in agreement 48
disintegrated 49
desertion 50
disengagement 51
##
# #GçÐìÆìÐ¹ 2.2
#Ôì½ÓûÍ# # §ì tQM¹ûÍ# # FìÓLÓ# ÔPEìÆìÐ¹# Iì¾tQ±# kàÍÓìDg# Iì¾Ï# FìÓlPlís
53 52
#ì§ÐìdsækDì #FúÎÖPg#FéÎÆQÅ#aì§ÐìÅìÔPgÍìÓ#ì§ÐìdsækìD#FúÎÖPg#kàÎsìD#=§÷ Ðì dì sæiDì #HìÔÆì PhïÁ

#ÃíªÂ ì ©í # aGìÐpì ÐíÉ# Kì¾Ðí\g# ÈàÍlóÆôµ# FúÎÖP# ÔPEìÆÏì ÎúÖÔæÁg# gàÍlÂæÅÍ# §ì ÐìpÅì kâÎ±
#GìÆPD 1 (George Roux, 1964: 313) # K÷¾LâÎ#ÈàÎÖ¾tQ±#a§÷ Ðì sì ié #õ§Æì PhÁ#ÑÖÐí¾¹
54
#K÷½úÍ#a§ì ÆìTlæ ]íÁ#ì§PÎÖ#FúÎÖ#GìÏÎúÖg#GìÂ¹##a§÷ Ðì dì sæiDì #õ§Æì PhÂí½#ì§ÐìÆÐì ¹# FìÓàÎ#GúÖDì 55
#DìhUì ©#eì±âÎÖ##1§õ Æì PhÁíg#GéÅjì Âì©gûÍ#FìÓâÎÐí\g# §ì ÐìªQóµ#FìÓâÎÅìhLÎì#FúnÁúk#Kì½g

56
#ÔPEìÆQÁíD# # FìÓnPní©Í# # §ì ÅúlUí©ÔæÁ# a§ì Lûk# # §ì ]í±Üú # Dìh\# ¿º½# GìÐÅì Óì âÎUÐíóÁ
60 59 58 57
#hí\# ÍìD# Gìdì±âÎÖ# a FìÓâÎÆìÂ¾tíÁ# a GìÏmú âÎ©g# FìÓkâÍÝL# Iì¾P# Kì¾Öú ½ûÍ# Iì¾Ï# §ì PÎÖ
63 62 61
#GìÆÐì ÆæÁ#hí\g#FìÓMo#Iì¾Ï#ì§tQ±#aGìºsì âÎ±#Kì½g##1FõÓÎú ÐìÆºí ÏíD#GçÅDí #ÑÖÐí¾¹g#GìU¹ì âÍk

#GìÂ©í g#FìÓâÍlPÔíÏ#GìÆPD#aGìÏmú âÎ©g#GìTlú µ#ÎìÉ#ÈàÎÖ½ÔQÁ# GçÐÆì PhÁûÍ#Gç]¾ì±g#GìLûk64
#vâÎL# GçÂÐ÷¾¶í½# §ì dì²Ö# ÍìD# ì§Âí¾tíÁ# aGìTlú µ# ÎìÉ# §ì ±íÓÎìs# Kì½g# Gì\kâÍEL# Iì½EéÐ\
65
#Õ÷¾P#GìÐsâÎM¹#ÍìD#ì§]í±Üú #Dìh\íg#Gõó¾ì ±íg# §ì ÆìÂÐí¶Áíg#Gì\kâÍD#GúÖDì g#GìtQÅ##1GêÆÐítÁ

66
#Iì¾Ï# Kì½# ´ìD# # 1IìÂí©gûÍ# kàÍÓìDg# # # §ì UQt\# FìÔÐìÅhì LÎìÁ# FìÓàÎ# Iì½âÎóíMÂí½
67
#Kì¾¹ì âÎpL#ì§¶æsâÎ²Á#GìtÐì±#GìÐpì Qì o#Gìp¹ì âÎ#hí\g#ì§]í½Óíg# ì§ÐìÆìÅÎúÖÔæÁ#ÔPEìªQóµ

68
#GìchúÖ# hí\g# Õ÷¾Ï# Dúklú s# hí\# # 1ÖékÓíD# ÑíÆLíg# # FìÓâÎÐì¾ÂítÁíg# GìÐ²ì ±ì k# GìÐ±ì âÎ\g
70 69
#öÔÐéL# # §ì súl±íg# §ì Ðìské # Oûk# §ì PÎ\íÓ# Dìh\ûÍ# a§QªsíÓ# ÎìÉ# GìÁæÍâÎµ# Õ÷¾Ï# Kì½# ShÆæÁ
71

defeated 52
occupied 53
destroyed GéLæl\âÎÁ# 54
blow 55
absolute annihilation 56
axiomatic, established principle 57
invasion 58
aggressive 59
massive 60
resistance 61
submission 62
retreat 63
soldiers and civilians 64
submission 65
assessment 66
purported annihilistic blow 67
it is absolutely unreasonable 68
instantaneous disappearance 69
entirety 70
evidence 71
#DúkÓíD#ÑÖÐíÆLíg#FìÓâÎÆìÏÎì¶Á#Iì¾P#ÑÖïÐÂ í ©í Í#GçÐpì Qì o#Gçp¹ì âÎg# FìÓâÎÆìÏÎì¶ÁÔô

72
#a FõÓÎú LæÜ# GçÅDí # 2# Dìh\# ¿ºL# # 1ÇìÁÓàÎ©Í# GìÁàÎÖk# aGìQóÅûmàÎLg# F÷ÓúÍkàÎìj²ÁôDg

73
#ÓàÎ\Ó# ÍúÎÖPg# GçÂÐ÷¾µôDÍ# aGìÐìpìQo# Kì¾ºÐûÖ# Kì½ôD# FúÎÖÏ# Kì½# Õ÷¾]Q½Óàg# ShÆæÁ
#GçÅhì \âÍD# aFõÓÍú iÓíÞ# ÈàÎÖ¾®Q¾±# F÷ÓÍú kàÎj²ÁôD# GçÅDí # 2# Dìh\# ¿¹g# GìÆó ì ½âÎs
#K÷½Íú # GúÖDì # # 1FõÓhí\# GçÖì# ÍìD# GçÐìÁhíµ# ÑÖÐûÖìÂïs# ÓàÎ\Ó# DéiàÎ©m# vâÎL# GçÂÐ÷¾µôDÍ
#õ§Ðì ÁûÎµí # GìchúÖg# FìÓâÎÏìÔÐí½g# §ì ¾æªL# aGìÅlé \öD# Kì¾¹ì âÎo# hí# Kì½Í# GìÏÎúÖ# GìchúÖg
#EéTjì µíg# # §ì UPÔ¹# §ì ÆìÏÎì\ÔæÁ# §ì QªsíÓ# ÎìÉ# GìÂ©í # hí\g# §õ Ðì ÆìÐ¾ÂítÁ# FõÓÎú ÅìhLÎìÁg
74
#Õ÷¾Ï#Kì½#eìo#ì§QªsíÓ#ÎìÉ# GçÆì¶ÆítÁ#GéÏìiâÎ#GìchúÖg# GìÅÔì tí]Áí #Gìó¾ì ±##1 §õ Ðì ]í±ÜgûÍ

77 76 75
#GéTìjµíg#Õ÷¾Ï#Dúkúls#hí\##1Ö÷ÓÍlPÔíÏg#ì§Ðì#Kì½#´íD#ÍìD#GìÂ©í #hí\g#ì§Ðì¾ÂítÁ# ì§Ðì 78
#FìÓâÍlPÔíÏ# GìÆPD# a G÷óÖú jíÁ# GìLkú # RTæl]íÁÍ# GçtÅì Dö # GìLkú # R¾óìµ# G÷¹# GçÐsâÎM¹ûÍ
79
#ì§QªsíÓ# ÎìÉ# # 1§ì tí]Áí # # GìchúÖ# kíÔLì # 2# RtÐì±Í# SÎì¶Á# G÷¹# G÷óÖú jíÁgûÍ# GìtÆì Ðï Æí Líg
#Õ÷¾Ï#Kì½#GìÆÏì kû Ó#GìÐ¾ì ÐLé Ó÷ #GìTlú µ#2#GìLlæ\#vâÎL#GìâÎÉ#hí\#aFìÓâÎtìÅöDg#ì§UPÔ¹
#aì§¾æLâÎ#Iì¾tQ±##a½líL#aGìQÆìíDg#ì§ÐìdsækìD#ì§èÆPhÁ#aGìTúlµ#GúÖìD#ÎìÉ##1GìPÎÖ
#GìÐpì ÐíÉ# Gìpì ¹ì âÎÍ# aK÷¾Qóµ# ÈàÎÖ¾tQ±# GçÐÆì PhÁgûÍ# Gç]¾ì±g# GçÅàÎÐ¾æÁg# GéÏjì pæ©
#GìQÆìDí Í# GçÐÆì ì Dí # GìÆPD# aÕ÷¾pô±kâÎ±Í# # Õ÷¾]Qt±# GçÐPnìÅg# GìÐìÆìó½âÎsÍ
80
#_íslì±g# GìÆÏ# ÈûÜâÎÐ¾íÁ# ¿æª¾íL# GéÂQsi# GçÐÅì Ôì QªsíÓ# §õ Ðì ÁûÎµí # ÑÖÐí¾¹# # 1ÈàÎÖ½EéÐ\
#ÑÖÏíÓâÎÅìhLÎìÁÍ# G÷óÖú jíÁgûÍ# GìMÉé # hí\# 2# FìÓâÎtìÅDö g# DúlMì Æè Éí # Kì¾Lì âÎ# Ôö ÐéL
81
# ##1GìÅlé \öD#GìMÉé #ÍHg#2#ì§Ðì¾ÂítÁ

##
# #GéÐìÅìÓâÍgjíÁ 2.3
#¿TâÎ¶½íg# GìÐìÅÓì âÎÅìhLÎìÁ# Gì©gôDg# GìÐpí©Í# GìÐsì kú âÍg# vâÎL# FúnµâÎÅ# ÍH
82
#Õ÷½#GìÏÎúÖ#hæL# #ì§ÐìpQì o#FìÓâÍÔPD#Dìh\íg#ì§]ì½Ó#DéÁí #E÷¹g#GìÍk#Kì¾Lì âÎ\g#Gì©gôDg

83
#ÔPEìÆ¾ì Pg# aFìÓâÍÔPD# ÒHg# # GéÐÅì Óì âÍgjíÁ# GçÆÂ 84

ì Ðí¶Á# GçpcàÎóoôD# Ãí©# FìÓâÎÏìÔÐíL
#GçÆÂ ì Ðí¶Á#GçpcàÎóoôD#GçÅDí ##1§÷ Ðì Åì jì \öD#÷§Ðì Åì Óì âÍgjíÁ#HâÍÓúÎÆï Ðì ²ípÁûÍ#HìÔPgÍìÓ#aIìÆtì ½ô

survivability 72
cases 73
documented 74
wars and invasions 75
tragic 76
traumatic clashes 77
obliteration 78
property, resources 79
disintegrated 80
destruction 81
controversial 82
political entity 83
cultural constituents 84
#áÖ¾ì Q©híÁg# # GçÆìªPnÁ# Kõ¾Ðí\# a§ì ¾æ©# GúÖDì # Gìµ# # 1GçÐìpìQo# Kì½Í# GìÆÏ# GçÐìÆìÐ¹# Kì½
85
#GìÆÏ#GétPj±íg#GçÅàÎÆìµÍ#G÷jítL#GìÆÏ#DéoöD# #ÑÖÏíÓâÎÆìÏÎì¶ÁûÍ# #ÑÖÏíÓâÎÆìÐ±ÎìÁ

87 86
#aGìpØâÎ#Gìµ##1GçÐìpìQoÍ#GçÐìÆìÐ¹#GçÆìÂÐí¶Á#GçpcàÎóoôD#¿í©#GìÆÏ#GéÅâÎó¾ítÁíg#RÅìD#2
#hí#GìÐsâÎM¹#hí#ÍìD# Gì²\ì âÎo#hí#GìÔ\#uéÐ±ì g#GìÏÝìÁ#GìÐpì Qì o#Gìp¹ì âÎ#hí\
88
# FìÓâÎÂìÐµlíML# §ì ÏúkàÍÓìD# FìÓâÍkàÎúl²ÁôD# vélL# Iì½# FéÎÖíg# eÏíD# aGìÏlú câÎÅ# Kì¾Ðí\
89
#ì§¾æªL# Ó÷EÁì # ÔPEì²±ì kíg# GìÏÝìÁ# GìóQ¾ís# ÍìD# Gìº¾íÁ# hí\# # 1GçÐ¾ì UìLÍ# GçÏhì ì # Ôö ÐéLg
1FìÓâÎº¾íÁg#GìÐokâÎ¹#¿í©#2#ì§¾í²ÆíÁ#ÍìD# #Gì\âÎÁg#ì§¾ì²s#a # GìM½ô #ÓâÎ¶PÔsíg
91 90
#GçÐÆì Ðì ¹# GçÆÂ
ì Ðí¶Á# GçpcàÎóoôD# eÏíEÁ# Kì½# aGéÐÅì Óì âÍgjíÁ# GçÆÂ ì Ðí¶Á# GçpcàÎóoôD
#GìÐ±ì âÎ\#¿í©#GìÆÏ#GéÅâÎó¾tí Áíg#GçÅàÎÆìµÍ#G÷jítL#GìÆÏ#EéÐ½ôÓ# ÔPEì¾Q¾íµ#aGçÐìpQoÍ
92
# ###1FìÓÎìÁÍ# GìÏhì ]æÁ

93
#¿í©#ì§ÐûÊûÖ#FéÎúÖ#hæL#GìÆìÐÆæ©# GúÖDì g#GìÆtì Ðì±#GìÂÖípL#GìÐsì ké Í#GìÐÁì híµ#FúnµâÎÅ

#GçpcàÎóoôDg# GìÐÆì ì kígÍ# GìÐ]ì QÅ# GìÐ±ì âÎ\# ¿í©# RÆôó¾ítÁ# E÷¹g# GçÅàÎÆìµÍ# G÷jís
#FìÓâÎÆìÏÎì¶Á# eÏíD# a§÷ Ðì Åì Óì âÍgjíÁ# FõÓúÎÆìÐ²ípÁ# 2# GìLkú # # 1GéÐìÅìÓâÍgjíÁ# GçÆìÂÐí¶Á
#aGéÏìiàÍÓìD#GçÖì½íDg#FìÓhì®oûÍ#Kõ¾ºÐûÖg#FìÓlíÂªíÁ#ÓâÎÆìÐÅôÓ#aGéÏiì àÍÓìD#GçÖ ì gí #ì§]í¾²û
#DúlÁì Dö #ÔPEìtPl±#ÍH##1(1999)#Kì½àÎ±lí±g#Déjó ì sôEL#DélPho#ÔPEìlµ#GìÆÏ#GétQ±
#¿ûÖ½#Iì½K÷¾s#Kì½#¿ìÉlæÅÍ#âÎMìÅ#a¿ÐéL#aGìÐÆì Åì #akìÔt©æ #aFúÍâÍlés#akàÎsìD#GçÖ½ì Dí g#FìÓhì®o%#=Õ÷¾Ï
#=Õ÷¾Ï# DúlÁì Dö Í# GìÁhè ¶ì ½# Õ÷¾Ï# Kì½mú Dö # Kì½àÎ±lí±# 1(1999:2) %# GìÏÔì Q½Ó# Dúkgì g# GìÏkú âÎs
#eÏíD# aGìMPlíµ# GìhíÁ# Õ÷¾¹# ÎúÊL# Gé]¾ô ±âÎÁ# ÈàÎÖ¾tQ±# Gé\jíÏg# GçÖ
ì Íû # GìÏkú àÍÓìD# DìhÉì kâÎo%
#GìÆÏ# DékâÍlítÁíg# õ§ìÐPÎ\íÓg# Gì\Óì kâÎsg# §ì ¾æªL# # 1(1999:3)# %GìÆÁì ÎìÐL# GìÆPg
95 94
#híÐL# GéLjæ µâÎÁ# GçÐÅì Ôì PgÍìÓÍ# GéÐÅì Óì âÍgjíÁ# GçÆÂ

ì Ðí¶Á# GçpcàÎóoô Dg# FìÓâÎÆìÏÎì¶Âí½
#GéLâÍl¶í# §ì Ðì¶ÆíÅDì # HâÎÏún\# bûÎÏ# Kì½# ,(1999, 2000a, 2000b, 2002)# Kì½àÎ±lí±
# # FìÓníµâÎÅ# aÑÖÐí±ÎìtL# # 1GìÏúÜâÎL# GúÖìD# ÎìÉ# GìsgìD# GúÖìD# 2g# ÷§ìÐÅìj\öD# §õ ìÐPÎ\íÓ
96
#GìtÐì±# hæL# GéÐÅì Óì âÍgjíÁ# GçÆÂ

ì Ðí¶Á# GçpcàÎóoôDg# FìÓâÎÆìÏÎì¶Áíg# GçÅàÎÆìµg# FìÓkûlítÁíg
#ì§UPÔ¹# Ö÷ÓkÍÜ# =Ö÷ÔìÏiâÍÜ# ÑÖÏíÔÅâÍÍkôÔL# GìÆìtô½# ¿í©# ÔPEìÆì¾º¾¹# §ì Æôó½âÎtÁ

dynamics 85
their demise 86
their survival 87
coup de dat 88
alliance 89
heart attack 90
stroke 91
rarely 92
sudden disappearance 93
abundance 94
evidence 95
focus 96
# ##1FìÓæÍâÍÝÁ#Ö÷ÓkâÍÜÍ
##
#ÔÐéL# ÎìÉ# GçÆìtô½g# FìÓâÎÆìÏÎì¶ÁûÍ# FìÓâÎÆìÐÆítÁíg# GìÁúkàÎÆì±# 13
# #ÇPjÖíÅ
#Déjóì sôD# ÓàÎ²½# ÇPjÖíÅ# ÔÐéL# ÎìÉ# Gì¶PÔí©# vâÎL# GìÆtì ½ô # ÍH# aGìºsì âÎ±# Kì½g
#ì§Ïûlsí g#GìÆÏ#GéÏâÍn]íÁ#GçÐÅì Óì ãÐªsíÓ#Déjó ì sôD#1Õ÷¾Ï# #GìÏ
97
ú Áé âÎs#GìÆtì ½ô #aGçÐÅì Óì ãÐªsíÓ
#ÔPD# ´ìD# GìÁÓì # # 1Ãµ# §ì ÐìªQTk# FìÓâÎÐì²½íDg# GìÏúl\ì Dö # GìªLâÍlL# Iì½# DéÎÖ# GìÆtì ½ô # GúÖDì g
#Gìlæo#eÏíD#ÈíÔQªsíÔL#GìªPhÏ#GìtQ±#a§ì TìÔ¹íg#GìÐÁì híµ#Gìp¹ì âÎg#GçÆ¾ì Ðí\#õ§Pì Î\íÓ
#Gìslæs# GìÆPD .(Bottero, 1987:87)# GéÏjì ÐéÁâÎs# híÐL# Gì]QdtÁ# Õ÷¾tQ±# a GìÐÅì Üú Üæ 98
(Wiseman, #GéªPhÏ#GétQ±#GìÆÏ#Kì½#GìÆìÁÎìÏ#¿ûÖ½#ÑÖÐíÆìtô½g#FìÓâÎ²Q¶íÅÍ#GìÐìÆìÂÖàÎ
#GìÏhì ¹ì Dì #2#ì§ÏûlítL#aÇPjÖíÅ#ÔÐéL#ÎìÉ#GçÆÆì ó ô ¾ítÁ#GçÆtì ½ô g#ì§ÆìtÐì±#ì§Æì Á##11973: cx)
##1ÍúÎÖÏ#GçÐìÂÐés#GçÆìtô½g#FìÓâÍÔÐíLg#ÑÖÐí¾¹##aGìÐLì lú ©í Í#GìÐÁì kú Dì #a+GìÏúkàÍÓìFÍ#GìÐì¾UìL,
#aGçÆtì ½ô # RÅìD# ÔìÆÐíL# FìÓâÎÏìÔÐíM½# GìÆÏ# GéÆôó½âÎtÁíg# aÔ\íÔ¾íL# DéjPho# # FõÔÐì ¾ì Pg
100 99
# #=GìÏúÜâÎL#GúÖìDg#GìLlís#Ãí©#ì§PÎµ#FìÓâÎÆìÐ\öD#Dìh\#ÈàÎÖ½ÔPD
1 ÔPEìÆì±âÎ¾\íÓ#GìÅél\öD#ÍHg#Gì±Îìt½#Õ÷¾Q¶s#GçÆìtô½#GçÅíD#2#hí\#¿¹ 11
101
#GÆì Tûm#hí\#Õ÷¾sælÉâÎÁÍ#GìÐÆì ì kíg#Õ÷½#DéÎÖ#GìÅlé \öD#ÍáÖ½#GìÆtì ½ô #hí\#2#GìÐìÅâÎs 12

1Déigì #GìÂ¹hí\#ÔPDìhÐì ©#aGìlíÏ
aGìÆtì ½ô # ÓâÎÆìÏkû Óíg# GìlíÏ# GìÆTûm# hí\# Õ÷½DélL# GìÐÅì âÎs# hí\# ¿¹# Äìhµ# 2 13
1GçÆtì ½ô #ÇÏékÓ#RÅìD#GìtUì \
#Õ÷¾²ô¾\âÎtÁ# ÍìD# §ì TìÔ¹íg# Gìp¹ì âÎ# hí\# ÕéÂ©í # Õ÷½# EéÏÓö âÎÁ# GìÆtì ½ô # hí\# ¿¹ 14
#ÓâÎÆìÏkû Óíg#GçÆTûmg#ì§ÆíÐMí# ì§ÆìÐÁìg#aGì\kâÍD#GúÖìEL##1Õ÷½ÔPlÏg#Gìpì¹âÎó½
##1 # FìÓâÎÏúl²æo# ÓâÎÆìÏûkÓíg# G÷jíÏ# GçÆTûm# ÈàÎÖ½# DéÎÖ# ´ìD# GìÁìÓ# aGìÆtì ½ô
102
#GìÆTûnL# ÈàÎÖ½# Dégk# ì§TìÔ¹íg# GétPj±# Gçpì¹âÎ# ÇÏékÓ# aGéÅjé \öD# DéjMí
1Dégìh]Âí©
#2#Dìh]¾¹g#Gì¶Qp±#Gì¶sì âÎ±#hí\#GéLâÍl¶í#_íó²í\#hæL#aGçÏàÍÓìD#GõµàÎpì²L
# #1FõÔÐì ¾ì Pg#«íLkíD#GçÅDí
##

Sumerian 97
cuneiform 98
characteristics 99
relationship 100
successively 101
biliteracy 102
##
##
# #GçÆtì ô½g#FìÓâÎ±âÎ¾\íÓ 3.1
#GìÆTûmg#GìlíÏ#Gì\ÔæÁ#hí\#Gìµ# GìÆÏì lí #hí\#Kì½g#Õ÷¾tQ±#GìÏ
103
ú Áé âÎs#GìÆtì ½ô
#ì§oíDÔís#¿ûÖ½ûÍ#Ãµ# 3500g#ì§èÆésg#FìÓâÎÐìLkâÎ¶L#GéÏìjÐéÁâÎsg#ì§ÐìóÁ#2#Õ÷¾ÔÁíg
#ì§èÆétL#aGìÐÁì híµ#GìÐÂ
ì Ðés#GìÆtì ½ô #FúÎÖPg#aGìÏhì ¹ì Dì #GìÆtì ½ô g# §ì PÓEéÁÍ#hì¹Dì g#FìÓâÎº¾íÁg
104
#ÎìÉ# FìÓÍæ âÍÝÁ# FúÎÖÏ# GìtQ±g# aGìÏhì ¹ì Dì # GìÆtì ½ô # # 1+Hawkes, 1973: 451)# Ãµ# 2400g 105
#Ãí©# # GìÏkú âÎ# Õ÷½DékâÎs# aGìÆíÔL# ¿æMLì # ÎìÉÍ# ÇPjÖìÅ# ÔÐéLg# GìÐLlûÊL# kàÍÓìD
106
##1GìlíÏ#GìÆTûm#hí\#Gìµ#Õ÷¾ÔÁ#GìÏkú âÎÁ#GúÖDì ##1 #FìÓâÍlìÁ#GìÐÆì ¶í½#GìÏ

107
ú Áé âÎs#GìÆtì ½ô
#Déigì #ÇÏékÓíg#Gì\Ôæ#FìÓÍæ âÍÝÁ#GìÆtì ½ô #hí\#eÏíD#Õ÷½ÔQÁ#GìÏ ú Áé âÎs#GìÆtì ½ô g#ì§TãÐt\#Iì¾Ï#ì§sãÐ±%
#GìÆTûm#eÏíD#GìªPhÏ#Õ÷¾Ï#GìtQ±#ÔPDìhÐì ©íg#a+Ãµ# 1900g#ì§Æè té ½#GìLkâÎµ,#kâÍDg#ì§¾í²Å#kíÔLì #2
#hí\# 108FúÝ ì # FúÎÖÏ# GìÏÎæ Ö# GìÆTûmg# GìlíÏ# Gì\ÔæÁ# hí\# Gìµ# GìÏ ú Áé âÎs# GìÆtì ½ô # # 1Gìolì½# oôFg
##GìÆtì ¾ô ½# ÔPEìÆ¾ì º¾¹# 109Õ÷¾ÂQ¾síg# ¿ûÖ½# GìÏhì ¹ì Dì # GìÆtì ½ô # 2# §õ Ðì Âì Ðés# §õ ]ì tí\g# FúlTâÎÉ# GìÆÐì ÆæÁ
#GìÆtì ½ô # Õ÷¾tQ±# GìÏhì ¹ì Dì # GìÆtì ½ô g# kíÔLì # 2# # 1 +Hawkes, 1973: 75-76)# %GìÏhì ¹ì Dì
110
#GìÆtì ½ô g# eÏíD# lûÖ# aGõ²Q¾íÏ# ÓúÎ½# gâÎ]¾íL# Gì]¾ô ±âÎÁ# Õ÷¾tQ±# GìÏ ú Áé âÎs# GìÆtì ½ô %# aGìÆìÆôó¾ítÁ
#¿ûÖ½# aGõ²Q¾íÏg# GìÆtì ½ô # eÏíD# aFìÓâÎÐìÆºí ÏíD# GúÖEì L# Õ÷¾tQ±Í# # aGçÐ©ì ÝæÁ# Déihì L# Õ÷½DéÎÖ# GìÐÆì PÔì½
#%FìÓâÎÐì]QtÁíg# Dúkgì g# GìÏkú âÎs# Äìhµ# 2# GìÏlí¹# GìÆTûm# hí\# aÇPjÖìÅ# ÔÐéLg# §ì QªsíÓg# GìÁÓì âÎ\

contestant 103
advent 104
#GçtìÅöD#GçÅíD##1GìÏìhì¹ìD##GìÆìtô½#g#ì§PÓEéÁ#Gìµ#Õ÷¾Ï#+approximate,# GìÐÆì Lì âkÎµ#GìÁàÎ¶Qo#hí\# 2400g#ì§Æè sæ # 105
#ÍúÎÖÏ# E÷¶Q±Ó# GçÏìhì¹ìDÍ# GéÏìjÐéÁâÎs# # 1GìÂÐ÷¾µ# ÍH# Îì# FõÓhí\# GçÏàÍÓìD# ÍúÎÖÏ# Kì½# aGçÏhì ¹ì Dì # 1g1Ö# aGçÐÂì Ðés
Gordon, 1982: 155 cited in DeFrancis, 1989: 86; cf )# ì§TìÔ¹íg#FìÓâÎÆìÁâÍDg#ì§PÓEæÁ#Äìhµ#2#Dégh ì \ôEL
##2700g#ì§èÆét½#GìLkâÎµ#DúkækâÎtÁ#ÔPDìh]æÁ#Õ÷¾Ï#GìtQ±#GìÏìhì¹ìD#GìÆìt½ô #aKì½àÎ±lí±#ÓàÎ²½#1+Walker, 1990: 27
#ì§èÆét½#GìLkâÎµ#GìÏúéÁâÎs##GìÆìtô½#ÎúÊL#GçÆæÏgâÎÁ##õ§ì]tí\g#FìÓâÎÐì©Ýæ#ÔPDìh]æÁ#Kì½Í#+eÐéMì¾ìo#âÎLìD#ÀíÓ,#Ãµ
# #1+2002b#aGìÐ±ì àÍÜlí±#GìUÖú Ï#¿ì¶s,#Ãµ#3000g
Started to compete 106
supremacy 107
absorb 108
succumbed 109
#GìÆìtô½# hí\# eÏíD# GìÏúéÁâÎs# GìÆìtô½g# +disappearance)# GìÐì±âÎ\# ÓâÎL# FìÓâÎÏÍìD# Kì½# Dìh\# ÔPD# GìÁìÓ110
#GìÆTûm# Ãí©# aFìÓÍæ âÍÝÁ# GìÆtì ½ô # hí\# eÏíD# aGìÏúéÁâÎs# GìÆìtô½g# FìÓÎìÁ# Õ÷¾Ï# Õ÷µâÎThíÁ# Postgate# # 1FìÓÍæ âÍÝÁ
#GúÖìD# lûÖ# Õ÷¾Ï# GìÂìsk# (20 :1968) Diringer # ´ìDí # # 1+1992: 65-66)# Ãµ# 1700g# ì§èÆétL# Gì¶PÔí©# GìÐì¾MìL
#Coulmas# hí¹#aGõ²¾]ítÁ#GçÁàÎ¶Qo#GìÆÏ#Gé©âÍhíÁg#GétPj±#GçÁàÎÐìo#Õ÷¾Ï#DékâÎchíÁ# DeFrancis## 1GìÁàÎ¶Ðo
#GìÏúéÁâÎs###GìÆìtô½#Õ÷¾Ï#Gé\âÎt]íÁ# Parpola##1GìÆì¾MíµÔæÁ#vâÎL#GìÁàÎ¶Qo#hí\#eÏíD#Ãµ## 1900# Õ÷¾Ï#GìÂsì k
#Ãµ# 1450#g# ì§èÆét½#GìLkâÍ#¿ûÖ½#ÇPjÖìÅ ÔÐéLg#GìÆíÔL#FìÓæÍâÍÝÁ#GìÆìtô½#hí\#eÏíD#GìtQ±#FúÎÖ#FéÎúÖg#GìÁàÎµ
# #1+2002b)
#2#Déigì #GìLkú #Gìµ#Ö÷ÓâÍlìÁ##Õ÷½EìÐÁâÎ\#GìÏhì ¹ì Dì #GìÆtì ½ô #aGúÖìD#Ãí©###1+Bottero, 1987: 91)

#GìÆTûmg# GìÏkú âÎsÍ# GìÏlú \ì Dö # GìÏkú àÍÓìD# GìÆTûmg# GìÁÓì âÎ\g# FìÓâÎÐìLkâÎ¶L%# =GìÆPD# aIúÊÏH# kíÔLì
#GìLkâÎµ#ÈæÎÏ#GìÂsì k#GìÅDì #a§ì ÁûÎµí #GúÖDì #Gìµ#GìÆ ì kû ÔæÁ#GÁì àÎ¶Qo#hí\#Çí½ÔÐí½#hí¹,#FìÓhí\#GìÐ½ì ãMLì
#hí\# Õ÷½# DéÎÖ# ÕéLÎìÆL# GìÏhì ¹ì Dì # GìÆtì ½ô # 1+FìÓhí\# GìÏkú àÍÓìD# GìÆTûmg# GúÊ¾ô±# eÏíD# aÃµ# 750g# §ì Æè té ½
#ÔÐéLg# 111Dúkhì ]í½g# GçÂÂí©# híÐL# FìÓÍæ âÍÝÁ# FúÎÖÏ# GìtQ±g# aGìÐÁì kú Dì # GìÆtì ½ô Í# aGì¶PÔí©# GìÆtì ½ô
##1 (Contenau, 1954: 7)#%ÇPjÖìÅ#ÔÐéLg#DúkÓíD#Õ÷¾¹#Îì#FúÎÖÏ#GìpPl±#aÇPjÖìÅ
112
#GìTlªíÁ# GìÆíÓÍ# GìTlªíÁ# GìÐLlíÉ# Îì# ÈàÎÖÆæÐLâÎÁ# GéÐìÁìiìD# aFìÓâÍlPlítL

Diringer, 1968: )#Ãµ#GìÏúp©Ôí½Ó#Dúkìgg#GìÁÓ ì âÎ\g#FìÓâÎÐìLkâÎ¶L#ÇPjÖìÅ#ÔÐéLg
#´ìD#Kì½Dô #aÇPjÖìÅ#ÔÐéM½# #ì§dæÏâÎpÁ##ì§tQ±#FúÎÖÏ#Kì½#GìÐìÁúkìD#GìÆìtô½g#ì§]í¾²íÁ##1+197
113
#GìQÂìcDì gûÍ#FìÓhí \# kàÍÓìDg# F÷ÓÍú iàÎúl²ÁôD# ÎìÉ# DìgÍú âÎog# GìÆtì ô½# FúÎÖP# GìÐìÁúkìD# GìÆìtô½
Roux, 1964:228; Malamat, 1973: 147-148; Diakonoff, 1985: 124; Parpola, ,#FìÓíh\
#GìÆTûmg# DìgÍú âÎog# GìÆtì ½ô # Õ÷½DéÎÖíg# kíÔLì # 2# aGìÐÁì kú Dì # GìÆtì ½ô # aÔPDúlPlís# 1+1999: 3
#aâÍhÆæÖ½#GìQpìµÎìµÍ#FìÓkàÎ©m#FìãÐoìD#2#=GìÂÐ÷¾µ#ÍHg#Õ÷¾¹#Îì#Õ÷¾pPl±#aGìÐoì lí±
##GìÐÁì kú Dì # GìÆtì ½ô # # 1(Malamat, 1973: 147)# ÇPkÝæÁÍ# §ì ÐìÐLlíÉ# FìãÐLúlí©# aÈDìÔpæÆ®ì Ø×Dí
#ì§PgÍìÓg#ÇìD#a#GìÐªì QUs#Fúkgì #¿ûÖ½#ì§TìÔ¹gûÍ#DìgÍú âÎog#GìÆìtô½#hí\#eÏíD##Õ÷¾sãÐ±
#GìÆtì ½ô g# Gì±Îìt½# Õ÷¾Q¶s# ÔPEìÆì kíg# GìÐLì lú ©í # GìÆtì ½ô Í# GìÂÐ÷¾¶í½# Iì¾tQM¹# §ì ÐìÂ¾ì oôD
#hí¹# aÕ÷¾Ï# GìÆ½ô âÎ\# vâÎL# GìÐLì lú ©í # GìÆtì ½ô # aGìÆÁì ÎìÏ# ¿ûÖ½ûÍ# IúÊÏHg# 2# # 1GìÐÁì kú Dì
#GétQU\#GçÁàÎ¶Qo##1Iì¾Ï#FìÓhPm#vâÎL## ÔPEì¾]¾í#GìÐÁì kú Dì #GìÆtì ½ô g#FìÓâÎ¾Q
114
# ##=Ô\íÔ¾íL#1#Eì¶sì #ÎìÉ#G÷hÉ#GìÆÏ#GétQ±#3.1#GìµàÎpì±#ÎìÉ
##
# #Ö÷ÔÆíó¾ítÁíg#Gì\ÔæÁ #ÇPjÖìÅ#ÔÐéL#ÎìÉ#Ö÷ÔÆíÐMíÁg#GìÆTûm # #GìÆtì ½ô
# #Ãµ#1900#–#Ãµ#3500 # #Ãµ#3500 # #GìÏúléÁâÎs
# #Ãµ#750#–#Ãµ#1900 # #Ãµ#2400 # #GìÏhì ¹ì Dì
# ##600#–#Ãµ#750 # #Ãµ#1200 # #GìÐÁì kú Dì
# #ÄôEì¶½#0##700 # #ÄôEì¶½#–##600 # #GìÐLì lú ©í
# #ÑÖÏíÔÆìó¾ítÁíg#Gì\ÔæÁÍ#ÇPjÖìÅ#ÔÐéL#ÎìÉ#GçÆìt½ô g#ì§ÐìâÍk#ì§ÆíÐMíÁ#–#1#Gì¶sì
##

surrounding 111
#eÏíD#Kì¾Q¶s#uéÐì±##Kì½g#K÷½úÍÍ#GìÐìÁúkìD#GìÆìt½ô g#ì§ÐìâÍk#ì§Æíó¾ítÁ#ÓàÎ²½#Õ÷¾Ï#GìÆì¾MíµÔæÁ#GìÂìÔô±#GúÖìD112
#GìÅìhæ©#¿ûÖ½#Iì¾tQ±#Gõ²¾]ítÁ#Fçnªô¾L#GìÏìhì¹ìD##GìÆìtô½g#ì§]í¾²íÁg#ÒIL%#GìÏìhì¹ìD#GìÆìtô½g#FìÓÎìÁg#FìÓâÍhÖío#Dìh\
# #.(Healey, 1990: 204)#%Gì]QtÁíg
was not confined 113
Precariously 114
GìÆtì ½ô g# FìÓâÎÆìÐÆítÁíg# FìÓkâÍgg#Gì\ÔæÁ 3.2

116 115
#GìÆÏì kû Ó# GìÆtì ½ô g# ÇìD# GìÅhì ©æ #2# Iì¾Ï# GéÏâÍlís#GìÆtì ½ô g#FìÓâÎÆìÐÆítÁíg# FìÓkâÍg#########

#Õ÷¾Ï#Gì¶±ì Ó#a% #GìÐtì QÅ#GìÆtì ½ô %#Õ÷¾Ï#GéÖâÎÂítÁ#(Sasse, 1992: 7),#qìog#RÆÏíD#+2À,
117
#GçÅDí ##1% Gì¶QUs#GìÆìtô½%#Õ÷¾Ï#EéÖâÎÂítÁ# Sasseg#RÆÏíD#a+1À,#GìÐÁì híµ#GìÆtì ½ô #Ãí©

118
#GìÆtì ½ô #hí\#eÏíD# ÕéÆÉì #Õ÷¾Ï#HâÎoâÍDÔís# 2Àg#¿ûÖ½#Déghì ]Âí©#GìÆÏ#GìÐ\ì #GçÆtì ½ô #ÇÏékÓ

#GúÖDì g# GçÆ²ì ¾]ítÁ#Kõ¾Ðí\#ÑÖÐí©hì Q½##11Àg#Gì±Îìs#Õ÷¾Ï#Kì¾¶ì s#ÔPEìÆì kígÍ#Kì¾QMµ
119
#Iì¾Ï#Kì½##1Ô\íÔ¾íL# 4.1.2#GìµàÎpì±g# 1 Gì¶tì ½#Sn\#aGìÆtì ½ô g#FìÓâÎÆìÐÆítÁíg#FìÓkâÍg

#GçÅíDg# # GìÐì¾ÁâÎsÍ
121
# GìÅlíµ# aGìÏúkâÎs# ÈàÎÖ¾]íúk# ÔPDìÔPÔí\g# §ì ÆìÏÎúÖÔæÁ
120
# # GìÏÜú âÎL# GúÖDì # ÎìÉ# bûÎÏ# Gìskú g# ÑÖÏíãÏg# ÓâÎLg# GìÆTûmg# Gç\ÔæÁg# ÒIL# F÷Óiì Íë g
122
#GúÖDì #Gìµ##1 #õ§Ðì ÆìÓí ÔæÁ#õ§Ðì Åì Ôì QªsíÓ#õ§©ì híÏg#FìÓâÎÏìÔÐí½g#ì§¾æªLÍ#aGìÆÏ#G÷jíÏ

123
# #1 GìÆÏ#GéÐÆì Lì iâÎµ#Ô\íÔ¾íL#2#Gì¶sì #ÎìÉ#GétQU\#Gç\ÔæÁÍ#GçÁàÎ¶Qo#aì§¾æ©

124
##
# ##GìÆtì ½ô g#FìÓÎÆìÐÆítÁíg#FìÓkâÍgg#Gì\ÔæÁ # #GìÆtì ½ô g#FìÓÎÆìÐÆítÁíg#FìÓkâÍg # #
# #Ãµ#750#–#Ãµ#1900#–#Ãµ#2400 # #+2À,#GìÏhì ¹ì Dì #m#+1À,#GìÏúléÁâÎs # #1
# ##600#–#Ãµ#750##–#Ãµ#1200 # #+2À,#GìÐìÁúkìD#m#+1À,###GìÏh ì ¹ì Dì # #2
# ##1258#–##900##–####600 # #+2À,#GìÐìLúlí©#m#+1À,###GìÐÁ ì kú Dì # #3
# #ÇPjÖìÅ#ÔÐéML#GçÆìtô½g#FìÓâÎÆìÐÆítÁíg#FìÓkâÍgg#Gì\ÔæÁ#–#2#Gì¶sì
##
#Gì±Îìt½#Õ÷¾Q¶s#GìÏìhì¹ìD#GìÆìt½ô g#ÇìÁãÏD#GìÆìtô½g#FìÓÎÆìÐÆítÁíg#ì§ÐìÁhíµ#FìÓkâÍhL
#GìÏìhì¹ìD# GìÆìtô½g# ÇìD# GìÅìhæª½# Iì¾Ï# FúnìÁk# Ãµ# 2400g# ì§èÆés# =GìÏ ú Áé âÎs# GìÆtì ½ô g
#GìÆtì ½ô g# ÇìD# GìÅhì ªæ ½# Iì¾Ï# FúnÁì k# Ãµ# 1900g# §ì Æè sé # # =§ì ÐìÁhíµ# GÖú Éì # Gìµ# ÕéÆÐæ LâÎÁ
#GìÆtì ½ô # Õ÷½DéÎÖ# GìÏhì ¹ì Dì # GìÆtì ½ô gûÍ# FìÓÍæ âÍÝÁ# GìÆtì ½ô # hí\# eÏíD# Õ÷½E÷²\# GìÏ
125
ú Áé âÎs
#ÇìD#GìÅhì ªæ ½#Iì¾Ï#FúnÁì k#Ãµ#750g#ì§Æè sé #hí¹#aGìÏ ú Áé âÎs#GìÆtì ½ô g#Gì±ÎìtL#GìÆÆì ó
ô ¾ítÁ
# #1FìÓÍæ âÍÝÁ#GìÆtì ½ô #hí\#eÏíD#Õ÷½E÷²\#GìÏhì ¹ì Dì #GìÆtì ½ô g

cycle 115
shift 116
target language 117
abandoned language 118
dynamics 119
peak 120
completion 121
discussion, research 122
definitive historical data 123
approximate, estimated 124
disappeared 125
#GìÐìÁúkìD# GìÆìtô½g# ì§ÆíÐMí# Iì¾Ï# FúnìÁk# Ãµ# 1200g# ì§èÆés# §ì QÆìÏûkÓ# FìÓkâÍhL
#hí¹#aGìÐÁì kú Dì #GìÆtì ½ô g# FìÓâÎÆì¶¾ípÂí½Í#GìÏhì ¹ì Dì #GìÆtì ½ô g## #FìÓÔì]Æí½#Ãµ#750g#ì§èÆæsÍ
127 126
#700g#ì§èÆés#a§ì ÏìÔQ½Ó#FìÓkâÍhL##1GìÐÁì kú Dì #GìÆtì ½ô g#FìÓÔì]Æí½#Iì¾Ï#FúnÁì k##600g#ì§èÆés

#GìÆìtô½g# #FìÓâÎÏúkÔpæM½## 900g#ì§èÆésÍ#GìÐìLúlí©#GìÆìtô½g#ì§ÆíÐMí#Iì¾Ï#FúnìÁk#
128
#Gì²ì¾\âÎs#Kì½g#Iì¾Ï#ì§tQ±#FìÓâÎÐìÆíºÏíD#GúÖìD##1GìÐLì lú ©í #GìÆtì ½ô g#FìÓâÎó¾ítÂí½Í#GìÐÁì kú Dì

# #1GìÆìÁÎìÐ½
#Iì¾Ï#ì§Ðì¶ÆíÅDì #aGìÆìtô½g#FìÓâÎÆìÐÆítÁíg#FìÓkâÍgg#Gì\ÔæÁ#ÓâÎL#bûÎÏ#GéÏâÎÊûÖ#hí¹
#Gì]¾ô ±âÎÁ# GìÆtì ½ô # hí\# eÏíD# K÷¾sì Í# DúkÔìM½# lé©gì g# GìÁàÎµ# GìÆtì ô½# hí\g# _íkú g
#uéÐì±g# GìÏÝìÁ# GìÆìtô½# GìchúÖ# hí\# GìÆPD# a ÔPEìÆìÅÎúÖÔæÁÍ# ÔPGììâÍk# aÔPDìgàÎUì©
129
#GìpØâÎ# hí\# # 1GçÏàÍÓìD# G÷jíÏ# Déiìg# Gìµ# GìÂí©# híÐL# ÔPDìgúÎo# Gì]ô¾±âÎÁÍ# GìÆìÏÎì¶Á
#kíÔìL#2#GìÆtì ½ô #hí\g#FìÓâÎÆìÏÎì¶Áíg#GçÐÅì Ôì QªsíÓ#Déjó ì sôEL#DìhQÆoûÍ#GìÆÆì Â æ Öû ÔæÁ#Ví
#GìÐÁì kú Dì Í# GìÐLì lú ©í # GçÆtì ½ô g# # §ì ¶ì±Ó# Õ÷¾P# GìÅlé \öD# GìÆtì ½ô # hí\# Ãí©# DúlMì Æè Éí # GìÏkú âÎÁ# hí\
#ÇìD# FìÓâÎÆìÂ¾tíÁg# §ì PÓEé# ÔPEìâÍk# Iì½DéÎÖ# ì§¶ì±Ó# GúÖìD# # 1Dégìh]Âí©
130
#2#GìÏlí¹#GìÆTûm#híÍ#a FìÓâÎÆìpÅlí²Áíg#GìÐ 131

ì âÍk#GìÆtì ½ô #Õ÷½DéÎÖ#GìÐLì lú ©í #GìÆtì ½ô g
#ÒáÖL#lûÖ#GìÆPD##1 §ì ©íhPgûÍ# FìÓâÎÏúl²æo#a FìÓâÍl²ìog#GìÆtì ½ô #Õ÷½DéÎÖ#DìhÖú #kíÔLì
134 133 132
#¿ûÖ½#FìÓâÎÆìÅÎúÖÔæÁgûÍ#ì§PgÍìÓg#GìÆ¾ì Ðí\#GìÆtì ½ô #hí\#eÏíD#Õ÷¾tQ±#GìÐÁì kú Dì #GìÆtì ½ô #GìÅhì ©æ

#GçÅDí g#Gì\Ôæ##1Dúlpæ©gûÍ#GìªsôÓg#Déihì L#ÔPEìÆ¾ì Pg#a #ì§ÐìpMì ©í #FìÓâÎ±âÎ¾\íÓg#GìÆTûm
135
#a§ì Ðì±àÎpì¾Q±# FìÓâÍÓlíÏg# §ì ÂíÉkíÓg# DúlMì Æè Éí # Kì¾Âí©g# G¢ìÓâÍlPÔíÏ# aDéiìg# ÇÏékÓ

#GìÐÁì kú Dì # GìÆtì ¾ô ½# §ì pæÅkâÎ²Á# ÔPEìÁhíµ# Iì¾tQ±# §ì ÐìÅÎÏì # §ì ÐìÅÓì âÎÐoìDÍ# §ì ÐìÆ²ì ½âÎÏ
#Gìµ# GìÂ]í¾Á# vâÎL# GìÁàÎ¶Qo# ÍH# 1GìÐLì lú ©í # GìÆtì ¾ô ½# IúÊÏILûÍ# +GìÐìÏkâÎo,
#ì§]í±Üú # Ãí©# Õ÷¾Ï# Gì¶Tì g# GìÐÆì ²ì ½âÎÏ# GìÆtì ½ô # hí\# eÏíD# GìÐÁì kú Dì # GìÆtì ½ô g# FìÓâÎÆìÐ±ÎìÁ
136
#aGìÐÁì kú Dì #GìÆtì ½ô ###1# 1258g#ì§Æè té L#gìh®íLg#ì§¾ì²ÅûÍ#GìÐ©ì ÝæÁ#Gìhí#GçÐ½ì àÎ®ÆíÁg

#K÷¾¹ì g#Õ÷½DéÝÁ#Kì½#Kì½Dô #aGìUPÔ¹ûÍ#FìÓÍæ âÍÝÁ#GìÆtì ½ô #hí\#eÏíD# #Õ÷½DéÎµ##aGìºsì âÎ±#Kì½g
137
#hí# Çô±Dì # GìÆÁì ÎìÏ# ¿ûÖ½# Gì]¾ô ±âÎÁ# Õ÷¾Ï# GìtÐì ±ûÍ# aGìÐLì lú ©í # GìÆtì ½ô g# FìÓâÎÅìÔ¾Ðí\# Äìhµ

descent 126
ascendance 127
recession, going back 128
intellectually 129
advent of Islam 130
administration 131
literacy 132
literature 133
science 134
Abbasid Caliphate era 135
demise 136
survived 137
# ## # .GìpQ²µ##Gìkíg
138
##
GìÆìtô½#ÓâÎÆìÏûkÓíg#Gç\ÔæÁ 3.3
#=Kì¾¹ì âÎo#GúÖEì L#GìcEí½#ì§]ô¾±âÎÁ#Iì¾Ï#GìtÐì ±#%GìÆìtô½#ÓâÎÆìÏûkÓ%#ì§Uí¹lû Á#ì§]ít\
#aFìÓæÍâÍÝÁ# ÑÖÏíÓkâÍÝLûÍ# GìÆTûm# hí# ÔPEìÅhì \è ã¹Dí # Gé]¾ô ±âÎÁ# EésãÐ±# GçÆtì ½ô # ÇÏékÓ
139
#Gé]¾ô ±âÎÁ# EésãÐ±# GçÆtì ½ô # ÇÏékÓ# =Õ÷¾P# Iì¾¹ì âÎog# aFìÓâÎÏúl²æo# ÓâÎÆìÏûkÓíg# Gìd²æÖL
# ÈàÎÖ¾]ítÆì¹#ÈôD#ì§óQt±#vâÎL#GìÏÎúÖg#GìÁàÎµ##1§ì UPÔ¹#ÑÖÏíÓâkâÍÝL##ÔPEìÅhì \è ã¹Dí
140
# bûn]íÁg#Õ÷¾P#ÑÖÏíÔsûl±#2#ÇítQÅ#Kì½ôD#aDégìh]Âí©#F÷ÓìiâÍÜ#ÇÏ÷ÓkíÓ#GçÅíDg#GésìiâÍg
FìÓâÎÅúkÎíóûÍ#GìÆtì ½ô g#ì§]í¾²íÁg# FìÓâÎÆìÉÍígnæÁg# FìÓâÎÆìolí²ÁûÍ# FìÓâÎU¹ûlÂí½
143 142 141
#hí# #GçÆìÐìÆµâÎÏ#GéLíi#G÷âÍig#Gìpì¹âÎ#hí\#2#ì§UPÔ¹#FìÓkâÍÜg#ì§ÐìÅÔì QªsíÓ#

145 144
#Iì¾Ï#ì§Ðì¶Åí Dì #GìLkú #aGéÅjé \öD#DéjMí##1DéiàÎ©m#GçÐ¾ì ¹ì âÎoÍ#GéÐÅì nú Áæi#G÷âÍig#Gìp¹ì âÎ

#Ö÷ÓkâÍÝ½# # §ì ÐìÅìÓkâÍÜ# Ö÷ÓkâÍÜ# 2# GìUPÔ¹# Gìpì¹âÎg# FìÓâÎÅúkÎíóÁ# ¿í©# _ískígg
146
#1§ì ÏìÔÐéM²í½Dì #Ö÷ÓkâÍÝ½# a #ì§ÐìÆÐì ÊæÖÍ#ì§ÐìÐÅæk

147
#a %HìÓúÎý²Q¶íÅÍ# GìÆìtô½#ÓâÎÆìÏûkÓ%#=Gìskæ #ÓàÎ\ÓûÍ#GìÐÆì ¾ì Pg#GìµàÎpì±#hí\#ÎìÉ

148
#Gìp¹ì âÎ# 1g1Ö,# §ì TìÔ¹íg# Gìp¹ì âÎg# §ì ÏíÔ²íÁÍ# §ì oíDÔítL%# =Õ÷¾Ï# GìTìÔ¹# Bottero
à # ÍlÏìÓàÎL
#GìPhúÖ#Õ÷¾\ûklæ tí Áíg#Iì¾Ï#ì§Ðì¶ÆíÅDì ##1DúlÉí #hí\#Õ÷¾©æ âÎ#GìÅlé \öD#GìÐsì ké #GìpcàÎóoôD#hí\#a+GìÏÜú Üæ
##1%§ì TìÔ¹íg#Gìp¹ì âÎ#GúÖDì #Iì¾]ô¾±âÎÁg#FìÓâÎÐìÆPhÁíg#FìÓÂÉ#GìÆtì ô½#ÓâÎÆìÏûkÓ#=GìpcàÎóoôD#GúÖDì
#2# 1g1Ö,# Déiìg# GìtÂ í # Iì¾ÔÁíg# aFìÓâÎÆìÐÆítÁíg# FìÓkâÍg# a¿æª¾íL# 2# Gì¶ìs# ÓàÎ²½
#Gì\ÔæÁ# hí# Iì¾Ï# FúnìÁk# a+GìÏìhì¹ìD# GìÏúéÁâÎs# Gìµ# Ãµ# 1900# ¿ûÖ½# Ãµ# 2400
#ÔPEìÆì kígg#RÆÏíD#a1Àg#ì§Æì¾Ðí\#FìÓâÎó¾ítÂíL#Iì½DékâÎsg#ì§ÐìÅÎú Éì #GìÆtì ½ô #ÓâÎÆìÏkû Óíg
##12¿½# 1À# 2# Iì¾Ï# GéÏâÎÆís# FìÓâÎó¾ítÁíg# ¿ûÖ½# a2À# Gìµ# Õ÷±Îìs# ÕéMÖú ãÏÍ# Õ÷¾Ï# Kì½Îú Å
##ÒH# eÏíD# Iì½DéÎÖ# GìÐÁì kú Þ
ì # GìÏhì ¹ì Dì # 2# FìÓâÎÆìÐÆítÁíg# FìÓkâÍgg# Gì\ÔæÁg# FìÓâÎlíÏ
##1+Ãµ#750#¿ûÖ½#Ãµ#1200#2#1g1Ö,#GìÏhì ¹ì Þ ì #GìÏ
ú Áé âÎs#2#FìÓâÎÆìÐÆítÁíg#FìÓkâÍgg
#GìÐÁì úkìD# 2# FìÓâÎÆìÐÆítÁíg# FìÓkâÍgg# §ì QªsíÓg# # §ì ÐìÅÓì âÎÏìÔÐíL# FìÓâÍÓhí\g# §ì ¾æªL
149

shrunken 138
simultaneously 139
cluster 140
complexity 141
pervasiveness 142
duality 143
evolution 144
iconic 145
pictographic 146
ideographic and syllabic 147
consequences 148
relative recency 149
#RÅìDg#2#GìÆÏ# GçÆÐíªÁûÍ#DélPjís#vâÎL#GéÂQsi#õ§Pì Î\íÓg#GìÆÐì ÆæÁ#hí\# aGìÐìLúlíª½

150
#¿ûÖ½# GìÐìÁkú ìD# GìÆìtô½# aGìpØâÎ# Gìµ# # 1§÷ Ðì Åìj\öD# FìÓâÎÆìÐÆítÁíg# F÷Óiì âÍg# ÇÏ÷ÓkíÓ# Gìµg
#Gì¶pí©#GìÆPD##1GìÅlé \öD#ÍIL#ÍìD#GìsgìD#hí#aFìÓÍæ âÍÝÁûÍ#GìUPÔ¹#Õ÷¾Ï#GìtQ±#GìÆÁì ÎìÏ
#GìÆtì ¾ô ½# Õ÷¾ÂQ¾s# ÔPEìâÍk# GìÐÁì kú Dì # GìÆtì ½ô # ÇìD# ÔPEìÆQóíµ# DúlÁì Þ
151
ö # Iì¾Ï
#GìÆìtô½#hí\g#ì§Ík#ì§]í¾²û#Iì¾\ûloìD#ì§Âí¾síg#GìÁàÎ¶Qo#GúÖìDg#ì§Âìsk#ÈôD#1GìÐLì lú ©í
#vâÎL# GìÁàÎ¶Qo# ÍH# IúÊÏIL# a§ì TìÔ¹gûÍ# FìÓÍû Ýû Áíg# GéÐ ì âÍi# Kì½Í# GéÐ ì âÍi# GçtQÆL
ì âÍk#GìÁàÎ¶Qo#Õ÷¾Pg#a# 1258g#ì§èÆæs#FéÎúÖ#hæL#aGìÐÆì Lì kâÎµ#Çô±Dô #aGìÆ¾ì MíµÔæÁ
#GìÐ
#GìÐsâÎM¹# GúÖDì # 1ÇPjÖíÅ# ÔÐéM½# GçÐ½ì àÎ®ÆíÁg# GìÐsâÎM¹# kíÔLì # 2# gìh®íLg# §ì ¾í²Åíg
#GìÆtì ¾ô L# GçÆ¾ì ¾í # GçÐ]ì QtÁ# GçÂÂí©# ¿í©# §ì ÐìÅhì LÎìÁ# FìÓâÎÅhMªíÁ# Dìh\# Õ÷½Kì½FéÎÖ
# ##1ÇPjÖíÅ#ÔÐéLg#GìÐìÁúkìD
#=GéÐsì ié # §õ Ðì ¾ì Pg# ÇÏ÷ÓkíÓ# ÈàÎÖ½ÔPD# GìÆtì ½ô g# FìÓâÎÆìÐÆítÁíg# F÷Óiì âÍg# GìchúÖ
#aF÷ÓìiâÍg#GìchúÖg#Gì\Ôæ#aGìÆìÏûkÓ#1Déiìg#GìÂ¹hí\g#Gì\Ôæ#SlÂìÉ#G÷¹#RÅìD#aGìÐìÁhíµ
#1Àg# # FìÓâÎÆìÆÊí# néÁúk# G÷¹g# FúmàÍlì¹# ÍH# eÏíD# GìÏÎúÖ# G÷¹# GìÆtì ½ô # ÓâÎÆìÏkû Ó
153 152
12Àg#ì§ÂìÏlí½Í
#G÷jíÏ# Gç\ÔæÁ# GìchúÖ# ¿í©# # §ì ¶PÔí©# §ì QªsíÔL# §ì ÆìÐ¾íÁ# §ì PÎ\íÓ# ÔPD
#GìµàÎpì±g# GìLlís# GìÆPg# GìÐÉì âÎÖg# GçÐÅì níL# DéjQóÅ# GìÆÏ# EétQ±g# aGìÆtì ½ô # ÓâÎÆìÏkû Óíg
154
# #1GìÏàÍÓìD
# #FìÓâÎÏúl²æo#ÓâÎÆìÏûkÓíg#Gç\ÔæÁ 3.4
#aì§¾æ©# GúÖìD# Gìµ# # 1ÑÖÐíÆìÉg# §ì TÔì ¹íg# Gìp¹ì âÎ# hí\# ÈàÎÖ½# ÍúÎÖÔÐí½# GçÏhì ¹ì Dì
#FéÝÐæ ½âÎÁ# ÈàÎÖ¾tQ±# aGéÏjì ÐéÁâÎs# Ãí©# GìUÖú P# ¿ì¶s# hí\# ÈàÎÖ½DélLíg# ÇìD
155
##1Ãµ# §ì ÏìÔQ½Ó# FìÓâÎ²½íDg# GúÊ¾ô±# 2# GìÏúéÁâÎs# GìÏúÜæÜ# Gìpì¹âÎ# Õé\âÎ¾²í

#ÑíÆÏì kû Ó# #Gç]\ì Ü#2#ì§ÐìÁhíµ#GúÖ
156
ì #GìªPhP#Õ÷¾tQ±#GìÏ ú Áé âÎs#GìÆtì ½ô #aÔPDúlPlís
#ÒíÔLì #ÎìÉ#Ãµ#GìÐªì QUs#Dúkhì L#Gç]QdsûÍ#GìÏ ú Áé âÎsÍ#GìÏhì ¹ì Dì #GçÆtì ¾ô L#GçUPÔ¹#GçÐÆì tì ½ô
#ÔÐéL# ÎìÉ# FìÓâÎÅìhMªíÁ# ÈàÎÖ½EéÆµ# GçÏhì ¹ì Dì g# ÇìD# # 1FéÎÆQÅg# GçÐºì ¾íÁ# G÷¹iíD
157
#Iì½DélL#GçÆtì ½ô #ÑíÆÏì kû Ó#GçÅàÎ¶Qpºô½#Ãí©#GìÆtì ½ô #ÓâÎÆìÏkû Óíg#FìÓâÎÐìÆºí ÏíD#Dìh\#aÇÏéjÖíÅ

# #1(Coulmas, 1989: 80,GìÂÐ÷¾µíg#Gì®PnÁ#GìtÆô¹g#FúÎÉì

specific 150
precisely 151
harbinger 152
descent 153
orthographic 154
contact 155
texts 156
power, influence 157
#GìtQ±# aGìÏhì ¹ì Dì # GìÆtì ½ô # GìTÔì ºí½# GìÏ ú Áé âÎs# GìÆtì ½ô g# FìÓâÎÆ½hí©ÔæÁ# GúÖDì
158
#ÑíÆÐíL# GìÆtì ½ô # hí\# FéÎÖú # GìÏhì ¹ì Dì # GìÆtì ½ô g# Iì½hæM©âÎÁ# aGìÏhì ¹ì Dì # éÁâÎs# GìªPhP
#Gìµ# Gì¶PÔí©#GìÐÆì PhÁ#GìÂ¾ìªL#FìÓâÍlìÉÓí gûÍ# FìÓâÎÏìÔìÁàÎ¾Lægg# GìÐÅì Ôì ÁâÍD
161 160 159
#GìÏÜú Üæ #Gìp¹ì âÎg#ì§]í¾²íÁ 1(Diringer, 1968:22: Coulmas, 1989: 216)#Ãµ#Déigì #GìLkú

#kíÔLì #2#GìlíÏ#GìÆTûm#hí\#¿ûÖ½#Iì½K÷¾s#Kì½#GìÏhì ¹ì Dì #éÁâÎsg#ÍìD#GìÏ ú Áé âÎs#GìÆtì ½ô g
ú Áé âÎs# GçÆtì ½ô g# GìÐì±âÎ\
#GìÏhì ¹ì Dì # GìÆtì ½ô g# Çô±Dì # # 1FìÓÍû Ýû Áíg# GçÆtì ½ô # eÏíD# GìÏhì ¹ì Dì Í# GÏì 162
#¿¹# Õ÷½E÷²\# Kì½# # GìÏ ú Áé âÎs# GìÆtì ½ô # GìÆPD# aGìÏ ú Áé âÎs# GìÆtì ½ô g# # Gì±Îìt½# Õ÷¾Q¶s
#F÷ÓÍæ âÍÝÁ#ÍúÎÖ#SÎúÖ#hæL#Gõ±àÎ¾ìÏg#GìLkû #GìÆÐì ÆæÁ#hí\#aDúkÔö Mì ½ûÍ#GéÐÅì àÎÉjío#GçÆTûm#2%##1ÔPEìÆ¾ì ¹
ú Áé âÎs# GìÆtì ½ô # Õ÷²¾ì Ðí½# ÑÖÐí½Dô # FúÎÖÏ# G÷½Íú # RÅìD# GìÆPD# aGìÏhì ¹ì Dì # GìÆtì ½ô
#GìÆtì ½ô # hí\# eÏíD# GìÏ
#aGéÂQo# ÍúÎÖÏ# GétQ±# GçÐÆì tì ½ô # ÑíÆÏì kû Ó# GçÂì Ôô±Í# §õ ]ì tí\g# Déihæo# aGìtQÅ# GúÖDì # Gìµ# # 1GìÐ
ì hì¹Dì
#GìtÐì ±# ÈàÎ¶Qpºô½# hí\g# GìÐÁâÍhL# GìÂÐ÷ºoôD# hí\g# §ì QªsíÓg# FúÎÉì # §ì ÐìÁhíµ# GúÖÉì # FúÎÖP# GúÖDì Í
#GçÆìtô¾½# öÔÐéL# ì§ÆíÏhíÁÍ# GìUúÖP# ¿ì¶s 1(Hawkes, 1973: 217)# %Gì]Qds# FúÎÖÏ 163
#FúÎÉì # §ì ÐìÁhíµ# GúÖÉì # Gìµ# aÈàÎÖ½DélL# aGétPj±# GçÆìtô½# ÇÏékÓ# aGìÏìhì¹ìDÍ# GìÏúéÁâÎs
#GçÂÐì o# ÈàÎÖ¾ÂQo# GçÏhì ¹ì Dì # Déj²ìo# # 1GçÅàÎ¶Qpºô¾½# FìÓâÎ¶QÆpí½# a§ì UPÔ¹# §ì QªsíÓg
#GìÆtì ¾ô ½# ÑÖÐíÂÉì kâÍÓ# +2,# aGìÏúÜæÜ# GìÏúéÁâÎs# # GìÆìtô¾L# FõDàÎ¾Á# +1,# =ÈàÎÖ¾tQU\íg
##1+Diringer, 1968: 21,# GìÏ ú Áé âÎs# GìÆtì ¾ô Líg# FéjÁEéÁg# GéÂÉì iâÍÓ# # +3,# aGìÏhì ¹ì Dì
#DìhÏì míg#aFìÓâÎÏúl²æo#ÓâÎÆìÏkû ÓgûÍ#GìÆtì ½ô #ÓâÎÆìÏkû Óíg#GçÐÆì ²ì ½âÎÏ#FõÓÎú ¶QÆo#ÑÖÐíÐì¾Âí½
#ì§]í¾²íÁ#Gìµ# GéÏlæL#ÈàÎÖ¾tQ±#GçÐÆì tì ½ô #ÑíÆÏì kû Ó#ì§²í¾Áí g#GçÐ©ì ÝæÁ%#aGìÁÎìÐ½#GìÁÎìÏ#2#ÍúÎÖÏ
DeFrancis, )# %ÑÖÏíÓâÎÆìÐLûlÂí½# ÍúÎÖ# R¾Míµ# Déj²ìog# GìºÏíD# +§ì sûkhíÁ,# # GìLâÍgôD# ÎìÉ
165 164
.(1989: 87
#Dúkgì # Õ÷¾P# ÑÖÐíÁâÎ¶QogûÍ# §ì ÏúÜÜæ # §ì UPÔºíL# GéUPÔ¹# Déj²æog# §õ Pì Î\íÓ# ÔPD
## GìÐìÁhíµ# Dúkìg# Õ÷¾P# ÑÖÐíÁâÎ¶Qog# GéÅéj\öDÍ# (Walker, 1990: 27)# Ãµ# GìÐÁì híµ
#ì§]í¾²íÁg# GìÍk# Gì\ÔæÁ# GúÖDì # # 1 (Diringer, 1968: 21, Coulmas, 1989: 80)
166

modification 158
international 159
diplomacy 160
ancient civilised world 161
disappearance 162
devised, invented 163
#FìÓâÎÆìÁâÍDg##ì»ÏíD#%Gç\âÎ½#ÔÐéL%#Õ÷¾P#+Edubba or e-dubba,# GìLâÍgôDg#GìÐQ®Q½àÎÁàÎôD#Gì¾ì¹âÎo 164
Hawkes, 1973: 214-215, Saggs, 1989: 105, Walker, ,# ì§²ô½âÎÁ# DúÎÖÏ# GìtÐì±# E÷¹# ì§TíÔ¹íg
#ì§PlL#Iì¾tQ±#ì§sûkhíÁg#+GìÐÅæk##aGìÆìÐ©æk,#ì§Q©kíÓg#ì§ÐìÁhíµ#GúÖìÉ#FúÎÖãÏ##GúÖìD#aÔPEìÅÔì QªsíÓ# #1(1990: 43
#GìQhì¹ìD%#e-dubba#Gìµ#Õ÷¾Ï#GìÏúlµ##Saggs#qÊìog#DékâÎchí#Iì¾Ï#ì§]Qt\##1ì§ÐìtìÅöD#FìÓâÎÐìÆPhÁíg##FúÎìÉ
1(1989: 105)#GçÆì²¾íÁg#+FìÓâÎkíhÁ,#FìÓâÎpºíóÁ##ÓâÎL#FõÓúÎÆì©gÎìÁ#GìÂ¹hí\#Õ÷¾Ï#GìUúÖÏÍ#%FìÓâÍl²ìog
# #ÑÖÏíhí âÍÓ 165
#áÖ½ì #FéÎµ#ì§ÏúÜæÜ##ì§UPÔ¹íg#õ§ìPÎ\íÓ#GìÆÏ#GìtìU\íg##Geller#lì¾éÉg#õ§ìUPÔ¹#ÓâÎL#Õ÷¾Ï#R©âÍhíÁ#Kì½àÎ±lí± 166
#FìÓâÎÏúl²æo# ÓâÎÆìÏkû Óíg# GõÍk# Gç\ÔæÁg# FìÓâÍÔPÞ# Õ÷¾Ï# FúnÁì k# §ì ÏúÜÜæ # §ì UPÔ¹íg
#ì§ÐìÁkú Dì # hì¹Dì # FìÓâÎÏúl²æoÍ# + # §ì ÐìÆÐì ÊæÖÍ# §ì ÐìÅÓì kâÍÜ# §ì TìÔ¹# 1g1Ö,# ì§Ïìhì¹ìD# éÁâÎs
167
#FìÓkækâÎtÁ# ÔPEìÆì¾Ðí\# GìtÐì±g# GìÏÝìÁ# # 1+§ì ÏìÔÐéM²í½Dì Í# §ì ÐìÆÐì ÊæÖ# §ì TìÔ¹# 1g1Ö,
##õ§Ðì ¾ì Pg# 2# Dìh\# FúÎÖP# §ì ÐìÁkú Dì # +§ì Ðì¾UìL# kú àÍÓìD# 1g1Ö,# hì ¹ì Dì # FìÓâÎÏúl²æo# ÓâÎÆìÏkû Óíg
#eÏíD##1 §ì ÐìÆQÂìcDì Í#FìÓhí \#kàÍÓìD#aFìÓíh\#¿æMìLg#FõÓúÎÐìÆPhÁíg# # §÷
169
ì jµ#lPÔìÏ 168
#GìÆtì ½ô # ÓâÎÆìÏkû Óíg# Gç\ÔæÁ# RÅìD# 2g# GéÐsì ié # GçpØâÎ# aGçÏàÍÓìD#GõµàÎpì²L# bûn]íÁ# hæLg
#ì§¶ít±í # Gìµ# GìÁãÐ# GìÐ©ì ÝæÁ# hí\# eÏíD# Gé]¾ô ±âÎÁ# GìÆÏ# EétQ±# FìÓâÎÏúl²æo# ÓâÎÆìÏkû ÓígÍ
#RÅìD# ÓâÎL# GìtÆì Ðï Æí Líg# §ì ©íhPg# §ì ÅûkÔíªÁ# GìµÍ# ÇPjÖíÅ# ÔÐéLg# Gõ¶PÔí©# GçÆtì ½ô g
#GéÐsì ié #GçÐ©ì ÝæÁæ #ÍúÎÖP#FìÓâÎÏúl²æo#ÓâÎÆìÏkû ÓûÍ#GìÆtì ½ô #ÓâÎÆìÏûkÓ##1õ§ì¶PÔí©#FõÓúÎÐìÆPhÁ
#ì§ÐìÁkú Dì # ÔÐéM²í½Dì # a§ì PlL# Iì¾tQ±g# GìÅhì ©æ # 2# GúÖ %# # 1GìÐÁ ì kú Dì # kàÍÓìD# GìÆTûmg# §ì Ðí¾Êû Áíg
#Gìp¹ì âÎ# hí# Ôö ÐéL# FúÎÖÏ# GìlíÏ# # 170GìÅàÎìD# hí\# # 1§ì ÏúÜÜæ # §ì TìÔ¹íg# Gìp¹ì âÎ# Ã©í # Iì¾tQ¾±
#GìÔí Á#GìÆÐì ÆæÁ#hí#gâÎ]¾íL#Gì]¾ô ±âÎÁ#FúÎÖÏ#GìtQ±g#ì§TìÔ¹íg 172GìÐì lú µàÎÏÓÍ# Kì½mlíªÁ 171
##1GìÂ©í #Õ÷¾º½#FúÎÖÏ#GìÐóì Áíg#GìóQt±#GìÐì lú µàÎg#Gìp¹ì âÎ#híÍû #a173GìtPl±#GìÂôÓ#ÑíÆLíg

#ÔÐéLg#ì§Lûk#ì§Æì ÁûÍ#GìPkâÎo#Iì¾¹#ÎìÉ#I÷¾pPl±#GìÐÁì kú Dì #GìÆtì ½ô #aÃµ#GìÐªì QUs#Dúkgì g#GìÁÓì âÎ
#G÷ºPjíÏ# Gç\ÔæÁ# GçÅíD# # 1(Diringer, 1968: 200; cf., Toynbee, 1947: 19)%1ÇPjÖíÅ
#a%ì§ÏúéÁâÎs% §ì ÐìÐÅæk# 1g1Ö,# FìÓâÎÏúl²æo# ÓâÎÏìÔQ½Ó# ÍìD# FìÓâÎÏúl²æo# ÓâÎÆìÏkû Óíg
#hí# # FìÓâÎ¶QÆo# Dìh\# ÈàÎÖ½DélL# +%ì§ÐìÁúkìD%# §ì ÏìÔÐéM²í½ìDÍ %ì§Ïìhì¹ìD%# §ì ÐìÆÐì ÊæÖ
#GétPj±# GçsgìÞ# ÍúÎÖ# Smæn©í Í# Rolì±g# Gõ²Q¾íÏ# GçÆÁì âÍD# G÷±àÍÜjí±g# GìÂôÓ
174
#ÑÖÐíÆÁæ # GìLkú Í# aDéj²ìo# EéªPhÏ# ÈàÎÖ¾tQ±# GçÆÁì âÍDg# GìÂôÓ# GúÖDì # # 1FìÓâÎÏúl²æog
#Gìº¾íÁg## âÎÆìÁâÍD#alì¶Q\íD#aGìºsì âÎ±#Kì½g#1ÍúÎÖÏ#GéÏjì ²æo#ÑíÆÏì ií ÓûÍ#GçÐÆì tì ô½#ÑíÆìÏíiÓ
175
#Déj²ìo#GçÅDí #2#hí\#a(Tadmor, 1975: 42; Greenfield, 1985: 699) ÈàÍhí\líoôD#GìÏúkàÍÓìD

#FÓõ Îú TæÜ#GéÏâÍn]íÁ# #ì§Æè Mæ ½#Dìh\#Õ÷¾Lé âÎµ#GìÐÁì kú Dì #Dúl²ìo#hí\g#ÇìD##1FúÎÖÏ#GçÖÂítÁ
176
#ÕéÐÆí¶½# Õ÷¾Q¶s# GçÖÉì # GìÂ¹hí\# ÍH# # aGìÏkú àÍÓìD# GìÆtì ¾ô L# GéUPÔ¹# GéÐÅì Óì iâÎD÷Ó 177
#Déj²ìo##1(Breasted, 1944: 165)#GìÐÁì kú Dì #GìÆtì ¾ô Líg#F÷ÓÎú ÅìjQªÂíL#ì§Æè Mæ ½#Õ÷½#GìÂQskûÍ

# #+##651#0226#1g1Ö,#GçÐÆì pì oì g#GçÆTûm#¿ûÖ½#ÔPEìÆÏì ÎûÖÔæÁ#(continued)
Ideographic and syllabic writing 167
salient 168
Neo-Babylonian, Neo-Assyrian and Achaemenian civilisations 169
struggle#aDúkk
ú âÍg 170
complicated ,GìÅl ú óôµ 171
theocratic 172
privileged class 173
promote, strengthen 174
ummanu (counsellor) 175
tablet "GçÆMô½%#GìÐÅ
ì Eì QÊío 176
Business matters 177
#GìÏìhìÐ©# GìLúk# ShÆéÁ# hí\Í# aGçÐÆì ó

ì ½âÎs# GçLÔdíÁ# ÎìÉ# Gé]¾ô ±âÎÁ# ÍúÎÖ# RtÐì±# GéÐÁì iì Dì
#ÈàÎÖ½# ÍúÎÖ# EéÂ\í # §ì ÏúkàÍÓìD# FìÓâÍkàÎúl²ÁôDg# GìÐÁì kú Dì # # GìÅÓì hæs# hí\g# FúÎÖÏ
178
#hí¹#a Gìclô¹#hí\#¿í©#FìÓâÎÏhíLÍ#GìÐÆíµ#hí#EìTÔì ¹#hí¹# ÈàÍ÷²ì±#¿í©#ÑÖâÍjìósôD

180 179
Breasted, )#GìÆQg#ì§èÆæM½#Dìh\#¿í©# #ì§Q±àÍlÉ#Dìh]íL#Õ÷¾UPÔ¹#GìÏúkàÍÓìD#Õ÷úk

181
#GçÉÍúmg#GìÆ¹ì kíÔtæÁ#GìÆ
ì âÎ±Í#FìÓâÎÏúl²æog# Breastedg##¿æª¾íL#Gì¶sì âÎ±##1(1944: 187
#GéÏiì àÍÓìD# Gç\âÎ½# 2# GìLkú # ÎìÉg# Déjóì sôEL# DìhQÆo# ÔPEìÐ¾æÁ# Õ÷¾Ï# GìtQ±# Déj²ìog
#Õ÷¾Ï GìtUì \íg#ÍH#eÏíD#a GéÐ¶ì QàÎ½àÎÐ¹iíD#FõÓÎú Æì]ºtæ#GéÐ½âÎÊÁ#ÈàÎÖ¾tQ±g
182
#kúÝô¾Q±# Ôì¾µæg# Gìº¾íÁg# GéTìjµ# 2# hí\# ÎìÉ# §ì ¾Q¶s# Iì¾tQ±g# FìÓnæLg# Kì¾®æp½ 183
# #1(Walker, 1990: 46)#Ãµ#7270744#aGìÏÔì Q½Ó
# #GìÆÐì Ææ© .4
##
# #GìÆìÐÆæ©g# F÷ÓìjQÖíÅ 4.1
184
# §õ Ðì ¾ì É#Ãí©#FìÓâÎÏìÔÐíL#ÈàÎÖ½ÔPDg#¿æª¾íL#õ§Pì Î\íÓÍ#FõDàÎ¾Áíg#ì§Tûl¶íÁ#ÎìÉ
185
#GìÆÐì ÆæÁ# hí\# aGçÆtì ½ô g# GìÐ±ì âÎ\Í# FìÓâÎÆìÐÆítÁ# a§ì TìÔ¹gûÍ# GìÆtì ½ô g# §ì Ðì¾L# eÏíD# a§õ Ðì Æì tì ½ô
# #=§ì ²ì ½#ÈàÎÖ¾óQ¾±#ÔPEìlµ# GéÆTì iíÔí pæÁ#Kì½#Dékjì síg
186
##1 ÔPDìh]æÁ# R²ì\# Kì½# §ì TìÔ¹íg# Gìp¹ì âÎ# hí\Í# GìÆtì ½ô # hí\# aFìÓâÍglíÁ# Dìh\ 11
187
##1GìÐ²ì ±ì kûÍ# GìÏhì ]æÁ# GìÐ±ì âÎ# GìÆÏ# GçÐ¾ûÊÁíg# GìtÆì Ðï Æí L# eÏíD# GìÆÏ# Kì½# RÅìD
188
#Gì\ÔæÁ#hí\#RsælÊíÁ#G÷¹##õ§Ðì Æì tì ½ô #FõÓÍú ÔPD#GçÅDí #2#Dìh]¾¹g#GìÐ±ì âÎ\Í#ì§Ðì¾L

#FìÓkâÍg# GìÏlôµ#uæÐ±ì #G÷¹#Gç\ÔæÁ#GçÅDí #2#hí]¾¹##1Déigì #GìÏkíh\í #ÍìD#GìÂ¹hí\g
# #1FìÓâÎÆìÐÆítÁíg
#ÓâÎÆìÏkû Óíg#Gç\ÔæÁ#ì§²ì ½#Ró¾ì±g#K÷½Íú #aFìÓâÎÆìÐÆítÁíg#F÷ÓìiâÍg#GçÅíDg#Gì\Ôæ 12
1FìÓâÎÏúl²æo#ÓâÎÆìÏkû ÓgûÍ#GìÆtì ½ô
#Gì\âkÍEL#GìÏÎúÖ#Kì½#a§ì TìÔ¹íg#Gçp¹ì âÎÍ#GçÆtì ½ô #aF÷ÓúÍgjí#öÔÐéL#DìÓâÎÆìÐÆítÁ 13

Official, government employee 178
papyrus 179
roll 180
stylus 181
archaeological discoveries 182
booty 183
highlights 184
phenomena 185
undeniable 186
suddenly 187
vulnerable 188
#Gì\ÔæÁ#hí\#Gìµ#Kì½Dô #aGìÅlé \öD#ÍHg#Gì±Îìs#Õ÷¾¶ì s#ÔPEìÆ¾ì º¾¹#ÑÖÐíÆÁæ #hí\g

##ÔPEìÍk#RÆéÏhíÁ#Gô¹#ì§TìÔ¹íg#Gçp¹ì âÎÍ#GçÆtì ½ô #aF÷ÓÍú gjíÁ#GìchúÖ#GìÆTûmg
#2# GìÂ¹hí# R¶Uìs# G÷¹# # 1ÄÍ# 1À# aGéÅjé \öD# DéjMí# # 1Dégìh\Dô # 2
189
##1 Gìmú âÎÁgûÍ# §ì ÆíÏhíÁg# Gì\kâÍEL# 2Ä# Í# 2À# ÎìÉ#

191
ÑÖÐíÆ¹ì jís 190
#GìtÐì±#E÷¹# 2Ä#Í# 2À#ÎìÉ#GéÐÅì Óì ÍgjíÁÍ#GçÐÆì tì ½ô #GçÆ¹ì jís#GìchúÖg# FìÓâÍÔPD 192
11Ä#Í#1Àg#GìÐì±âÎ\#kíÔìL#2#Déiìg#Gìµ
GìÆìÐÆæ©g# GìÐìÅlío#DúkÎì\ 4.1.1

193
#FìÓkâÍgg# FìÓâÎÆìckhû# Õ÷¾Ï# DúoöD# GìÆÐì Ææ©# GúÖDì g# GìÐÅì lío# DúkÎì\# hí\
194
#vâÎL# GìÉlæÖ# GúÖDì g# Gìó¾ì ±# ÖéhUì ªí½# 1FìÓâÍglíÁÍ# GìÆtì ½ô # ÎìÉ# ÔPEìÆ¾ì Pg# aFìÓâÎÆìÐÆítÁíg
#GìtUì ]í½#GìÏÔô ±âÎÁ#uæÐ±ì #GìÉlæÖg# Gìdoì g#Iì¾Ï#ì§¶QÆo#a GìÆÂ
196
ì ]í½ÔæÁÍ#GìÆÐì Álí±ÔæÁ
195
#ÑíÆL# FìÓâÍglíÁg# FìÓâÎÆìÐÆítÁ# Dìh\ûÍ# GìÆtì ½ô # hí\g# GìpØâÎ# hí\# 2# DúkàÍÝìL# K½ì # ÖéÎÉì
#GçÂÂí©#ÑÖÐí¾¹#GìtÐì±#Gìwhí\g#aGìÆìÐpæÅ#Õ÷¾P#GìÁàÎ]ì½#GìpØâÎ#GìchúÖ#hí\#1# GìÆTûm 197
#GìóÖûlL# GìÆÏ# Õ÷¾LâÎµ# aGì¹éÁìDg# DçhÐí# GçÅìh\âÍD# ÎìÉ# GìÆÏ# GéoôDÓâÎsg# GçLìÓÍìÓ
#FìÓâÎÆìÐÆítÁíg# Gìpì ã½Îog# §ì ¶íLhû# # 1GêÐÖú ÁôD# ÑÖïÐÆí tì ½ô # ÑÖÏûló
198
ì Æí½# ÑÖÐísìÓâÎ¹g
#hæL#ì§¶PÔí©#ÇPjÖíÅ#ÔÐéML#Õ÷½#DéÎÖíg#ÍH#Ãí©#Gì¹éÁìDg#DçhÐí#GçÅìh\âÍD#ÎìÉ#GìÆìtô½g
##aGìÏàÍlìµg# FìÓâÎÂ]í¾Á# Gìµ# 1GétPj±# ÔPEìlµ# GìÆPg# GçpØâÎ# ÇÏékÓ# Çí¾PÎúÖ
199
#ÔÐéLg#ÍHÍ#%Gì¹éÁìDg#GìpØâÎ%#Õ÷¾\ûlµì #hæL#Gì¹éÁDì g#DçhÐí#GçÅìh\âÍDg#GìpØâÎ

#FìÓkâÍg# aGì¹éÁìDg# GìpØâÎóL# 1%ÇPjÖíÅ# ÔÐéLg# GìpØâÎ%# §ì ¶PÔí©# ÇPjÖíÅ
#2# §ì ÏûlítL# aFõÓhì ½ÍìÓ# Ôì½Óíg# Eì\Ôæ# DúlÂìÉ# G÷¹# FìÓâÍglíÁÍ# GìÆtì ½ô g# FìÓâÎÆìÐÆítÁíg
#GìÐpì ¾ô ÊÅôD# GìÆtì ¾ô ½# GìÐokâÎ²Á# Õ÷¾Ï# GìtÐì ±# GìÐìÆìÂÖàÎ# GìÂí©g# ÇìD# GìÅìhæ©
200
#ÇPjÖíÅ#ÔÐéLg#GìpØâÎóL##aGì¹éÁìDg#GìpØâÎg#Gìd²æÖL##1 §ì ÐìpcàÎóoôD#FìÓâÍglíÁÍ 201
##1Déigì # GìÏkíh\í # Gìslæ ÊíÁ# E÷¹# FìÓâÍglíÁÍ# GìÆtì ½ô g# FìÓâÎÆìÐÆítÁíg# FìÓkâÍgg# # FìÓâÍÂÉ

# #1FìÓâÍglí#%Ä%Í#GìÆtì ¾ô ½#Iì¾Ï#FúnÁ
ì k#%À% 189
residues 190
blending 191
presence 192
pivotal aspect 193
concept 194
viable 195
scope#aGì\Íûk 196
Contemporary language and cultural shift 197
pattern 198
convenience 199
exposure#FìÓâÎÆìÐolí²Á exposed to 200
mainstream culture 201
#aGçpØâÎ#ÇÏékÓ#GçÅÞ í #öÔÐéL#DúlTâÎÉ#GìÆsì kâÎ±#hí\#ÔPDg#ÔPEìlµ#Iì¾Ï#GéÅâÎÐMíÁ

#FìÓkâÍg# Í# FìÓkÎ©m#FìÓâÎÆìÐÆítÁíg#FìÓkâÍg#=ÈàÎÖ¾]ûÖÂítÁ#hæL#DúkÔìM½ûÍ#GìPhúÖ#2g
#GìUÖú P#¿ì¶s#hí\#aGì]¾ì ±#Slìs#F÷Óiì âÍg#ÑÖÏûÍk÷Óg#Äìhµ#2##1FìÓlTâÎÉ#FìÓâÎÆìÐÆítÁíg
# FìÓâÎÅìhMªíÁÍ# FìÓâÍÝQ\# a §ì \âÎtÁ# # 1F÷Óiì âÍg# ÇÏ÷ÓkíÓ# GçÅÞ
204 203 202
í # Ôö ÐæL# FéÎÖú g# K÷½Íú
#GìtUì \íg#FçnµâÎÅ#GìLkú #¿í©#GìÆÏ#GéÐ½ôÓ# 2Ä02À#ÀûÍ# 1Ä# -1À#öÔÐéL#GìUÖú P#¿ì¶s#GúÖDì g
#Kì¾Ðí\#aGìÐpì Qì o#Kì¾Ðí\#aDéiàÎÂì©g#GìÆìÐÆæÁ#aGçÐìÅìÔPgÍìÓÍ#GéÐìQØìjÉàÍEéÉ# Gç®ìÐo#=GìÆÏ 205
#a FìÓâÎÆìÅÎúÖÔæÁÍ# §ì ÐìÆ²ì ½âÎÏ# FìÓâÍânPkm# a GìÐìÅìÓâÎ]tí # Kì¾Ðí\# aGìÐìpÐíÉ

208 207 206
#FìÓâÍglíÁ#Dìh\#ÍìD#GìÆtì ½ô #hí\#GìÂ¹íg#eÏíD##1Gì¹lísÍ#FìÓâÍglíÁÍ#GìÆtì ½ô g# FìÓâÎUQU 209
#Gìµ#GéoiâÎ±#aEéÅjé \öD#F÷ÓÍú gjíÁ#ÍìD#GçÆtì ½ô #2#Gì¶\âÍkÍ#ÔPEìQØúlÉàÍEéÉ#GìÆÏ# DéhPl± 210
#Õ÷¾Ï# GìÏÎú Ö# FìÓâÎÐìÆºí ÏíD# GúÖDì g# Gìó¾ì ±ûÍ# aGìÆÏ# DéiàÍÝìL# vâÎL# GìUÖú ãÏ# ¿ì¶s
## #FìÓâÎÅìgglí²Á# GúÖìDg#GìóQt±#GìpØâÎ#hí\##1GìclìÏ#hæL#GìÆtì ½ô #hí\g#FìÓâÎÆìÏÎí¶Áíg
211
#GúÊ¾ô²L# ÕéÐì\g# Õ÷¾Ï# GìÏÝæÁg# # GìÐºì pìL# GìÆtì ½ô g# FìÓâÎÆìÏÎí¶Á# Õ÷¾P# §ì ÐìQØúlÉàÍEéÉ
212
#GéÐ±ì àÍiÍôD0âÍhÆæÖ# GçÆtì ¾ô L# §ì PlL# Iì¾tQ±g# # # §ì µàÎ]ìs# §ì ÐìÆtì ½ô # FìÓâÎ¶Q©# Dìh\íg

213
#ÔPEìÆì¾Ðí\#Õ÷½ôD#ÈàÎÖ¾¶æÐ©âÎÁg#RÆÏíD# #GéÐpì ÆìÁàÍi#GçÆtì ½ô #ÔPEìÆ¾ì Pg#a# Öékhì ]í½g

215 214
#GìÐìÁúkìD#GìÆìtô½g#FìÓâÎÆìÏÎí¶Á#a FìÓâÎÐÁìg#GúÖEì L#lûÖ###.(Cenoz & Perales, 2001: 92)

216
#aGìÐLì lú ©í # GìÆtì ½ô g# §ì ÆìÆó

ô ¾ítÁ# FÓì âÎÅìhMªíÁg# Déigì # lípªítÂí\g# §ì ±ì # ÎìÉ# aGìÆìÁÎìÐ½
#GìÆTûm# 2# GúÖ# GéÏlæL# ÈàÎÖ¾tQ±g# GçÐÅì Ôì PgÍìÓÍ# GéÐQì ØìjÉàÍEéÉ# Gç®Ðì oíg# §ì ¾æªL# Iì½DéÎÖ
#Eé\âÎdtí# aGçÆì¾Ðí\# GéÐ±âÍgjíL# aG÷¶Ðæ ©âÎÁ# ÈàÎÖ¾tQ±# GìÐÁì kú Dì # GìÆtì ¾ô L# GçÆ¾ì ¾í gí
#ÈàÎÖ½EìÐÁâÎ\g# GìºÏíD# GÐì ©ì ÝæÁ# GìhíÁg# GéÅiì âÎ# GçÂÐ÷¾µ# ÎìÉ# EìoÎìÉ# ÔÐéL
#GçÉÍú âÍm#aÒH#¿í©##1FìÓâÎÆìÂ¾tíÁg#ràÎÆìÐµàÍD#hí\g#GúÊ¾ô²L#ì§Ðì]QtÁ#ÑÖÏíÓâÎÆìÂÐûÖ
#Ö÷Ô\âÎtÁíg# GìÂ¹# a GìtÆô¹g# GìMéÉ# 2# # 1GéÁæl\âÎÁ# ÍúÎÖÏ# GétQ±# õ§ìÏgÍìÓ# ÑíÆÐíL
217

volume 202
intensity 203
efficacy 204
barriers 205
economical 206
prowess 207
intellect 208
prestige 209
isolated 210
isolation 211
Basque language 212
overwhelming linguistic adversity 213
surrounding Indo-European languages 214
# #aGìÐ®ì ½ì àÓkàÎ±##aGìÐÐì Æì²oôF#aGìÐpì ÅúlØ#eÏíD#GìÐÆì PÔì½#GìÆtì ½ô #2#GçÆì¾MíÏÔæÁ#GçÆìtô½ 215
# #Gì¹lísÍ#GìÐìÐ¾ìóPD######
similarly 216
population 217
#Kì¾Ðí\g# GìÂ¹# aFìÓâÎÐÁìg# GúÖìEL# 1Ö÷ÓâÎÅìhMªíÁ# Iì¾Ï# Kì¾Ðí¹# ÍIL# lûÖ# aIì¾Ï# DìÓlTâÎÉ
#Iì¾Ï#Kì¾Ðí¹#ÍIL#lûÖ#aÕ÷¾Ï#DúlTâÎÉ#FìÓâÍÔPD#Dìh\íg#GìÐìpÐíÉÍ#GìÐìÅìÓâÎ]tí #aGìÐìpìQo
1#IìLDô #Iì¾Ï#Gì¶±ì Óíg#FìÓâÍÔPD#¿í©#ÈàÎÖ½DéÎÖú #hæLg#HìÓâÍglíÁgûÍ#IìÆìtô½g#FìÓâÎÅìhMªíÁ
#GéoiâÎ±#GìÆÏ#GìUúÖÏ# %F%#FìÓâÍÔPDg#GçÐÅì Óì âÎ]tí #FõÓÎú ÐìÆºí ÏíD#ÈôD#aGìpØâÎ#Gìµ##
#DúlTâÎÉ#EìÆÐì ÆæÁ#hí\g#ì§súlÉ#FéÎÖú #hæL#EìÏhì ]æÁ#Gìó¾ì ±#a# FìÓâÎÆì]¾²íÁ#Gìµ#DéjPÔíÏ
218
#ÈôD# # 1GìÆÏ# Kõ¾Q# vâÎL# GçÐÅì Óì âÎ]tí # GéoiâÎ±g# GìºÏíD# %O%# FìÓâÍÔPD# 2# GçtÅì Dö g
#GçLÓì ÍìÓg# EìÆìÐÆæÁ# aDìhÆì½lÏ÷Dg# DúkÓíEL# §ì PÎÖ# GìÏÎúÖ# Kì½# G÷±àÎjôµg# FìÓâÎÆ²í¹
219
#vâÎL# GìPÎÖ# FúÎÖ# DéÎÖú # líM¹# Gì¹éÁDì g# DçhÐí# GçÅhì \âÍD# ÎìÉ# GéÏhì Æì½jÏ÷D
220
#hí# ÈàÎÖ½DélLâÎÁ# FìÓâÎÆì]¾²íÁ# Gìµ# DéjPÔíÏ# GéoiâÎ±# aKì¾¹ì âÎo# GúÖEì L# lûÖ# # 1DúkàÍÝìL
#bíÓìDg# Ç ì D# 1Gì¹éÁDì g# DçhÐí# GçÅhì \âÍÞ# Gì±àÍkÍ÷D# 2# FìÓâÎTìÓÍìÓg# GìLkû # Gì²½í
#GìpØâÎ#ÍH#aFìÓâÍglíÁÍ#GìÆtì ½ô g#FìÓâÎUQUûÍ#FìÓâÎÆìÅÎúÖÔæÁÍ#ì§ÐìÆ²ì ½âÎÏ#FìÓâÍânPkní½
# # §ì Æì¾]æ ¾í\Í# # # §ì ÐìUÖú kâÎo# # # # §ì oúl±# # FúÎÖP# ÑÖÐí¾¹g# GìÁàÎ]ì½# GìÐÆì PjÖíÅ# ÔÐéL
222 221
##1GìÐì©ÝæÁ# GìhíÁ# Õ÷¾ºL# ´ìD# Kì½Dô # aÇPjÖíÅ# ÔÐéL# Iì¾ºL# gâÎ]¾íL# Kì½# GìÐÁì kú Dì # GìÆtì ½ô g
#Kì½# RÅìDg# Ç÷±Dì # # 1FìÓâÍlìÉÓí g# Kì¾¶í\# ÎìÉ# DçgàÎUì©# vâÎL# ÑÖÐí¾¹# 2# ÍúÎÖP# GéÐÁì iì Dì
#ì§ÐìâÍk# §ì Æì¾Ðí\# §ì ÐìpQì o# FìÓâÍÔPD# Dìh\# ÍìD# FìÓâÍkâÎúl²ÁôD# Dìh\# ÈàÎÖ¾oôDÓâÎtÁ
#ì§¾æªL# # FúÎÖÏ# GìÆÐì ÅíÔtæÁÍ# GìÆÐì Ææ# FúÎÖÏ# GìLkû # ÑÖÐítÆô¹# GìÆPD# aÑÖÐíÆÉì g
#GçÐìÂQs#GçÂÂí©#RÅìD#ÍúÎÖP#RÅìD#aGìÅìhæ©#ÒIL#lûÖ##1 ì§ÐìÅìÓâÎ]tí #ÑÖÏíÓâÎÝíÁg
223
#HâÎÁìhÉ# GìchúÖ# ÔìÂì¾ìÁ# # 1§ì Ðì¶QÆQØ# ÔÐéM²í½Dì # ÈàÎÖ½DúkÍæ âÎ# ÔPDìgàÎUì©g# GçÐÁì híµ
#GìÆìtô½# hí\# eÏíD# Ö÷ÓâÎpºíóÁÍ# Õ÷¹âÍgÍ# GìÐÁì kú Dì # GìÆtì ½ô g# §ì ÐìUÖú kâÎo# # §ì oúl±# Õ÷¾Ï
224
# ##=GìÐoì lì±#GìÆtì ½ô gûÍ#+GìÏkú àÍÓìD#GìÐ¾ì UìL,#GìÏhì ¹ì Dì #GìÆtì ½ô g#Gì±ÎìtL#DìgÍú âÎog

#ÔPEìÍk# vâÎLÍ# a§ì óQt±# Ö÷ÔUPÔºíL# §ì ¶æsâÎ²Á# Iì¾tQ±# GìÐÁì kú Dì # GìÆtì ½ô g# §ì oúl±%#########
225
#GçÐìÁìiDì g#ì§Ïúóµ#FìÓâÎÆÐìÅÔí tæ###a226#GìLkû #Kì¾Ðí¹#hígí #ì§ÐìtÆô¹#FìÓâÎÆìÐÅíÔtæ#ì§PÔ±âÎÁ

#FúÎÊú L# ÑÖÏíÔtôÓô # a§ì ÏúkàÍÓìD# FìÓâÍkàÎúl²ÁôDg# FúÎÊú L# FìÓlé \öD# GúÖÉì # Dìh\# ÑÖÏíÔÏûltíÁÍ
#GçÅíD##1GéÐÅì Óì iâÎD÷Ó#ÑÖïÏÓí Íú gàÎUì©g#FìÓâÎÍkûÍ#a§ì ÏúkàÍÓìD#FìÓâÎÆìpÅlí²ÁÍ#GìÏkú àÍÓìD#ì GìpÐíÉg
#÷§Ðì Áì iì Dì # §÷ Ïì jtíÁ# ÃíªÂí©# a§ì ÐìÅÔì ÁâÍD# ÔÐéL# FìÓâÍlìÉÓí g# §÷ \ì iâÍEL# GéÐÅì Óì iâÎD÷Ó# ÑÖïÏÓí Íú gàÎUì©
#ÈàÎÖ¾TôÓâÎÁ# # # a227# §ì ÐìÆpì càÎóoôD# ÑÖÐíÐµâÍn\# ÓâÎ¶QÖ½ûÍ# Kõ¾²ìµg# DéjTâÎÉ# GìÏltíÁ# Òï Ôí Mì L

employment 218
potato famine 219
g#Gìº¾íL perhaps 220
swift 221
pervasive 222
economic prosperity 223
status 224
was facilitated, made easy 225
large scale population movement 226
inherent wanderlust 227
Malamat ) ".DúkÔìM½ûÍ#Ãµ#GìÐªì QsÓ#Dúkgì #2#GìÐ©

ì ÝæÁ#Gìhû#FìÓâÍlìÉÓí g#FìÓâÎÁhí¶½#ÑÖÐí½Dô
# #(1973: 148
#G÷µâÎtí±g# G¢ìÁàÎµ# GìÐÁì kú Dì # GìÆtì ½ô gûÍ# §ì ÐìÁkú Dì # FìÓâÍglíÁg# Gç Æ¾ì Ðí\# DéiÎì\# RÅìD# ÑÖÐí¾¹
#FìÓâÎÏÔí±Í#GìÐÁì kú Dì #GìÆtì ¾ô ½#GìÏhì ¹ì Dì #GìÆtì ½ô #2#FìÓâÎÆìÐÆítÁíg#FìÓkâÍgg#FìÓâÎÏlíº½#GìÆÏ
# #1GìÐìÁúkìD#GìÆìt½ô g#ì§Ík
# # #GìÆìÐÆæ©g#GìÐìÁhíµ#GìÐìÅlío#DúkÎì\##4.1.2
#GúÖDì g#GìÐÅì lío#DúkÎì\#hí\#eÏíD#ì§tPkg#Iì¾tQ±#GìÆtì ½ô g#FìÓâÎÆìÐÆítÁíg#FìÓkâÍg
#ì§ÆíÐMíÁ# Iì¾P# ÑÖÐí¾¹g# GìÐÅì lío# vâÎL# DúkÎì\# ÍH# GìÆPD# # 1¿æª½íg# GìµàÎpì²L# GìLlís
#gâÎ]¾íL#Kì½#FúÎÖPg#RÆÏíD#FìÓâÎÏúl²æo#ÓâÎÆìÏkû ÓígÍ#GìÆtì ½ô #ÓâÎÆìÏûkÓíg#G÷ºPjíÏ#Gç\ÔæÁg
#GìÆìskâÎ±#ÍH#´ìD#Kì½ìD#aFìÓâÎÆìÐÆítÁíg#FìÓkâÍg#GúÖìDg#GìÐìÆì¾Pg#vâÎL# #GìÆìskâÎ±#ÍH 228
#Gõ²ì¾\âÎsÍ#Dégìh\ôEL#ÈàÎÖ¾¶Q±Óíg#ÇìD#¿¹#õ§ì¶PÔí©#F÷ÓúÍgjíÁg#GìÆæÐLâÎÁ#lPÔíÏ
#3.2g#GìµàÎpì²L#1Déghì \ôEL#ì§¶ì±Ó#GúÖDì g#Fáó ì ¾ì ±#eÏíD#ÈàÎÖ½DéÎÖíg# #GçÏÍú âÎ½#GçÐÆì PhÁ
229
#E÷¹# eÏDígÍ# GìÆìtô½g# FìÓâÎÆìÐÆítÁíg# FìÓkâÍgg# GìpcàÎóoôDg# GõhÉ# Gõ¶sì âÎ±# a¿æª¾íL
#hæL#aGìLlís#GúÖDì g#FìÓâÎÐ¶ÆíÅDì g#ì§¾æªL#EìÆPD#1GéUQÖÏ#ÈàÎÖ¾tQ±#aDìÓâÍÔPÞ#GìÏÓìD
#HìÔÏìÓDö g# Gì\kâÍDÍ# GìÆtì ½ô g# FìÓâÎÆìÐÆítÁíg# FìÓkâÍg# ÓâÎL# ÔPGìÍk# vâÎL# _ískìg
#Õ÷½D÷ÓöDg#GìÆìtô¾½#2ÀÍ#aGìÐìÁhíµ#GìÆìtô¾½#Õ÷¾Ï#FúnìÁk#1À#aÔ\íÔ¾íL#1#G¶ì tì L##1FìÓâÍÔPÞ
#ì§Pn\# Iì¾Ï# GìtÐì ±# a2À# Í# 1À# aGçÆtì ½ô # ÑÖÏûÍkôÓg# FìÓâÎÆìÐÅíÔtæÁ# 1ÖékÔíL# 2
230
[See Figure 2/1 in English version]1Dçgh ì \ôDg#Gìd²æÖ#EìÆPg# FõÓìÔtôµ#ÇÏ÷ÓkíÓg#GìâÍlL

231
#FúÎÖÏ#GìÐóæÁ# 1À#GìÆtì ½ô g#ÇìD#GìÅhì ªæ ½#Õ÷¾Ï#FúnÁì k# 1À#ì§tôµg#GìÐ¾ì ©æ #FúnµâÎÅ

#a #Ô\íÔ½#FìÓÊíÅ#FìÓâÎÆìÐ¾íÝæÁ#Iì¾Ï#GéÏâÍlís#IúÊÏILÍ#a #FìÓâÎó¾ítÁíg#GìÅlí¶½
233 232
#2À# GìÆtì ½ô g# §ì tôµ# aGúÖDì g# Gìd²æÖL# # 1FìÓâÎó¾ítÁíg# # EìÐÆì ì kíg# GìÅlú oâÎ# Iì¾Ï# FúnÁì kíg
#GúÖDì g#ÇìDÍ## Õ÷kíg#ÓâÎÆìÏkû Ôí½#Õ÷¾Ï#FúnÁì kíg#Gì±âÎ¹#Ví#FúnµâÎÆL#Iì¾Ï#GéÏâÍlís
234
#GìÆtì ½ô #GúÖDì g#bûÎÏ#GìÏnú \#aFúnµâÎÅ#GúÖDì #kíÔLì #2##1§ì ÐìÁhíµ#GúÖÉì #Gìµ#ÕéÆÐé LâÎÁ#GìÆtì ½ô

#Iì¾¹g#Gì\Ôæ##1ì§tôµg#GìÁìÓâÎ#GìÐì¾æ©#Ví#ÕéÅlí¶½#GìÐìóÁûÍ#Õ÷¾Ï#GìÂìÏk#ÔPDúÊíÅ
#GìÁÎíµ#hí\g# FìÓâÍkÔíÐÁíg#GétPj±#G÷iíg#bûÎÏ#GìÏnú \#aFìÓâÎÆìÐÆítÁíg#FìÓkâÍg#GúÖìD
235
#aFìÓkâÍgg# GìÐìÁhíµ# GúÊ¾ô²L# # 1FìÓâÎÏúl²æo# ÓâÎÆÏûkÓgûÍ# GìÆtô½# ÓâÎÆìÏkû Óíg# # GìUQcÓ 236
#Iì¾Ï#GéÏâÎÆís#FìÓâÎó¾ítÁ#GìÆÏì kû Ó#GúÊ¾ô²L##1Iì¾Ï#ì§ÆìÆó ô ¾ítÁ# 1À#GìÆtì ½ô g#FìÓâÍkÔíÐÁ

feature 228
concomitant 229
movement 230
curves 231
peak of dominance 232
steady downward bent 233
subordinate status 234
different degrees of proficiency 235
continuous status 236
#GìtÐì ±#GìÆtì ½ô #ÓâÎÆìÏkû Óíg#FìÓâÍkÔíÐÁíg#FìÓâÎÏÎísg#Gì\ÔæÁ#hí\#a#X#FúnµâÎÆL##12À#GìÆtì ¾ô ½

#2À#GìÆtì ¾ô ½# 1À#GìÆtì ½ô #2#FìÓâÍkÔíÐÁíg#GìÐìÅâÎs##aFúnµâÎÅ#GúÖDì #kíÔLì #2##1DúMo#Õ÷¾Ï
#ÈàÎÖ¾ÔÁ# FìÓâÎÏúl²æo# ÓâÎÆìÏûkÓgûÍ# GìÆìtô½# ÓâÎÆìÏûkÓíg# Gç\ÔæÁ# GçÅDí # # 1Õ÷¾Ï# GéÏâÍlís
#ÈâÎ÷ÓDö # # 1GìÆìtô½g# FìÓâÎÆìÐÆítÁíg# FìÓkâÍgg# ì§ÐìÆQÁíD# ì§ìÆÁ# Dìh\# GìÆPÍ# Déiìg# GìLl½
#HâÍkâÍlítÂí½#GìtQÆL#GìÐÁì kú Dì #GìÆtì ¾ô ½#GìÏhì ¹ì Dì #GìÆtì ½ô #2#FìÓâÎÆìÐÆítÁíg#FìÓkâÍh½#_ûÊÖú g
#a1# Gì¶ìs# ÓàÎ²½# # 1FìÓâÎÆìÐÆítÁíg# FìÓkâÍgg# §ì ÐìÅÔì ÂQºoôD# FìÓkâÍÜ# GúÖDì # HâÎµâÎtí²Âí½Í
#ì§UQt\# Iì¾Ï# §ì tQ±# 1GìÐÁì kú Dì # GìÆtì ½ô # Õ÷¾P# 2À# GìÆtì ½ô Í# GìÏhì ¹ì Dì # GìÆtì ½ô # Õ÷¾P# 1À# GìÆtì ½ô
#ÇìD#GìÁàÎ¶Qo#Õ÷¾Pg#aÃµ# 1900g#ì§Æè té L#Õ÷½DéÎÖ#GìÏhì ¹ì Dì #GìÆtì ½ô g#GìÐÅì líµ#GìÆTûmg
#GìÆìtô½g# G±ì âÎ¹# Ví# FúnµâÎÅ# # 1FìÓÍû Ýû Áíg# EìÆtì ½ô # hí\# eÏíD# Õ÷½E÷¾s# GìÏ ú Áé âÎs# GìÆtì ½ô g
#ÇìD# GìÅìhæª½# Õ÷¾Ï# FúnìÁk# EìÁàÎ¶Qo# GúÖìD# # 1Ãµ# 1200g# ì§èÆés# Õ÷¾P# +2À,# GìÐÁì kú Dì
##GìÏkú âÎsg# FúnµâÎÅ# # 1ÇPjÖíÅ# ÔÐéL# ÎìÉ# §ì ÐìÁhíµ# GúÖÉì # Gìµ# ÕéÆÐæ LâÎÁ# GìÐÁì kú Dì # GìÆtì ½ô g
#GìÆTûn½# Õ÷¾Ï# Fìnú Áì k# +Xg# FúnµâÎÅ,# GìÐÁì kú Þ ì # GìÏhì ¹ì Dì # 2# FìÓâÎó¾ítÁíg# GìÐÅì âÎsg
#GéÏâÍn]íÁ# §ì QªsíÓg# RÆÏíD# aFìÓâÎÏúl²æo# ÓâÎÆìÏkû ÓgûÍ# GìÆtì ½ô # ÓâÎÆìÏkû Óíg# FìÓâÍnPní©g 237
#kíÔìL# 2# # 1Ãµ# 700g# Dúkìg# ¿ûÖ½ûÍ# Ãµ# 900g# Dúkìg# Õ÷¾¹g# Gì\Ôæ# Õ÷½DéÎÖ# Iì¾Ï
#FìÓâÎÆìÂ¾tíÁg# §ì PÓEéÁ# ¿ûÖ½# GìÆÆì ó¾ítÁ# ÔPEÆì¾º¾¹# Õ÷½DéÎÖ# GìÐÁì úkDì # GìÆtì ½ô # aIúÊÏH
# #1#GìÐªì QUs#DúkìhL
##
#FõÓúÎÐìÆPhÁíg#FìÓâÎÆì¾¹íÔpô#GìÆìtô½#ÓâÎÆìÏûkÓíg# FìÓâÎUQÖíÏ 4.2
238
# #õ§ìÐìtìÅöD
#ÓâÎÆìÏkû ÓgûÍ# GìÆtì ½ô # ÓâÎÆìÏkû Óíg# Gì\ÔæÁ# hí]¾¹g# §õ Ïì Ôì QªsíÓ# §õ ìPÎ\íÓ
#ÔPEìtPl±ûÍ# ÔPDúl®í©#SlæÐûÖ#G÷¹#aFìÓâÎÆìÐÆítÁíg#D÷Óiì âùÍg#Ãí©#SÓìD#Gô¹g#aFìÓâÎÏúl²æo
239
#GçÅDí #2#GìÂ¹hí\#GìÆP#Ô\íÔ¾íL##1§õ ¶ì PÔí©#õ§Ðì tì Åì Dö #FõÓÎú ÐìÆPhÁíg#GìÂÉì kâÍÓÍ#Gì¶sì âÎ²L

# #1FõÓúÎUQÖíÏ
#ì§ÐìÆPhÁ# FìÓâÎÅìhMí©ÔæÁg# GìÆìªPnÁ#GìÆìÐ¹#¿í©#ì§PÎ\íÓ 4.2.1
241 240
# #ì§ÐìtìÅöD###############
#GìÆÏ#õ§Ðì ¶ì ÆíÅDì #lPÔíÏ#FõÓÎú Æì Á#2#Dìh\#FìÓâÎÏúl²æo#ÓâÎÆìÏkû ÓûÍ#GìÆtì ½ô #ÓâÎÆìÏkû Ó
# GìÐÆì âÎsÍ# # FìÓâÎÅìhÐí\ÔæÁ# aFìÓâÎÅìhMí©ÔæÁg# GìÆªì PnÁ# GìÆÐì ¹# ¿í©# §ì PÎ\íÓg
243 242

activity, intensity 237
contribution 238
immensely, strongly 239
dynamic nature 240
interaction 241
integration 242
transformation 243
#¿ì¶s#¿í©#gâÎ]¾íL#Kì½#ì§Pl±#ì§PÎ\íÓ#Sn]íÁ#G÷¹#RÅìD##1§õ ¶ì PÔí©#FõÓÎú ÐìÆPhÁ#ÔíÆÐíL

# Gìdìo# a# GìÏgæk# ¿í©# ´ìD# Kì½ôD# aFõÓÎú ÐìÆPhÁ# ÔíÆÐíL# EìÐÅì Óì âÍglíÁÍ# GìÐÆì tì ½ô # GìUÖú Ï
245 244
# #1GìUÖú Ï#¿ì¶síg## GçÂÏì âÎµÍ 246
##
# #Gõ¶PÔí©#GçÆìtô½g#ì§¶ítí²L#GìªìÏâÎo 4.2.2
#GçÆtì ½ô # GìLkú g# §ì ¶ít²í L# SléÐÖû # G÷¹# FìÓâÎÏúl²æo# ÓâÎÆìÏkû ÓûÍ# GìÆtì ½ô # ÓâÎÆìÏkû Ó
#GìhíÁg# FõÓúÎÐìÆPhÁíg# §ì QªsíÓ# ÎìÉ# GõâÎÂí©# Gç\ÔæÁ# GìÂ¹hí\g# ì§ÅûlÖíMLûÍ# Gõ¶PÔí©
#DélÖæ ÅâÎÁ#Gõ²Q¾íÏ#GìLkú ##1ÔPEìÆ¾ì Pg#ÇPjÖíÅ#ÔÐéLg#FìÓâÎÐìÆPhÁûÍ#aÔPEìÅÎú Éì #GìÐ©ì ÝæÁ
# GìÅkú ÓÎìÁ# Ví# GìÆÏûm# hí\# eÏíD# GçÐÆì tì ½ô # ÑíÆÏì kû Ó# Gõ±àÎÐ¾æÉg# FìÓâÎÐì¶ÆíÅÞ
247
ì # GìÆÏ
#GìÏ ú pªªísÓ# Dúkhì L# Õ÷½DékâÎsg# ÇPjÖíÅ# ÔÐéLg# Gõ¶PÔí©# GçÆtì ½ô g# §ì ¶ít±í g# Gì±kú âÍÝL
###. (Barber, 1974: 8; Daniels & Bright, 1996: 145)# GìÁhì¶½# Õ÷¾Ï# Kì½mú Dö # Kì¾Öú ½ûÍ
#aÃµ#GìÐÆì QÁÓ#Dúkhì L%#=Õ÷¾Ï#DúlìÁöD#Eì½àÎ±lì±#aGìÐÁ ì kú Dì Í#GìÏkú àÍÓìÞ#öÔÐéLg#FúkâÎoíD#¿í©
#GìÐªì QUs#Dúkgì g#GìÏkú âÎtL##1GìÐÁì kú Dì Í#GìÏhì ¹ì Eì L#GìUPÔ¹#FúÎÖÏ#GìtQ±#GìÐ ì âÍk#Dúlóì sôD#hí]¾¹
#FúÎÖP# GìÐÁì kú Dì # GìÆtì ½ô g# Iì¾Ï# GéÅâÎÐMíÁ# 1FúÎÖÏ# GìÐÆì tì ½ô # ÑìÆÏì kû Ó# # 248Gìó¾ítÁ# GìÂôÓ# Õ÷¾¹# aÃµ
#Oûk#FúnÁæk#hí\##1+1999:5,#%GìÏÜú Üæ #GìÆtì ¾ô L#ÍúÎÖ#RTÔì¹#G÷¹g#Déj²ìo#2#GìLkú g#GìÐÁì híµ#GìÆtì ½ô
#öÔÐéL#FìÓâÎÏúl²æo#ÓâÎÆìÏkû ÓgûÍ#GìÆtì ½ô #ÓâÎÆìÏkû Óíg## GìÆìÐ©ÎìÁ#GìpcàÎóoôDg#GìÐì¶ÆíÅìD
249
#FúÎÖÏ# §ì tQ±g%ÖégìD%# FìÓâÎÆÂÐûÖÁíg# §ì QÁÎìÁg# ì§]í¾²íÁ# Õ÷¾P# GìÐìÁúkìDÍ# GìÏúkàÍÓìÞ

#GìÐì©ÝæÁ#hí\#aÃµ# 750g#ì§èÆés#2#GúÖ#DìhìÐ©#hí\#eÏíDÍ# ì§Q©kíÓ#Dìh\#eÏíD#ì§]ô¾±âÎÁ
250
#HâÎ©âÍhí# §ì ÏúkàÍÓìD# FìÓâÍkâÎúl²ÁôDg# DçhMªítÁ# # GçQÅàÎ½àÎµ# híÐL# Gì]¾ô ±âÎÁ

251
FìÓ÷ Íú iì ÓìD# Ãí©# FìÓâÎÏÍìDg# GõµÔ÷ Ïì g# 2# GìLkú # # 1kàÍÓìDg# Gìº¾íÁ# Gìµ# ÑÖÏíÓâÎÆÂÐûÖÁ
#=Gç]ì\Ü# ÇÏékÔíL# GéUPÔ¹# ÍúÎÖÏ# GétQ±# ì§ÐìÆíÓ# GìPkâÎog# DçhMªítÁ# # GçQÅàÎ½àÎµ
# Contenau#1(Tadmor, 1975: 42-43)#GìÏìhì¹ìD#GìÆìtô½g#GìÏúkàÍÓìD#Dúnª÷¾LûÍ#GìÐìÁúkìD#GìÆìtô¾L
#ÓâÎ¾¾í íg# FìÓâÎósÎìtÁ#ÎìÉ#õ§Ðì Æì tì ½ô #ÔìÆÏì kû Ó#õ§Uì PÔ¹íg#DúlÉí #Õ¾÷ Ï#ÕéÁhì É#GìchúÖ
252
# #=GìÍk#GìÐ ì hì¹Dì #GìLlís#hí\#eÏíD# kàÍÓìD 253
#ì§ÐìÁlí±#Dìh\íg#ÒIL#aì§ÐìÆìtô½#ÔìÆìÏûkÓ#ì§UPÔ¹#Dìh\#Kì½g#ì§PÔÅâÎÁ#FúÎÖ#GìÏÎúÖ#Kì½#kàÍÓìD#ÓâÎ¾¾í %
#GìÆìtô½g# ì§¶QÂí©# ì§©íhP# Dìh\# Kì½g# §ì ÆìÏÎúÖÔéÁ# Iì¾Ï# Kì½# §ì ÐìÆPjÖíÅ# ÔÐéL# FìÓâÎÐìÆPhÁíg# FìÓlPlís

pace 244
extent 245
aspects 246
inscriptions 247
ruling class 248
growing element 249
concept 250
vassals 251
advancement, progress 252
Assyriology 253
#2#¸àÎTg#aÍúÎÖÏ#GéÏjô±#õ§Ðì Æì tì ½ô #ÔìÆÏì kû Ó#õ§Uì PÔ¹##aIì½DéÎÖíg#eÏíD##1ÕéL#ÈàÎÖ½ÓæÍâÍÝÁíg#GçtìÅöDgûÍ

#aFúÎÖÏ#GìÏúéÁâÎs#GìÆtì ô½#GìªPhP#Kì½#GìÆìtô½##1254GçÆì²¾í\ÔæÁ#G÷jæpL#õ§ìUPÔ¹#¿ûÖ½ûÍ#GçÅàÎ¶Qpºô½
#FìÓlí# # 1ì§ÏìÔ\íÓ# ÇPjÖíÅ# ÔÐéL# ÎìÉ# ÑÖÏíÓâÎÐìÆPhÁ# ÈàÎÖ½EìÐÆæLg# GçÂÂíªL# FìÓæÍâÍÝÁ# EìÆìtô½# h\í
(Contenau 1954: 186)#%1GìÆtì ½ô #GúÖÞ ì #ÈàÎÖ½#ÇæÏgâÎÁ#GçÐÂ
ì Qs
##
#¬éhÏì # GìQàÎ½àÎÐ¹kíDgûÍ# §ì ¶PÔí©# §ì QªsíÓg# DìhQíÓ# hí]¾¹ aFìÓâÎhÊíL
#DúÎÖ# GìÏÎúÖ# §õ ¶ì PÔí©# FõÓÎú ÐìÆPhÁ# 2# EìLkú g# Gõ¶PÔí©# GçÆìtô½g# ì§¶ítí±g# ÔPEìlµ
#õ§Ðì Æì tì ½ô # ÓâÎÏìÔQ½ÓûÍ# ÓâÎÆìÏkû Ó# §õ Uì PÔ¹ûÍ# Déjóì sôD# GìÂ¹hí\# Kì½g# a§ì ¶pí©# lPÔíÏ
#GìÁàÎµÍ#ahæL# (Rosetta)#FìÓÓémàÍkgûÍ# (Behistun)#ÈâÍÔpæÖLé g#õ§Uì PÔ¹#eÏíD#aõ§ìÆìÂQ
# #1# §ì TàÎtì\g#FìÓhí \#ì§Ïúkgì # GìQàÎ½àÎÆµôÓg#FìÓlíÐÖû #Kì½g#aì§ÆìÏÎúÖÔæÁ#Kì½
255
##
#eÏíD#GìtÆì Ðï Æí Líg#ìGÆç tì ½ô g#FìÓâÎÅìhMí©ÔæÁg#GìÆªì PnÁ#GìÆÐì ¹#¿í©#ì§PÎ\íÓ 4.2.3
# # õ§ìÐí\#FõÓúÍÔPD
256
#GìÆÏ# # §ì ÐìÅÔì \âÎÁûÜ# §ì PÎ\íÓ# Dìh\# FìÓâÎÏúl²æo# ÓâÎÆìÏkû ÓûÍ# GìÆtì ½ô # ÓâÎÆìÏûkÓ
257
#eÏíD# aRÆéÐMíÁ# E÷¹g# GìÆÏ# §õ Ðì \í # FÓõ Íú ÔPD# GìtÆì Ðï Æí Líg# GçÆtì ½ô g# Iì¾Ï# EéÏâÍn]íÁg
#´ìDÍ# aGçÅjé \öD# GçÆtì ½ô g# FúÎÊú L# Sltì±# aR²ô¾]ís# aRoæÍlíÉ# G÷¹# aGìM¾ì# FìÓâÎ¶QÆoíg
#a§õ ¶ì PÔí©#F÷ÓÍú gjíÁg#GçÆtì ½ô #GìLkú #¿í©#Õì½DéÎÖ#ÔPDìÔPÔí\ GúÖDì ##1R¶¾ìÍ# R]tì± 258
## §ì PglíÁ# GúÖDì # 2# bûÎÏ# Õ÷²ì¾Pg# GìÐìsék# Gìsúkg# # 1GìÏìhì¹ìDÍ# EìÏúéÁâÎs# GçÆìtô½# GìtìU\
259
#FõÓúÎÁôDÍ# GçÂÂí©# aG÷jíÏ# Déigì g# Gì\Ôæ# =Õ÷¾Ï# GúÖDì # GìtÆì ÐíÆLíg# GçÆtì ½ô g# §ì ÆìªPnÁ
#áÖ¾ì QÆºtíÍû #áÖ¾ì QtíóÁ#G÷¹#GìÁàÎµg#GìÆtì ½ô g# GéÏjì ¶æ©#Gõ²¾ì \âÎs#R¾Míµ#E÷¹#GìÁàÎµ
260
# ÈàÎÖ¾Q]ì½# Kì½# GìÆPD# a§õ Ðì Åì Ôì ÁâÍDÍ# §õ Ðì Æì Â

261
ì ÖàÎ# ÑÖïÏÓí Íú ÔPDg# §ì Æì Á# # Dìh\
#ÑÖÏíÓâÍÔPD# ÔPEìÆtì ½ô g# RÆÏìD# aGçÂÂí©# RÅìD# lûÖ# aGéÅjé \öD# DéjMí# # 1ÔPEìÆ¾ì º¾¹
#RtÐì±# hæL# GìÁàÎµ# aGõ²¾ì \âÎs# GìÆÏ# K÷¾LâÎµ# §ì ÐìÆÂ ì ÖàÎ# ÑÖÏíÓâÍÔPDÍ# §ì ÐìÅÔì ÁâÍD
#GçpØâÎ# GìLúk# ÔPD# GìÁìÓ# # 1 GìÐÆì tì ½ô # ÑÖÐíº±ì âÎÖ# kíÔLì # 2# Déigì # RÊío# Gìµ# RUí¶ÁûÍ
262
#FúÎÖP# ÑÖÐíÆÁæ # hí\# # 1GìÐtì Åì Dö # GìpÆæÉg# §ì QªsíÓ# ÎìÉ# GéÏjì ¶æ©# GçÐÆì tì ½ô # Gçd±ì âÎÖg
##1FúÎÖÏ# GìÏhì ¹ì Dì # ÑÖÐíÆtì ½ô g# RÆÏíD# kàÍÓìDÍ# ¿æMLì # ÎìÉ# GìÐÁì kú Dì # EìÆìtô½g# FìÓâÎó¾ítÁ
#=Õ÷¾Ï#DúlÁì Dö #(Greenfield)#h¾QÙÆPlÉ

alternate 254
modern computer technology 255
live entities 256
glaring 257
disintegrate 258
behaviour 259
radical changes 260
obliterate 261
linguistic conversion 262
#FìÓhQÖo# Iì¾Ï# §ì tQ±# §ì ÏúkàÍÓDì # FìÓâÍkàÎúl²ÁôD# ÎìÉ# GìÐÁì kú Dì # EìÆtì ½ô g# §ì ]í¾²íÁ%

#DéjìósôDÍ# GéÐìÁìiìD# Déj²ìoÍ# (egirtu armetu# 1g1Ö,# §÷ Ðì Áì iì Dì # F÷Ójì ÉôÞ# # 263F÷ÓÍú nQÁjíL
#FúÝÁì âÎ½# aÔPDìÔPÔí\# # 1§ì ÐìÅàÎÉlío# FìÓâÎº¾íÁg# Kì¾Lì âÎÏg# Gì¶½ì âÎo# Äìhµ# 2# GéÐÁì iì Dì
#Dìh\#Õ÷½Iì½DéÎÖ#GìTlªíÁ#2#GìÐìÁúkìD#EìÆìtô¾L#GçÆì¾¾í íg#GìLûk#EìÆìÐÆæÁ#hí\g#264 GìÐÆì ì kíg
1985: ,#%§ì ÏúkàÍÓìD#FìÓâÍkàÎúl²ÁôDg# 266FìÓâÎÆìpÅlí²Áíg# 265GìU¹ ì âÍk#¿í©#FìÓâÎÅìhMªíÁ
#1+698
#Gì\kâÍD#Dìh]íL#kàÍÓìD#ÎìÉ#GìÐÁì kú Dì #GìÆtì ½ô g#FìÓâÎpPl±#GúÖDì #Õ÷¾Ï#HâÎ©âÍhíÁ#Kì½àÎ±lí±#
=ì§tPl±
ú ½í # FúÎÖÏ# GéÏiì àÍÓìDg# GìtPkg# GìoìãÐo# hí\# kàÍÓìDg# # §ì ÁûkDíÓ%
#DìhÏì âÎ\# hí\# GìÏ 267
#ÈôD#GìÐÆôµ#FúÎÖ#uéÐ±ì #Kì½#DìÓâÍhÐígí #GìsgìD#GúÖDì #1§ì ÐìÅÔì ÁâÍD#FìÓâÍÔPD#Dìh\ûÍ#GìÐÅì Ôì ÁâÍD

#hí\g# GìÐ±æk# GìtÅì âÎ¹# hí\# a§ì Áèhµí # eÏíD# §ì tQ±# FúÎÖ# GìÏÎúÖ# §ì ÏúkàÍÓìD# FìÓâÍkàÎúl²ÁôD
#GìÆtì ½ô g# Çô±Dì # # 1DéiEô±# Õ÷¾UQÖÏ# GìoÐãì o# GúÖDì Í# # 1GétPj±# GçÆtì ½ô Í# FõÓÎú ÁôDg# 268Gì\Óì kâÎs
#GìÏúÜæÜ# GìlæoÍ# # ,269GìÐMíÉ# GìÆóì ¾ítÁ# GìÂôÓg# GìÆtì ½ô # eÏíD# Õ÷±Îìt½# Õ÷½EéÁâÎ\# GìÏhì ¹ì Dì
#ì§Æì Á#Dìh\#Õ÷½DéÎÖ#GìÐÁì kú Dì #EìÆtì ½ô #GìÅhì ©æ #ÒIL#lûÖ#GìÆPD#aFìÓâÎÖÂítÁíg#GçtQÅ#Gìµ#Õ÷¾tQ±
.(1999:5; 2000a: 6)#%§ì ÏúkàÎúl²ÁôD#FìÓâÎÆìpÅlí²Áíg#ì§Æìsl±í ÔæÁ#Kì½
#Fúnªô½# hí\# Iì½DélLíg# DúÎÖãÏ# GìÏkú àÍÓìDÍ# GìÐÁì kú Dì # GçÆtì ½ô g# Dçghì ]íL# FìÓâÎÉÍûnÁ# GúÖDì #
270
#ì§ÏúkàÍÓìD#DìÓâÎÐìÆPhÁíg#ì§ÆìûkÔæÁ#ì§Ðì¾Pg#Dìh\#Iì½#DéÎÖgûÍ#GìÏkú àÍÓìD#EìÐÁì kú Dì g#GìÐÂ ì ©í

=Õ÷¾Ï#DúlÁì Dö #(Rosenthal, 1974: 6,#ÀDìÔÆæoàÍk##1(Tadmor, 1975: 43)#FìÓíh\
#Iì½hæM©âÎÁg#GìÁàÎµ#GìÐÁì kú Dì Í#GìÏkú àÍÓìÞ#öÔÐéL# # FìÔÐìÆdì ²ûÖÔæÁ##FìÓâÎÅìhMªíÁ# GúÖDì %
271
#ÎìÉÍ##GçÁâÎ\Ó#¿í©#F÷ÓÍæ âÍÝÁ#ÈàÎÖ¾tQ±#EìÐÁì kú Dì #GìÆtì ½ô g#Fçnª÷½g#Gì²¾]ítÁ#GìÆÐì ÆæÁ#hí\g

#híÐL# Gì]¾ô ±âÎÁ# DúÎÖÏ# EìtQ±g# Fúnªô½# EìÆPD# # 1272GìÆQÂís# DúlÖíog# DúkÓíDÍ# ÇPjÖíÅ# ÔÐéL
#DúkÔíM½ûÍ# Ãµ# EìÐÆì QÁÓ# Dúkgì # 2# kàÍÓìDg# GçÁâÎ\Óíg# FúÎ ì # ÍúÎÖÏ# DúlÂì ©íg# GéÐÁì iì Dì
#vâÎL# Dúklú s# ÍHg# EìÁàÎµ# # 1%GçÅjé \öD# Fçnªô½# RÅìD# ÑÖÐí¾¹g# Eì±Îìt½# Õ÷¾Q¶s
#EúÖìD##1%GìÏkú àÍÓìD%#GìÏlôµ#FúÎÖ#uéÐ±ì #G÷¹#ÔPDìhÐì ©#GìÐÁì kú Dì #Gìlæog%#Õ÷¾P#EìÅlú ÁígÔæÁ
#GìÆtì ½ô #hí\#Õ÷½DéÎÖûÍ#ÖékÍæ âÎ#GìÐÁì kú Dì #GìÆtì ½ô g# 273§ì UQcÓ#FìÓâÎÆìckígÔô#Iì¾Ï#DékâÍlítÁ
#DúlÁì Dö # (Naveh)#ÕéMÅì ## .(Greenfield, 1985: 710) "FìÓkEé\#FìÓâÍÔPD#Dìh\íg#DúlÁì

references 263
gradual absorption 264
composition 265
administration 266
aramisation 267
plethora 268
ruling elite class 269
interconnection 270
reciprocal influence 271
Fertile Crescent 272
continued awareness 273
#Gìské #hí\#Õ÷¾Ï#GìÏÓôD#EìÏgì âÎÖÏ#Gìlæog#EìÆÏ#FúnÁì k#GçÏgì âÎíÓ#Gç©âÎMíÁg#Õ÷¾Ï

#ÒIL#a%SkâÎoíD#OìÔ÷¹%#ÍìF#%GìÏúkàÍÓìD#Gìlæo%#GìÏlôµ#Õ÷¾Ï#GìtQ±Í#EìÐÁì kú Dì #2
#ì§QUsíg# GìÆTûnL# kàÍÓìDÍ# ¿æMLì # ÎìÉ# Gì]¾ô ±âÎÁ# ÔPDìhÐì ©# FúÎÖÏ# GìtQ±g
#EìÏlôµ# Õ÷¾Ï# Gtì Q±# ´ìD# Gìlæo# GúÖDì # # 1+1982: 11,# ¿éMìML# GçÏìgâÎÖÏg
274
Diringer, 1968: 202; Coulmas, ) %RªìLâÍlæÁ# OìÔ÷¹%# ÍìD# %GìªLûlÁ# Gìlæo%

#GìÆtì ½ô g# 275FìÓâÎÆì¾óíLÔæÁg# §ì Ðìskæ # §ì ¾æ© 1(1989: 143; Healey, 1990: 43
#FìÓâÎÏúÝ½íD##1FìÓâÎÆìÂ¾tíÁÍ#GìÐLì lú ©í #GìÆtì ½ô g#GìÅhì Ðí#Kì¾Ðí\#FúÎÖP# GìÐÁì kú Dì
#GçÆæs#Gì²½ìD#2#¿æª½#Gìµ##1Iì¾Ï#ì§Ðì¾©æ # §ì PgÍìÓg#Kì¾¶í\#ÎìÉ#EÐì Áì kú Dì #GìÆtì ½ô g
#GìtPhíµ# GìÆìtô½# Õ÷½DéÎÖûÍ# ¿Ï÷DúlpPDg# GìÏìgúÎo# GìÆìtô½# FúÎÖP# EìÐÁì kú Dì # GìÆtì ½ô
#GìÂí©g# GéÏìj²æoÍ# GçÐìÅìÔPgÍìÓ# GçÐí\# ÎìÉ# aGìÏlú Uæ©# GìÆtì ½ô g# GìÆ±íhL# aGìÆìÏûkÓ
#aGç]Q¾sgûÍ#Gì]QtÁ#¬àÎtPg#GìÏgì Îú o#GìÆtì ½ô #FúÎÖP#EìÐÁì kú Dì #GìÆtì ½ô ##1GìÏìgâÎÖÏ
#FìÓâÍlPÔíÏ# # 1+ÈàÎQ¾ûÊÅûÍD÷ g# 1g1Ö,# FìÓlíMoíg# GìÐÆì sì læs# GìÆtì ½ô # FúÎÖP# GìÁàÎµÍ
#Fçnªô¾L# GéMPÔ¹# GìÆÏ# GétQ±# §÷ sì jí²Á# §õ Ðì ì híÁ# FõÓhì ©é g# GçÐÅì Ôì PgÍìÓ# GçÂÐì oíg
#ÔÐéM²í½Dì #2#GìÆÏ#K¾÷ pæ ÅâÎog#G÷jæo#2Í#GìÐÁì kú Dì #GìÆtì ½ô #2#GìÆÏ#K÷¾pæ ÅâÎog
#(Diringer, 1968: 198)#%1ì§ÐìÁúkìD
# ## FìÓâÎÐìÆPhÁíg#GìÆQÁíD#GìpcàÎóoôD#hí\ 4.2.4
#ÓâÎÆìÏkû ÓûÍ# GìÆtì ½ô # ÓâÎÆìÏkû Ó# aGìtÆì Ðï Æí Líg# FõÓÎú ÐìÆPhÁíg# §ì líÏ# §ì QªsíÔL
#ÍìD# §ì ÐìÆì²æo# §ì ÐìÅìÓâÍglíÁ# ÍìD# §ì ÐìÆìtô½# §ì Ðì¾É# Dìh\# GéÏæÎÖ# GìÆÏ# Kì½# FìÓâÎÏúl²æo
276
#GìÆìtô½#ÓâÎÆìÏûkÓ##1GìÁìÓÍ#GìcíÞ# ÔPDúÎ¾ísÍ#hí\#GìÂº¾¹#Iì¾Ï#GéÅâÎÐMíÁg# §ì ÐìÆsì hæÉ

278 277
#GìtÆì Ðï Æí Líg# FõÓÎú ÐìÆPhÁíg# GìÐÆì ¾ì ¹# GìU¹ì âÍkg# áÖ¾ì Ï#

280 279
GìÆQÁíD# GìpcàÎóoôD# hí\
##1 Féghì \ôEL# R¶Lìg# GçÆtì ½ô # lPÔíÏ# ÍìD# ÇÏékÓíg# ÇìD# ¿¹# §ì ²ì ½# Gìó¾ì±# E÷¹g
281
#ì§Ðì¾É#Dìh\#Iì¾Ï#EìÏÎú Ö#GìÆtì ½ô #ÓâÎÆìÏkû Óíg#Iì¾Ï#ì§Æì¾Ðí\#GìchúÖ#hí\# HâÍÓâÎÆìÏní\ÔæÁ

282
#GìÆtì ½ô # ÓâÎÆìÏkû Óíg# §ì ÐìÆtì ½ô # ´ìÓÎìs# FìÓâÎÐìÆÐì ¹# 1ì ì§ÐìÆìtô½# GìtÙíÅÍ# # §ì ÐìÆtì ½ô # ´ìÓÎìs
284 283

Diaspora 274
extinction 275
marginal linguistic/cultural phenomenon 276
accidentally 277
intermittently 278
constant component 279
overall structure 280
come into contact with each other 281
saliency 282
sociolinguistic 283
psycholinguistic 284
#GçÆÆì tí¾Á# GçÂÂí©# ÑÖÐí¾¹g# FúÎÉì # HâÍÓâÎÆìolí±Ôæ# FìÓkækâÎtÁ# Iì¾Ï# §ì tQ±

285
##1Õ÷¾Ï#GìÏúÎÖ#GçÆìtô½g#Gì¶ìLâÍgg#ÇìD#¿¹# FìÓ©#âÎÊ¾ô±Í#ì§ÐìÅÔì Ïì #HâÍÓâÎÆìÐÆíµÔæÁÍ

286
#ì§ÏìhÐì ©# §ì Ðì¾É# Dìh\# GìÆtì ½ô # ÓâÎÆìÏkû Óíg# §ì ÐìÆtì ½ô # GìtÙíÅ# FìÓâÎÐìÆìÐ¹# aGìÐÁâÍg# GúÖEì L# lûÖ
#Iì¾Q¶Mì\# Gô¹# a GçÐ¾ì # ÔPEìÆ¾ì Pg# aGçÐtì Åì Dö # GçÏÔPDg# ÒIL# aIì¾Ï# §ì ÐìÆÐì ¹ûÍ
287
#Õ÷½ÔPD#GìÐtì Åì Dö #Eì\âÎÁg#Iì¾Ï#Çí©âÍhíÁ#FìÓâÎÐìÆºí ÏíD#GúÖDì ##1Iì¾PÓôÔíÐÁ# ÔPDìhPÔ©ûÍ 288
# ##1GìÆtì ½ô #hí\#2#lPÔíÐ½#ÓôÔÐí ÁûÍ#·éM\ì g# FìÓâÎÆìckhíÁg#GìÆÐì ¾íÁ#Kì¾Ðí\

289
# #FìÓâÍÔPDg#ì§²í¾]ísÍ#ì§ÐìÆL#Gìµ#GìÐì¶ÆíÅìD#GìÆÏûm#hí\ 4.2.5
#lPÔíÏ# GçÆÏûm# RÅìD# 2# h\í # GìÆP# FìÓâÎÏúl²æo# ÓâÎÆìÏkû ÓûÍ# GìÆtì ½ô # ÓâÎÆìÏkû Ó
#GìÏ ú ½í Í# Gésjí²Á# GçÆtì ½ô Í# F÷ÓÍú gjíÁ# ÑÖÐíÉnú Âí½# SléÐÖû # G÷¹g# GéÅìiÓÎìÁÍ# GêÐìÅìhMªíÁ
#GìçÐìÅâÎs# aGìchúÖ# # 1FõEQÊío# GçÂÂí©Í# FõÓÎú ÁôDg# # §ì ÐìÆÂ ì ÖàÎ# FìÓâÍÔPEL# Gõ²¾ì \âÎs
#ÓâÎÆìÏkû Óíg#DçgàÎUì©Í#G÷jíÏ#Gç\ÔæÁ#kíÔLì #2#FçnPní©#GçÐÆì tì ½ô Í#GéÐÅì Óì âÍgjíÁ#Gõ²¾ì \âÎsÍ
#Õ÷¾Ï#GìÐÅì Ôì QªsíÓ#Dúklú s#hí\%##1FõÓÎú ÁôDÍ#GçÂÂí©g#ì§QªsíÓ#ÎìÉ#DçhÐíªÁ#Kì½#GìÆÏ#Kì½#GìÆtì ½ô
#GìÐÆì ì Dì # GìÆtì ¾ô ½# ÈàÎÖ¾Q¶sûÍ# 290# GìÏÔì ¾ío# ÑÖÐíÆtì ¾ô ½# ÈàÎÖ¾¶ô½âÎ# GìQÆìóPlLíg# DúkÓíD# ÑíÆLíg
#DúkÓíD# ÑíÆLï gí # Õ÷¾Ï# GìÐÅì Ôì QªsíÓ# Dúklú s# hí\# =GìÐpì ¾ô ÊÅôD# GìÆtì ½ô # eÏíD# GìªPgãÏ# Õ÷¾tQ±# FìÓlígí
#=GìÐLì lú ©í #GìÆtì ¾ô ½#ÈàÎÖ¾¶QM\#ÔPEìÆì kígÍ#Gì¶PÔí©#GìÐóì LâÎµ#ÑÖÐíÆtì ¾ô ½#ÈàÎÖ¾¶ô½âÎ#ÇPkÝæÁg
#Dìh\#´ìELíg#RÆÏíD##ì§ÐìÆíÓÍ#ì§Ðì©ÝæÁ#Gì¹éÁDì g#DúkÓíD#ÑíÆLï gí #Õ÷¾Ï#GìÐÅì Ôì QªsíÓ#Dúklú s#hí\Í
#a§ì PgÍìÔL#GçÐ¶ì Q½àÍÔìµ#Kì½#´ìDÍ#FìÓâÍglû#GçÐÐì Æì²oôD#Kì½Í#aGìÆtì ¾ô L#GçÐÆì Qóì½#FúÎÖÏ#Kì½#GìÅhì ©æ
#Déilú s#GçÅDí #ÑÖÐí¾¹##1GéÐÁì àÎÖi#GçÐ¶ì Q½àÍÔìµÍ#GìÆÏ#GìÐÐì Æì²oôD#GìÆtì ¾ô L#GçÆ¾ì ¾í #ÔPìDEQÊío#GìPhúÖ
#%§õ Ðì Æì Âì ÖâÎ# FõÓÍú ÔPDg# FÓì âÎâÎÂíª½ûÍ# FçnPní©# Gõ²¾ì \âÎs# GìchúÖ½# GìÆÏ# DékÍlítÁ# GçÐÅì Ôì QªsíÓ
#Çí½læÐûÖ# hæL# (Tadmor)# kàÎÁgìÓ# híÐL# Kì½ÜâÎ²Á# DúlÁEéÁ# GúÖDì # .(Odisho, 2001: 140)
#GìÏúkàÍÓìD#GçÆìtô½g#GìÐsâÎÆ¹íg#FìÓâÎÏÔí±Í#FìÓâÎ¶QÂí©# #HâÎÅâÎÂÐí¶Âí½Í#HâÎÅâÎûÝ½291
# #=GìÐìÁúkìDÍ
#ÑÖÏíÔdìU\# # ÍìD# GìÏkú àÍÓìDÍ# GìÐÁì kú Dì # GçÆìtô½g# 292# Dçghì ]íL# FìÓâÎÉÍûnÁíg# Iì¾Ï# §ì ÏúÝ½íD%
#GìtÐì±# a%§ì ÏúkàÍÓìD# FìÓâÎÐìÆPhÁ%# §ì Plµ# GìtÐì±# G÷¹# ÔPDìhÐì ©íg# a293# Dçgh]íL# §ì ÐìÏÎís
#GìÆóì ½âÎsg# GìÆTûm# 2# HâÍj¶æ©# ÑÖÐí\Îdtí# ÈæÎÏ# Gìó±âÎ\# # 1ÔPEì¾PÝ±# §ì tPkg
#Õ÷¾TôÓâÎÁg#Gìº¾íÁ#ÍH#FúÎÖÏ#GúÖDì ##1DúÁg#GìÏkú àÍÓìD#GìÐÅì Ôì ÁâÍD#hí\#a¿ì±lPÝìÅkàÎsìDg
#GìÐÂì ©í # GìÏkú àÍÓìD# GìÐÁì kú Dì # GìÆtì ½ô g# 294# §ì ÏìhPÔ©íg# # §ì ÆQ®Ö# §ì Ïì # Gìµg# Gìp®ì ½âÎp½

pervasiveness 285
automatic and subconscious acquisition 286
the young 287
internalise readily 288
cognition 289
Celtic 290
to envision and assess 291
interconnection 292
even blending 293
future hybrid culture 294
#Îì#+GéÐÁì iì Dì #1g1Ö,#GçÐìTjªíÁg# #ì§Ïúóµ#FìÓâÎÆìÐÅíÔtæÁg#ÕéoãÐì og#FìÓâÎÐì©Ýæ

295
# #(Tadmor 1975: 43,#%1296§ì Ðìslæs#kàÍÓìD

#kàÍÓìDg#FìÓhí \#FìÓâÍkàÎúl²ÁôDg#FìÓâÍglíÁ%#=Õ÷¾Ï#DúlÁ ì Dö # (Saggs)#qÊoì # , ÔPEìÅÓì Îú cìD297
# 299§ì ÆQ®Ö# FìÓâÍglíÁ# Dìh\# Kì½Dô # a§ì Ðì¾UìL# kàÍÓìD Kì½# ´ìDÍ# §ì ÏúkàÍÓìD# 298ÔPEìÐ²ís# FúÎÖÏ# Kì½
# §ì ÐìÁhíµ# FìÓâÎÐì²½ìDg# Gì\Ôæ# Õ÷½D÷ÓDö # ÔPEìÁhíµg# GéÐsì ié # HâÎpcàÎóoôD# 2# hí\# # 1FúÎÖÏ
#hí\#Õ÷¾Ï#GìUÖú ãÏ# (Parpola)#Kì½àÎ±lì±##1+1984: 129,#%GéÐÁì iì Þ ì #FìÓâÎÏìÔÐíL#Õ÷½DÎú ÖÔPD
#R¾ªí# E÷¹# FìÓâÎÏúl²æo# ÓâÎÆìÏkû ÓûÍ# GìÆtì ½ô # ÓâÎÆìÏkû Óíg# Dúl í # GìÁàÎ]ì½# GìpØâÎ
#GìÂ©í #hí\g#ÍìD#ì§ÁâÍD#Dìh\íg#ì§ÐìÆÂ ì ÖàÎ#FìÓâÍÔPDg#ì§²í¾]ísÍ# ì§ÆíÂtíÉ#ÓâÎÆìÐÅôÔL
300
#GìÆtì ½ô # Ãµ# GìÐªì QUs# Dúkgì g# GìÁÓì âÎíg# §ì UQt\# ÔPDìÔPÔí\# GìtÐì±g# GìÏÝìÁ%# =Õ÷¾Ï# DúlÁ ì Dö Í
1999: 6; ,#%§ì ÏúkàÍÓìD#FìÓâÍÔPDg#õ§Ð ì ¶ì ÆíÅDì #FõÓÎú Æì Á#ÍúÎÖÏ#GéÏÎæ Ö#ì§Ðìº¾íÁ#FìÓâÍglíÁÍ#GìÐÁì kú Dì
# #.(2000a: 6
#ÓâÎ¢¢ÆìÏûkÓûÍ#GìÆ¢¢ìtô½#ÓâÎ¢¢ÆìÏûkÓíg#Gì²ì¾\âÎ¢¢sg#ÍìD#FìÓâÎÆìÐÆ¢¢¢ítÁíg#G¢¢¢ìsgìD#G¢¢¢úÖìD
#§÷ Ðì Åì jì ¢ ¢\öD#÷§Ðì ÅìÓâÍgj¢¢¢íÁÍ#õ§Ðì Åì Ôì ¢ ¢PgÍìÓ#FõÓÎú ÆìÐÆ¢¢¢ítÁ#Ã¢¢¢íªÂ ì ©í #aFìÓâÎÏúl²¢¢¢æo
301
#FìÓâÎÆì²\íÔ¢¢¢¢pæÁg#kíÔ¢¢¢¢ìL#2#ÍìD#GìÅìh¢¢¢¢æªL#ÍìD#Äìh¢¢¢¢µ#2#ÈàÎ¢¢¢¢Ö½DéÎÖíg
#2#EìÂ¹h¢¢¢í#ÈàÎ¢ ¢Ö¾óô¾\âÎÁ# ÔPEìÆQ¢¢¢pí\#aì§¢ ¢ÏúkàÍÓìD#FìÓâÍkàÎ¢ ¢úl²ÁôDg
302
#G¢¢ìÁìÓâÎ\#FúÎ¢ ÖP#FéÎ¢ ÆQÅg#ì§¢ ¾ì²Åíg#ì§PÔ¢¢í\#K¢¢ì½#G¢¢ìÆìÐ©ækg#ì§¾íM¢ í¶L#GçÅìh¢ ÖíªÁ

#aÑ# ÖÐíÆ¢¢ìtô½g#G¢¢ìÐìÆQÁíD#G¢¢ìÁìÓâÎ\#ak# àÍÓìF#Î¢¢ìÉ#G¢¢éÏiì àÍÓìD#Ñ¢¢ÖÐí¾¹g#G¢¢ìÐÆì QÁíD
#h¢í\g#ì§Ðì¾ÂítÁ#FìÓâÎÆì²\íÔpæÁg#aGì¶ìsâÎ±#GúÖìD##1ÑÖÏíÓâÍglíÁgûÍ#ÑÖÏíÔPgÍìÓ
#Iì¾¹gûÍ#EìÂí©#Õ÷¾¹g#§ì Ðì¾ÂítÁ# FìÓâÎÅìhLÎìÁ#Iì¾Ï#GéÏâÍíÁ#GìÐìpìQo#Gìpì¹âÎ
#GìU¢ìt\#ÈæÎ¢Ï#K¢ì½#1 Õ# ¢÷¾Ï#GìÆÐì ÅûkÔ¢æÁ#K¢ì½#ShÆæÁ#hí\#aGìpì¹âÎ#ÍHg#FìÓâÍglíÁ
303
#Õ¢¢¾÷ ¹g#ì§Ðì¾Â¢¢tí Á# FìÓâÎÅìh¢LÎìÁ#I¢¢ì¾Ï#ì§ÆæÐ¢oâÎÆÁ#e¢¢ìo#G¢¢ìtìÆïÐíÆLíg#ì§Qª¢¢síÓg

#ÇìÁÓâÎ¢©gûÍ#G¢ÁàÎÖkíg#aF# ãìÐóÅún¢ÐæLg#F÷ÓúÍkàÎìj¢²ÁôD# 1§ì# ¢ÁâÍD#Dìh¢\íg#GìtÆô¹
#Dúkúl¢¢s#G¢¢úÖìDÍ#aÈ# àÎ¢¢Ö¾PÎµûÍ##ÈàÎÖ¾¢¢tQ±#Ñ¢¢ÖïÐíÂÂí©#G¢¢ìÆPD#aÈàÎÖ¾²Q]¢¢o
#aF÷ÓúÍkàÎìj¢²ÁôD#R¢¢ÅìD#Ñ¢¢ÖÐí¾ºL#. GìÅìh¢LèÍìÓÔæÁ#G¢¢ìÆìÐ©æl½#Õ¢¢÷¾Ï#Õ÷½âÎ¢óíMÁ
304
#ÓâÎ¢¢\Óíg#GçÅìh¢¢\âÍD#G¢¢¢ìÆPD#aGìÐ¢¢ìpìQo#G¢¢¢ìpì¹âÎ#FúÎ¢¢ÖP#Õ÷¾²Q]¢¢¢oíg#Sh¢¢¢ÆæÁ
#lPÔ¢¢íÏ#G¢¢çÂÐ÷¾µ#ÍìD#GçÅìh¢ \âÍD#aF# ÷ÓúÍiÓíÞ#ÈàÎ¢ Ö¾®Q¾±#ÍúÎ¢ ÖÏ#ÑÖÐíÆìó½âÎ¢ s

deportation 295
Assyrian proper 296
likewise 297
purely 298
hybrid 299
reshaping 300
collapse 301
seriously 302
inconceivable 303
annihilistic view 304
##1G# ²õ ¾]¢ítÁ#GéÅjé ¢\öD#G¢çÖ ì #ÍìD#GçÐÁì h¢íµ#ÑÖïÐÖû ì #ÓâÎ\Ó#ÈàÎÖ½EéÐ\ûÍ#DéiàÎ©m

#1F# ìÓél¢\öD#G¢ì\kâÍD#Dìh]íL#GìÏÎúÖg#Kì½Í#G÷±âÎ¾]ítÂí½#GìÏÓìD#Kì½# FìÓâÎÆìÏÎúÖ#GúÖìD
305
#G¢ìp¹ì âÎ#h¢í\g#ì§¾ì²Æ¢íL#G¢ì¶¾ì#h¢æL#G¢ìÂ©í g#FìÓâÍ¢p\#Dìh\íg#Iì¾Ï#FìÓlPlís

#G# Ðç ¢ìpQì o#Gõ²¾ì \âÎ¢s#I¢ì¾©í #SÓìDg#Ç¢ô±Dì #aG# ¢ìÏÎ¶í# Á#G¢÷¹#ì§Lûk#Ö÷ÔÆì Á#Kì½Dô #aGìÐìpìQo
#ì§Ð¢ìpìQo#FÔì# Qª¢síÓ#FìÓâÍhÖ¢ìoÍ#GìóQ¢t±#GìÐÅæk#1Gésjí²Á#GçÐÆì tì ½ô Í#GçÐÅì Ôì PgÍìÓÍ
#FìÓâÎÅìh¢¢LÎ ì #DékâÍl¢¢¢ítÁ#G¢¢¢ìÆÏ#K¢¢¢ì½#õ§ìÐìÁh¢¢¢íµ#FõÓúÎ¢¢ÁôDgÍû #F÷ÓúÍiâÎ¢¢úl²ÁôDg
#ì§¾í²Æ¢¢û#FõÓúÎ¢¢ÁôDÍ#F÷ÓúÍiâÎ¢¢úl²ÁôD#R¢¢ÅìDg#F÷ÓÍú# gj¢¢íÁÍ#GçÆ¢¢ìt½ô Í#G¢¢çÂÂí©g
#G¢ìÆÏ#GçÐ¢ìpQì o#G¢çp¹ì âÎÍ#G¢õº¾íÁÍ#G÷±àÍÜj¢í±##1G# Ðì ¢ìpQì o#ÑÖÐ¢ípì¹âÎg#ì§Ïìh]æÁ
#aFõÓúÎÁôD#Kìì½#GìÆPD#aGõ²ì\âÎpL#ÍìD#Gì\âÎÁg#ì§¾ì²sÍìD#GìMô½g#ì§Ðì¾tíL#SÔÐìÁ#G÷¹g
#G¢úÖDì g#Kì¾QU¢tí½#Õ¢÷¾Ï#DékâÍl¢#tí Áíg#F# ìÓh¢í\#Vì#GìpØâÎ#ÍH##1F÷ÓúÍgjíÁÍ#GçÆìtô½
#G¢ìp¹ì âÎ#FúÎ¢ÖP#Õ÷½E¢÷²\íg#Sh¢ÆéÁ##1G# Ïì Ôì Ðì TÎ¢ìo#Dìh¢ìÏâÎ\g#ì§¢¾ì²Å#Õ¢÷¾P#GìÐÅæk
#ÈàÎÖ½E¢¢¢éÆµ#FìÓél¢¢\öD#G¢¢¢úÖìÉ#Dìh¢¢\#G¢¢¢çÂÂí©#h¢¢¢í¹#aGìÐìÅìÓâÎ]¢¢¢tí ûÍ#GìÐ¢¢ìpìQo
#ÑÖÏíÓâÍÔ¢¢PÞ#FìÓlé ¢¢\öD#G¢¢úÖÉì #Dìh¢¢\#ÈàÎÖkækâÎ¢¢tÁûÍ#ì§Ð¢¢ìpìQo#ÑÖÏíÓâÍkE¢¢÷
#È# æÎ¢Ï#K¢ì½âÎMíµ#Gìd¢ìsâÎ±#K¢ì½g#G¢ìÅDì #Gìch¢ûÖ##1ì§ÐìÅìÓâÍglíÁÍ#ì§ÐìÆìtô½#aì§ÐìÆìÂÖàÎ
#a+Odisho, 1988,#líM©íh¢¢¢L#R½h¢¢¢QU©íg#e¢¢¢ÏíD#aÛ # àÎ¢¢¢ÅàÎºìÏgíg#G¢¢¢ìÆÐì ©æl½
#FéÎ¢ÆQÅ#ïÑ¢íÆLíg#ì§Ð¢¢ìÆì¾¹#FìÓâÎÅìh¢LÎìÁg#FìÓkâÍÝ¢¢½#ÈæÎ¢Ï#EìTúl¢o#Ô¢¢PEìÆ¾ì º¾¹Í
#Dúkúl¢s#h# ¢í\%#1+Durant,#Ô# ¢ÅúkâÍg#G# ¢ìtUì \#aGéÅjé \öD#GìÆÏ#HâÎÂQskíg#eÏíD#kàÍÓìDÍ
#G# Ðì ¢ìpQì o#Gìpì¹âÎg#Õ÷¾Ï#Dúkúls#hí\#>Iì¾¾Q²Å#ì§ÐìdsækìD#ì§èÆPhÁ#FéÎÆQÅg#Õ÷¾Ï
#ÈàÎèÖ¾¢tQ±#G¢õ²½íDg#DõE¢#Áì #ÍìD#GéÏjì ¢pæ©g#I¢ì¾Ï#ì§ÆìÆ ô āÜÔ¢æÁ#>Õ÷¾]Q½Ó#kàÍÓìDg
#FìÓâÎÅìh¢LÎ# Áì #Õ¢÷ó¾ì ±#FéÎ¢úÖg#G¢ìÏÝíÁ#K# ¢ì½#Déilú s#GéÅDí #2#hí\#´ìD#GìÆPD#>K÷¾Qóµ
#Gìch¢¢úÖg#ì§©íh¢P##1+Odisho, 1988: 8; 2001: 141,#%G# ¢ìÏkú àÍÓìD#G¢ìÂ©í g#ì§Ð¢ìÆ¾ì ¹
#Fçn¢Pní©#GçÆ¢ìojí²ÁûÍ# G# ¢éÐ¾ì ¶ì Pgìi#GéÐÅì Óì Ígj¢íÁÍ#GçÐÅì Ôì ¢PgÍìÓ#aGçÐìÆìtô½#Gõ²ì¾\âÎs
#DékâÎ¢ÐûÖ½#ÑÖÏíÔ¢ÅûlÖíL#ÍìD#aGçÐìÅìÔQªsíÓ#Déjóôµ#GìLúkg#ì§Ïúls#Gìµ#Iì¾Ï#ì§ÏúÝ½íD
#GìÐ¢¢ìpìQo#Dúl¢¢óôµ#Gìch¢¢¢úÖ#h¢¢¢í\#1ÑÖÏíÔÏúl¢¢s#G¢¢¢ìµ#Dìh¢¢Q¾µ#h¢¢¢í\g#§ì ]íd¢¢tû
#Gõ¶PÔí©#GéÏiì àÍÓìEL#ÑÖÏûkâÎoíD#Õ÷¾P#GéÏiì àÍÓìDg#ì§Ïúkgì #ì§QªsíÓ#ÎìÉ#GìÐìÅìÓâÍglíÁ
#Sn¢\#aF# ìÓâÎ¢Æì©gÎìÁ#G¢ìµ,##1G# ¢ìÆÏ#ÕéLúl¢o#GçÐìpìQoÍ#GçÅìhÖíªÁ#EìÂ¹hí\g#RÆÏíD
#§ì Túl¢o#2#GçÐ¢ìpìQo#G¢çtìÅöF#ÈàÎÖ¾]í¾ºíÁg#bûÝìÁ#Kì½##1+Odisho, 1988 and 2001
# G# ¢ Ïé gæk#E¢¢Æì Ï#E¢¢té Q±g#K¢¢Æì Ï#G¢¢tç Åì Dö #EìÂ¹h¢¢\í #R¢¢ÅìDg#ÒI¢¢L#aD# úkâÎ¢ oíD#G¢¢úÖìDg
306
#E¢¢ìÆÏ#ÕéLúl¢ o#GçÅìh¢ ÖíªÁ#ÈôD#aG¢¢úÖìD#Ã¢¢í©##1Ñ¢¢ÖÐíÆìÉg#õ§ìÐ¢ ìpìQo#FõÓúÎ±âÎ¢ pì¾Q²L

#K¢#½÷ Íú #ÑÖÏíÔTúl¢o#aG# ¶õ PÔ¢í©#G¢éÏiì àÍÓìD#Ã¢í©#GìÆÁì ÎìÏg#GéÏiì gì #GéÏiì àÍÓìDg#DúkâÎoíD
# ì§UQt\#EìtÐì±#hæL#ÑÖÏíÔTúlo#aKì½#ÈôF##1GçÐìÂ¾æ©#GçoDô Ôís#¿í©#ì§¾QcÓ#GìÏÎúÖg

outcome 305
GéÏlôdriven, 306
#h¢¢í\# . §ì ¢¶Pgûm#ì§PÎ¢¢\íÓ#Dìh¢\#K¢¢½ì gûÍ# G¢¢Æì Ðì ¾íÝæÁ#a GìÐÅì Ôì ¢Ïì #GìU¢sì âÎ\#h¢¢\í

309 308 307
n #ÚÏémàÎ¢X#ÈàÎ¢X#Dúl¶íÐÁíg#õ§ìUPÔ¹#ÎìÉ#ÔPEìÐÅìÓ# bûÎÏ#ÕéÏún\#Gì©gôD#GìchúÖ
## È# æÎ¢Ï#Dúl¹âÎ¢ÆÁ#aG# ¢úÖDì #Äíh¢µ#2g#DéjÁEé##1(1961; 1998; 2000)#Joh#Joseph
310
#aG# Lì l¢ís#G¢úÖÞ ì #Èæl¢Ïìg#vækh¢ÆæÁ##G¢ìcEí½g#Ç¢éªLì #Kì½Í#ÚÏémàÎX#Dúl¶íÐÁíg#Eì©gôÞ

# #=GçpQ²µ#DéjúÖâÎÅ#ì§ì½Ó#GéLâÍl¶í#2#¸àÎUs
#Õ¢÷¾Ï#G¢ìtQ±#Õ¢÷¾Ï#Õé\âÎ¢¾²íÁ#ÚÏémàÎ¢X#Dúl¢¶íÐÁíg#R¢¶QàÎ½#aE# ìÐìÁh¢íµ# #
#GçMPÔ¢¢¹#G¢¢étQ±#G¢¢ìÆPg#e¢¢ÏíD#õ§ìÐìÅìÔQª¢¢síÓ#õ§ìÐÁûÎ¢ íµ#¿¢¢©í #Ô¢¢PEìÆ¾ì º¾¹#G¢¢Ðì ½ôÓ
#G¢ì\kâÍD#Dìh¢]íL#a§ì# Ð¢ûÊÖû Í#ì§¢súkg#Dìh¢\#K¢ì½g#aì§ÐìÅìÓâÍÓìDÍ#ì§óQt±#ÑÖÏíÓâkÍÝL
##1Ñ# ÖÏíÔ¢ TíÔ¹íg#õ§]ì ¢ tí\g#G¢¢Uì ¹ì âÍk#Ã¢¢©í #õ§Ðì ÁûÎ¢ µí #R¢¢ÅìDg#ì§Æ¢¢ìskíhÁûÍ#ì§ÆìªPn¢¢Á
#ÍìD# §õ# ìÏìgâÎ¢#õ§ìÐÁÎû# ¢íµ#GìÂ¹h¢í#gâÎ¢]¾íL#ì§Âæ\âÍÔÁ#ì§tQ±#Iì¾Ï#Kì½#ì§QªsíÓ
311
##1Ô# ¢PDúÂÉ#GìÅælÖâÎL#GìtQ±#Õ÷¾Ï#Kì½#ÑÖÏíÔUPÔ¹íg#GìUì¹âÍkíg#RÆÏíD#GçÂì Ôô±

#G¢éÏiì àÍÓìDg#DúkâÎ¢oíD#Õ¢÷¾Mæ µí g#G¢ìÏÝú Á#Õ¢÷¾Ï#K¢ì½#ÚÏémàÎ¢X#Dúl¢¶íÐÁíg#ì§Ðìsék#ì§¾æ©
#¿# ¢í©#Õ¢éÆÐì ©æl½#Õ¢÷¾Ï#G¢ìÐÆì L#ÍHg#I¢ì¾P#Gõ¶PÔí©#GéÏiì àÍÓìD#Ãí©#GìÆìÁÎìÏg#GéÏìiìg
#´ìD#K¢ì½Dô #aE# ìÐìÅìÔQª¢síÓ#Sh¢ÆæÁ#hí\#gâÎ]¾íL#Õ÷¾Ï#Kì½#DúkâÎoíD#GúÖìD#hí¹#aì§QªsíÓ
#GçÐÆì ¢ìt½ô # G# dç ¢ìog#Õ¢÷¾Ï#ì§Æìslí±ÔæÁ#Kì½#ì§Æì Á#Dìh\ûÍ#ÎìÉ#GìdÁæ âkÎºÁ#Õ÷¾Ï#GìtQ±
312
#Ô¢PEìÆì¾º¾¹#ì§Q¢ÆL# Ö# ÷ÓâÎÆìckh¢íÁÍ#ì§¶Q¢©#lPÔíÏ#Ö÷ÔPn]íÁ##1GéÐìÅìÓâÍgjíÁÍ
313
#Î¢ìÉ#G¢ìÆÏ#GéMPÔ¢Ïg# §õ# ìÐ¢ì¶íÅìD#Vì#FõÓúÎÆì©gÎì#GìÆÏ#GéÏâÎpíºÁ#ì§QªsíÓ#¿í©

#Dìh¢ \#G¢¢ìµ#G¢¢ìÆÏ#õ§ìÐ¢ ì¶íÅìD#V¢¢ì#FõÓúÎ¢ Æì©gÎìÁ#G¢¢çÅíD##1FúÍn¢¢æ\g#G¢¢ìÍk#FúkgâÎ¢ \
##1Dúl¢¢óôµg# §õ# ì]¢¢sâÎÁ#Ñ¢¢ÖÐí¾¹g# §ì Åìh¢¢Mí©ÔæÁÍ# F# ìÓ¢¢ÂÉ#FìÓâÎ¢¢ÆìÂÐí¶Á
315 314
#GçÐìÆ¢¢ìt½ô# #G¢¢çpcàÎóoôDg#G¢¢ìâÎÊL#I¢¢ì¾Ï#G¢¢ìÏÓì Dö #ì§PÎ¢¢\íÓ#G¢¢úÖìDg#DìÓâÍlPÔ¢¢íÏ

#§õ Ðì Æì ¢ìt½ô # §÷# ¢ìÏiâÍgg#G¢ìÆìÐºí½#RÆôó¾¢ítÁ#E¢÷¹g#G¢çÆìªPnÁ#K¢õ¾ÐíûÍ#GéÐìÅìÓâÍgjíÁÍ
#Kõ¾®¢¢æog#ì§¢pí®¾ío#G¢¢ìµ#G¢¢ìÆÏ#G¢¢çÏúÝ½íD#÷§¢ìÏiâÍg#Gìch¢¢Öú ##1GìÐìÅâÎ¢sg#÷§ìÐìÅìÓâÍgj¢¢íÁÍ
#ÚÏémàÎ¢X#Dúl¢¶íÐÁ#G¢ìµ#FìÓâÎ¢MÐíó¾íLâÎµ#ÈæÎÏ#GéLâÍl¶íÁ#aGúÖìD#Ãí©#. ì§QªsíÓg 316
#G¢÷âÎ²í\#ÖéÎ¢ìÉg#G¢ìÏÜú âÎL#G¢úÖDì g#EìLl¢ís#ÕéÐÆì Mí½# ì§Q\âÎ²í#R½ôD#Õ÷¾UQÖÏg

317

subjective 307
biased 308
lacking in credible evidence 309
I have rejected 310
isolated events 311
contexts 312
conceptualization 313
comprehensive and objective assessment 314
dimensions 315
shaping the annals of history 316
inspiration 317
#GçÐìÅâÎsg#÷§ìjíÏ#÷§ìÏiâÍg#Õ÷¾Ï#ÑÖÐíâÎ\líÁg#FúnPní©#Kì¾Ðí\#ÕéÏâÎ¾ûÊÂí½#ÈéÎÏ
##1FìÓâÍglíÁgûÍ#GìÆìtô½g
#GìÁæl\âÎÁ#uéÐì±#Kì½g#K÷½úÍ#GìªPhÏ#GìÂÖàÎ#hí\#2g#GìÂí©#hí\#aGìÆìÏûkÓ
#Gì²ì¾\âÎ¢s#ÍìD#GìÆ¢ìtô½g#Gì²ì¾\âÎ¢sg#ì§¢¾æªL#ì§ÐìÅìÔQª¢¢síÓ#ì§ÐìÅúl¢¶æ©#Ö÷ÓâÍÔ¢¢PD#2
#§ì ¢¾æªL#ì§ÐìÆÂ ì ÖàÎ¢#Ö÷ÓâÍÔ¢PD#2#GìÁæl\âÎÁ#uéÐì±#Kì½g#K÷½úÍ#EìÂí©#hí\#1GçÖìíg
#GìÆìtô½#hí\g#FìÓâÎÐì©Ýæ#GìÐìÁúkìD#GìÆìtô¾½#EìÏúkàÍÓìD#GìÆìtô½#2#GìÐìÆìkíg#GìÐìÅâÎsg
#I¢¢¢úÊÏIL#aFúÎ¢¢Ö#G¢¢¢ìÏÎúÖ#Gìch¢¢¢úÖ#ÈôD##1%G¢¢¢ìÏúkàÍÓìD#E¢¢¢ìÐìÁúkìD%#E¢¢ìÏlôµ#G¢¢¢ìÐÂ ì ©í
#aÑ# ÖÏíÓâÎÏìh¢Æì½lÏ÷Þ#G¢ì©gôD#Dìh¢ìUªí½#ÍúÎ¢ÖÏ#SÝ¢ìÁ#K¢ì½#E¢ìÆìÁÎìÏg#GéÏìh¢Æì½jÏ÷D
#G¢éÏiì ÝæÁ#´ìD#aGìchúÖÍ##1GìÐpì ¾ô ÊÅôÞ# GìÏÔì ¾ío#2#Õ÷¾²ô¾\âÎs#ÑÖÐíÆtì ½ô g#ÒIL
318
#ÒI¢L#ì§¶PÔ¢í©#ì§ÐìóLâÎ¢µ#ÑÖÏíÓâÍÔ¢PÞ#G¢ì©gôD#Sh¢Uì©g#SÝ¢ìÁ#K¢ì½#GìÆÁì ÎìÏg
#Õ÷±Î¢¢ìtL#ÈàÎÖ¾¾Q¶¢¢sûÍ#Eì¶PÔ¢¢í©#E¢¢ìÏkú ÝæÁ#ÑÖÐíÆ¢¢tô¾½#ÈàÎÖ¾¶QU¢¢s#R¢¢ÅìDg
#ÚÏémàÎ¢X#Dúl¢¶íÐÁíg#R¢¶QàÎ¾½#«¢æLÓí #ÔPDúlPl¢ís#G¢ìtÅì Dö #ÈôD##1GìÐìLúlí©#GììÆìtô¾½
#I¢¢úÊÏIL#aÑ# ÖÐûÖìÂ¢ïtíL#õ§ÐìÅìÔQª¢¢síÓ#õ§ìÐÁûÎ¢íµÍ#Dékìj¢síg#FìÓâÍÝ¢¢PkÓíg#ì§ÆìÏh¢¢íL
#ÒI¢L#a§ì# ¶PÔ¢í©#ÇPkÝ¢æÁ#Ã¢í©#DúkâÎ¢oôD#h¢í\#´ìD#I¢ì½DéÎÖú #K¢ì½#GìÆìÁÎìÏg#ÇPkÝæÁ
#ÕéÅìjÂíªL#GìÏlôµ#Õ÷¾Ï#GìtQ±#ì§QªsíÓg#GìÏúkâÎs#2#Egypt#“Ô²ôDg”#DúkÓíDg
#G# ¢ìtQ±#G¢#Ðì Åì ÎìÏ#GìÆ¢ìt½ô g# #FìÓâÎ¢Ðì©Ýægí ##“Ô# ¢²ôD#”#K¢ì½Í#“ Ç# PkÝ¢æÁ”#eÏíD
319
#ì§ÐìoàÎÂìÅÍ#ì§Æì¾MíµÔæÁ#aIúÊÏIL# #1GìÐTì lªíÁ#GìÂ¾ì©#ÎìÉ#GìÐìÅúÎìÉ#DìhQU©#Õ÷¾Ï

#aG# ¢¢¢éÐÁì iì Þ
ì #ì§ÐìÆ¢¢¢ìt½ô #ÑÖÏíÔ²í¾]¢¢¢ís#kíÔ¢¢¢ìL#2#aG# ¢¢¢éÏiàÍÓìDg#bûl¢¢¢ÁìDg#I¢¢¢ì¾Ï
#G¢ìÐÁì kú Dì #GìÆ¢ìt½ô #h¢í#GìÆPD#aì§ÏúkàÍÓìD#ì§ÐìÆìÂÖàÎ#ÑÖÏíÓâÍÔPD#ÈàÎÖ½EìÐÁâÎ\
#ÚÏ# mé àÎ¢X#Dúl¢¶íÐÁ#Õ¢÷½Dô #Õ¢÷¾Ï#DìhÆì ¢oíg#G¢ìÅlé \öD#FúnµâÎÅ#hí\# #1GìÐìÂí©#GìÏúkàÍÓìD
#Õ÷¾P#Gõ¶PÔí©#GéÏìiàÍÓìD#Ãí©#GìÆìÁÎìÏg#GéÏìiìg#GéÏìiàÍÓìDg##DúkâÎoíÞ#Ö÷Ô¾í¶½íhÂíL
#hí\#RÅìD#ÈôDg#eÏíD#a GçÐìÁàÎÆµ#GçÖì#ÎìÉg#Gì²ì¾\âÎt½#Õ÷¾Ï#GìUúÖÏg#DúlµâÎÏ
320
# Ô¢¢PDúlPÔ\#ÍH##1§ì# ÐìÆìÂÖàÎ¢ #FìÓâÍÔ¢¢PD#Dìh¢ \íg#G¢¢ìÆÏ#G¢¢ìÆQÁíD#G¢¢ìpcàÎóoôD

321
#: Ô# ¢PEìÆTì kÎìÁ#Õ¢÷¾Ï#Dúl¢ìÁDö Í#Õ÷¾UPÔ¢¹#Fiey#R¢Øg#ShÆô#Õ÷¾Ï#ÈûkâÎchíÁ

322
#Ñ¢¢ÖÐí²PÜkûÍ1111ì§Ðì]Q¢¢tÁ#SkàÍÓìDg#G¢¢çÐìÁàÎÆµ#G¢¢çÖìíg#Déih¢¢æo#ÈæÎ¢Ï#FúÜâkÍÓ%
#ÑÖÏûÎ¢ìÉ#Ô¢Ðí½Í#aGçtìÅöDg#GçÐìÁàÎÆµ#GçÖìíg#FõÓúÍÔì±#tÂí#GìLkâÎµ# ÈæÎÏ 323
Fiey, 1965: 146-148, cited in ,#%G# ¢ìÏúkàÍÓìD#GìÂ¢æs#hí\#Õ÷½ÔPDg#Dúl²ìo#hí\#´ìD

Celtic 318
Breasted, ) %Mudraya#GìÏúkgâÎÁ%#Gì¶PÔí©#GìÂæs#2#Õ÷¾Ï#GìÏÓôD#%kÝìÁ%#GìÂsæ g#Iì¾Ï#ì§ÆìÏÎúÖÔæÁ 319
(1944; Frye, 1963; Herzfeld, 1968
proper nouns 320
proudly 321
rhetorically 322
I have aligned 323
#Dúl¢¢¶æª½# GìÆ¾ì cíÓÔ¢¢æÁ#G¢¢ìÆÏì Îì#h¢¢í\#G¢¢ìÆÏ#K¢¢ì½#G¢¢çÖ

324
ì ##1+Joseph, 1998
#R²ô¾]¢¢sí #G¢¢¹÷ #G¢¢Öç ì ##1G# ¢ ìÂí©#h¢¢í\g#GìÐìÅìÔ¢ ÁâÍD#ÍìD#G¢¢ìÐìÆìÂÖàÎ#aEìÐÅì Ôì Qª¢¢síÓ
# G# Ðì Åì âÎ¢sÍ#ì§Ð¢ì¾L##h¢í¹#aF# ìÓél¢\öD#Dìh]í½ FìÓhí½ÍìÓ#Dìh\#2#GìÆTûmg#FìÓlíMªíL
326 325
#G¢÷¹#aG# Æì ¢ìt½ô #e¢ÏíD#a§ì# ÐìÆÂ

ì ÖàÎ¢#FìÓâÍÔ¢PD#Dìh¢\íg#GéÅjé ¢\öD#GéÐ¢#ìséi#GçpcàÎóoôDg
#h¢¢í\#aGìch¢¢Öú ##1¿¢¢ªæ ¾íL#4.1.2#GìµàÎ¢ pì²L#Çí¾ÂQ¢¢skíg#e¢¢ÏíD#aDéiìg#G¢¢ìLúk#Kì¾¶¢¢ìs
#Ã¢¢í© G# ¢ìÆìÁÎìÏg#G¢¢éÏìiìg#GçÆì¾MíÏÔ¢¢æÁ#GìÂ¹h¢¢í\g#DúkâÎ¢oíDg#ì§Túl¢o#G¢¢µì #G¢¢sì kú âÍg
327
#aG# ¢çÐìÁàÎÆµ#G¢çÖì#¿í©#GìÐÆæL#Õ÷¾Ï#GìtQ±g#aì§¶PÔí©#ì§ÐìÆìÂÖàÎ#ÑÖÏíÓâÍÔPD
#aD# hì ¢ìUªí½#Õ¢÷¾Ï#Gì¶QÆ¢o#ÚÏémàÎ¢X#Dúl¢¶íÐÁíg##GìÂ¾¹#1Õ÷¾Ï#Kì¾Q#GìsúkâÍg#hí\
# G# ¢ Åì lú Uì©Í#G¢¢\ì àÍlì±#G¢¢Æì Ðì ¹#h¢¢\í #ÈàÎÖ½Ô¢¢PD#G¢¢Ðç Áì àÎÆµ#G¢¢çÖìíg#DékâÍl¢¢ítÂí½
328
#Õ¢¢÷¾P#aFìÓél¢ \öD#Dìh¢ ]í½ FìÓh¢¢í½ÍìÓ#Dìh¢ \#2#Gì²¾ì \âÎ¢ t½#Õ¢¢¾÷ Ï#GìÆ¾ì MíµÔ¢¢Áæ gûÍ
#¸ú¢©#Î¢ìÉ#ÈàÎÖ¾¢oôDÓâÎsg#E¢éÏiì àÍÓìD#ÔíÆÐíL#GçÖ ì gí #Gõ²¾ì \âÎs#ÈàÎÖ¾sékìgg
#ÍúÎ¢ Ö#Ô¢¢PD#¸ú¢ ©#Î¢¢ìÉ#ÈàÎÖ¾¢¢oôDÓâÎsg#G¢¢éÏìiàÍÓìD###11918g#ì§èÆ¢ és#kíÔ¢ ìL#2
#ÈàÎÖ¾Q¶¢¢s#Ô¢¢PEìÆìkíg#R¢¢ÅìD#G¢¢ìÆPD#aGçÐì]Q¢¢tÁûÍ#GçÐìÅìÔQª¢¢síÓ#G¢¢çÖì#ÈàÎ¢Ö½
#E¢¢éÏìiàÍÓìD#G¢¢çÖì#I¢¢úÊÏILûÍ# G¢¢pç ¾ô Ê# ÅâÍEÁ#E¢¢çÖì#ÍìD#GçÐ¢ ìpô¾ÊÅôD#GçÖìÂ¢ tí½
329
#G¢¢¢çÖ ì #ÍìD#GéÐLì jì ¢¢¢í©#GçÖÂì ¢¢¢tí½#G¢¢¢ì¶Mì \#ÈàÎÖ½DékâÎ¢¢¢s#FìÓl¢¢¢íûÍ#aGõ¶PÔ¢¢¢í©

332
ì§¢ ¢¾í¶¾í¶Âí½Í#ì§ÐìÁÎ¢¢¢ìÏ#ÑÖÏíÓÎ¢¢¢Ðí\# HâÎ½âÎ½íh¢ ¢½#G¢¢¢ìtQÆL GéLjæ ¢ ¢©âÍÔÁ
331 330
# #. GçÐìÆìÂÖàÎ#ÑÖÏíjóôµg
333
#E¢¢¢éÏìiàÍÓìDg#G¢¢¢ì²ìµâÎÅ#Õ¢¢¢÷¾Ï#Õ÷½âÎ¢¢Míµ#ÚÏémàÎ¢¢X#Fúl¢¢¶íÐÁ##aGìÏìÔ¢¢Q½Ó
#Ã¢¢í©#ÑÖÐí¶ì±âÎ¢ Å#Õ¢¢÷¾Ï#ÕéLúl¢ o#G¢¢ìÆPD#aG# éÐìPiâÎ¢ o#ÍìD#G¢¢éÐìÁìiìD#Ã¢¢í©#G¢¢ìÆìÁÎìÏg
#ÍúÎÖÏ#DéoöD#aEéÐìÁìiìDÍ#Gõ¶PÔí©#GéÏìiàÍÓìD#aÑÖÏûÍk÷Óg#Çô±ìD#Gõ¶PÔí©#GéÏìiàÍÓìD
#G¢¢Æì Ï#E¢¢Ïé Îæ Ö#G¢ìÆÁì ÎìÏg#E¢¢Ïé iì àÍÓìDg#G¢¢ºì ÏíD#GçÅhì ¢\âÍD#R¢¢ÅìEL#l¢¢Öû #ÔPEìÅÔì Qª¢síÓ
# #1ÑÖÏíÔQªsíÓg#GìÏúkâÎs#2#GúÖ#DúlìÂ©
#

reliable index 324
generation 325
erosion and shift 326
modern descendents 327
fleeting and transient 328
Anglicized 329
Arabicize 330
facilitate 331
alleviate 332
# #aÈúlPD#ÎìÉ#ÈàÎÖ½DéÎÖ#´ìD#GçÏìiìg#EéÏìiàÍÓìDg#GçÖìíg#Gì²ì¾\âÎsg#õ§ìÆìÐÁíg#FõÓúÎÐíÆíºÏíD 333
# ##1DúU©#GìÏìÔìÐØàÎo#FìhìÏâÎ\g#GçÆâÎµÍ#ÇìÆMô½#aGìPkâÎo#aGìQ¹kâÍÓ######
# # GçÂì\âÍÓ 15
334
#Ã¢í©#FìÓâÎ¢ÆìÐ\öD#ÈàÎÖ½ÔPDg õ§ìÐìÅìÔQªsíÓ#õ§ìPÎ\íÓ#ÑÖÐí¾¹g#ì§Tûl¶íÁ#kíÔìL#2
#aF# Óì âÎ¢LÜ#G¢úÖDì #¿¢í©# Õ# ¢÷¾²Q¶Åíg#G¢ìskú âÍg#Ã¢í©#aÇPjÖíÅ#ÔÐéLg#Gõ¶PÔí©#GçÆìtô½
335
#GÂì# ¹h¢¢í#E¢¢ìÆÏ#Fún¢ìÁkíg#Ô¢¢PEìlµ#ÈàÎ¢ÖÆæÐLâÎÁ#G¢¢çÐì¶íÅìD#FçnµâÎ¢Å#GìÂ¹h¢¢í\
1GçÂ\ì âÍÓ
#ÍìF#DìÓâÍkàÎ¢úl²ÁôD#Dìh¢\íg#G¢ìÝû L#aG# ìÐ¢ìpìQo#G¢ìpì¹âÎ#hí\##=GìÐìÁhíµ# #
#ÍìD#ì§ÐìÆÂ ì ÖàÎ¢#FìÓâÍÔ¢PDg#E¢ìÆQÁíD#G¢ìpcàÎóoôD#h¢í\#Õ¢÷¾Ï#K¢ì½#aGìÆìó½âÎs#hí\
#G¢ìpì¹âÎ#h¢í#GìÆìó½âÎtÁ#DúkÓíDg#DúÎì#Õ÷¾Ï#DúlìÂ©íg#EìÂí©#hí\g#FõÓúÍÔPDg
#G¢ìpì¹âÎ#Äìh¢µ#2#FúÎ¢ÖÏ#G¢ìÁìÓ#ì§ÐìÆìÂÖàÎ#DìÓâÍÔPD#Dìh\íg#GìÁàÎµ##1GìÐìpìQo
#h¢¢í\g#ì§¢ ¾ì²Å#aEìch¢¢Öú ##1Ö÷Ô¢ ¾ì²Å#kíÔ¢ Lì #2#G¢¢ìÁìÓ#G¢¢ìtÐì±#h¢¢æL#E¢¢ìÁàÎµÍ#GìÐ¢ ìpìQo
#h¢í\#e¢ÏíD#G¢ìÂ©í #hí\g#Gì¶½ì âÎ#eÏíD#ì§UQt\#GìtÐì±#Kì½g##K÷½úÍ#GìÐìpìQo#Gìpì¹âÎ
#EìÆ¢ ¢ìtô½g#GìÏìh¢ ¢]æÁ#G¢¢¢ìÐì±âÎ\#e¢¢¢ÏíD#K¢¢¢ì½#´ìDÍ#aG¢¢¢ìtÆíºÁ#GìÐ¢ ¢ìtÆì ÐíÆL#G¢¢¢ìâÎÉ
336
F# ìÓâÎ¢ ¢ÆìÐ±ÎìÁ#K¢¢¢ì½ôD#DúÎ¢ ¢ÖÏ#K¢¢¢ì½#kàÍÓìDg#ì§¢ ¢¾í²Å##1G¢¢¢ìÂí©#ÍHg#DìÓâÍgl¢¢¢íÁgûÍ
# F# ìÓâÎÆì±ÎúÖÔ¢¢¢æÁ#ÍìD#G¢¢¢ìÂí©#h¢¢¢í\g#FìÓâÎ¢¢ÆìÐ±ÎìÁ#K¢¢¢ì½Í#aGìÐ¢ ¢ìpìQo#E¢¢¢ìpì¹âÎg
337
1ì§ÐìÆìÂÖàÎ#Ö÷ÓâÍÔPDg
#G¢¢²õ ½ìD#G¢¢µì #R¢¢Ðì\#E¢¢ô¹g#G¢¢ìÆÏ#G¢¢çÐì\#FõÓúÍÔ¢¢PD#GìÂ¹h¢¢í\#GçÆ¢ìtô½#=G¢¢ìÆìÏûkÓ
#R¢ÅìD##1G# ¢ìÏkú âÎÁ#h¢í#ÈàÎ¢ÖU©#ÈôD#ÔPEì²±ì k#R¶¾ì#Kì½#RÅìD#GìÆPD#aGçÆsæ g
#ÈàÎÖ¾tQ±g#GìÆìtô½g#FìÓâÎÆìÐÆítÁíg#DìÓkâÍgg#GéÐìséi#GçpØâÎ#ÇÏékÔí½#RªLìÓ#E÷¹
#e¢ÏíD#GìªPh¢P#Õ¢÷¾Ï#G¢ìtQ±#Ñ¢ÖÐíÆÁæ #h¢í\##1¿# ¢æª¾íL#2.4.1.1 GìµàÎpì²L#GéÂQsk
#GìÁÔì\#G÷¹g#FìÓkàÎ©m#FìÓâÎÆìÐÆítÁíg#DìÓkâÍh½#Õ÷¾Ï#FúnìÁkûÍ#GìÐ ì¹éÁìD#GìpØâÎ
#Mg# #G¢ìpØâÎ#e¢ÏíD#ì§ªPh¢P#G¢ìtÐì±#E÷¹#FìÓlé \öD#ÒH##1FõÓìh½ÍìÓ#Ôì½Óíg#Gì\Ôæ
#1D# ié gì #G¢ìÂ¹#G¢ìµ#G¢ìclìÏ#G¢÷¹g#F# Óì l¢íMÆè Éí #FìÓâÎÆìÐÆ¢ítÁíg#DìÓkâÍh¢½#Õ÷¾Ï#FúnìÁkíg
##G¢éMQÖãÏÍ#Dékkæ âÎ¢tÁ#ÈàÎÖ¾¢tQ±g#aGìÆìtô½g#FìÓâÎÆìÐÆítÁíg#F÷ÓìiâÍg#GìchúÖ#ÓàÎ²½
#Äìh¢µíg#Déjó ì ¢sôDÍ#FìÓâÎ¢Æì©gÎìÁg#ì§¢]í¾²û#G¢ìÉlæÖ#GúÖEì L GéÐÆì Lì iâÎµ#Gç\ÔæÁ
338
#Déigì #E¢ìÂ¹#G¢ìslæ ÉâÎÁ#FúÎ¢Ö#DéÎ¢úÖ#hæL#GìÏkú àÍÓìD#GìÆtì ½ô g#Gì¶ì½âÎ##aGìÆÏ# ÈíhPD

#kíÔ¢¢ìL#2#´ìD . Ã¢¢¢µ#612g#ì§èÆ¢¢ésg#FìÓâÎ¢¢ÐìLkâÎ¶L#kàÍÓìDg#ì§¢¢¾ì²Å#kíÔ¢¢ìL#2
339

conclusions 334
ensued 335
demise 336
evaporation 337
approximate 338
#1GìÆTûmg#GìlíÏ##Gì\ÔæÁ#hí\#vælÊíÁ#G÷¹#EìÆtì ô½#hí\g#GìÐìÆì¾º¾¹#DìÓÎìÁg#Dúlô¹gâÎÁ#uéÐì±g#K÷½úÍ#EìÏàÍlìµ 339
# #(Healey, 1990: 204,#Eì]QtÁíg##GìÆTûm#¿ûÖ½#Õ÷½DéÎµ##EìÏìhì¹ìD#EìÆìt½ô #a§ì ½ì Óíg#DúlÖú âÎÆL#Çí½Dén\íg#eÏíD
#uéÐ¢ì±#K¢ì½g#K¢÷½Íú #G¢ìÏkú àÍÓìD#GìÆ¢ìt½ô g# G# ¢ìÐìÆì¾º¾¹#Gì¶ì½âÎ#aDéiìg#GìÂ¹íg#FìÓlìU©

340
#G¢ì¶½ì âÎÍ#G¢éÏiì àÍÓìDg#ì§ÐìÆÂ ì ÖàÎ¢#FìÓâÍÔ¢PDg#ì§Ð¢ìÆ¾ì º¾¹#ì§Ðì#eÏíD# GìUQt\

#FõÓÍú Ô¢¢¢PDÍ#G¢¢¢çÂÂí©##1§ì# ÐìÆ¢¢ìslæs#ÑÖÏíÓâÍÔ¢¢¢PÞ#G¢¢¢ì©gôD#Dìh¢¢ìUªí½#Ñ¢¢ÖïÐíµgæmg
#ÑÖÏíÓâÎ¢ÐìÂÖàÎó½#Gì©gôD#DìhìUªí½#ì§ÐìoàÎÂìÅ#FìÓâÎÐìµgúm#ÈàÎÖ½ÔPD#õ§ìÐìÆìÂÖàÎ
#kíÔ¢ìL#2#´ìD#ÍìD#ÑÖÐíÆìtô½g#Gì¶ì½âÎ#kíÔìL#2#Déiìg#´íD#ì§ÐìÆìslæsÍ#ì§ÐìÅìÔQªsíÓ
#e¢¢ÏíDg#aK¢¢½ì #ÈôD##1G¢¢ìÐúÖÁôD#Ñ¢¢ÖÏûlÂªíÁ#Ô¢¢ÐéL#2 ì§¢Ïúóµ#ÑÖÏíÓâÎ¢ÆìnÁ 341
#ÈàÎ¢Ö¾¶ô½âÎ#R¢ÅìD#h¢í¹#ÑÖÏíÓâÎÏìh¢Æì½lÏ÷Þ#G# ¢ì©gôD#Sh¢Uì©#GéÏìhÆì½jÏ÷D#SÝìÁ
#G¢¢¢éÏìiÝæÁ#SÝ¢¢¢ìÁ#e¢¢¢ÏíDg#a Ô¢¢¢PEìÅìÓúÎcíD##B +GìÏÔì ¾¢¢¢ío,#G¢¢¢ìÐì¾ÐíÉ#ÑÖÐíÆ¢¢ìtô¾½
343 342
#ÈàÎ¢¢Ö¾¶ô½âÎ#R¢¢¢ÅìDg#kíÔ¢¢ìL#2#ÑÖÏíÓâÎ¢¢ÏúkÝô#G¢¢¢ì©gôD#Sh¢¢¢Uì©#G¢¢¢ìÆìÁÎìÏg
#2#G¢¢Ðì Lì lú ©í #GìÆ¢tì ¾ô ½#ÑÖÏíÔ¢¶íM\ûÍ#Gì¶PÔ¢¢©í #+G¢¢ìÐìóLâÎµ,#G¢¢ìÏúkÝæÁ#ÑÖÐíÆ¢ìtô¾½
#G¢ì¹éÁDì g#GéÐÆì ¢ìsjæs#GçÅjì ¢Âì©#ÈàÎÖ¾Áæl]íÁg#FéÝÁì #RÆìÁ##BG÷jíÏ#Déiìg#Äìhµ
#ÑÖïÐíÆ¢ ¢ìtô¾½#ÈàÎ¢ ¢Ö¾¶ô½âÎ#R¢¢¢ÅìDg#ì§¢ ¢¾æªL#ÑÖÏíÓâÎ¢ ¢ÐìÂÖâÎÍ#ÑÖÐ¢¢¢íslæs#2
# ##BGçÐìÆìÂÖàÎ
#FìÓhí ¢\#ì§Ð¢ì¾É#Dìh¢\#RU¢tì\#G÷¹#EìÂ¹hí\g#aGìÆìtô½#ÓâÎÆìÏûkÓ#aGìÏìÔQ½Ó# #
#Ç¢ìD#eÏíEÁ#hí\#Iì¾P#ÔPDúlPlís#HâÍÓâÎ¶PÔ©í ##1Iì¾Ï#ì§¶PÔí©#lPÔíÏ#aIì¾Ï
#Iì¾Ï#GìÅìhæ©#aGìÆúÖ#¿í©##1ì§ÐìÁhíµ#GúÖìÉ#Gìµ#Dégìh\ôEL#ÈàÎÖ¾¶Q±Ó#GçÆìtô½#ÇÏékÓíg
#Î¢ìÉ#ì§¶PÔ¢í©#lPÔ¢íÏ#ì§ÐìÆ¢ìt½ô # §ì# Ð¢ì¾É#Dìh¢\#ì§UQ¢t\#G¢ìtÐì±#GìÆ¢ìt½ô #ÓâÎÆìÏkû Óíg
#GìÂ¾ì©#ÎìÉ##1ÔPEìÅÎú Éì #FìÓâÎÐìÆPhÁgûÍ#FìÓâÎtìÅöDg#ì§ÐìÅìÓúÎ²æoÍ#ì§UPÔ¹#ì§QªsíÓ
#ÈàÎ¢ ¢Ö¾]í²¾íÁg#I¢¢¢ì¾Ï#ÈíÔ¢ ¢Q½úÍ##aG¢¢¢ìÆÁì ÎìÏg §ì ÐìÅÔì ¢ ¢ÉâÎ\#FìÓâÎÅìh¢ ¢Ðí\ÔæÁg
344
#´ìDÍ#ì§Ïìh¢ìÐ©#FìÓâÎ¢ÐìÆíºÏíD#Dìh\#Iì¾Ï#Kì½#GìÆìtô½#ÓâÎÐìÅìh\íg õ§ìÐìÐ¾í#DõÓìh½ÍìÓ 345
#G¢#Æì P#Ñ¢ÖÏûÍkôÓg#K¢ì½Dô #aI# ¢ì¾Ï#FìÓnQÆ¢s#FìÓâÎ¢ÐìÆºí ÏíD#Dìh¢\#GìÆtì ½ô #ÓâÎÊPEío#Kì½

#GìÆ¢ ìtô½#ÓâÎ¢ ÆìÏûkÓ##1F# ìÓâÎÐìÆPh¢¢ÁgûÍ#FìÓâÎ¢ tìÅöDg#G¢¢çÐí\g# #õ§ìÆ¢ ìÂÐí¶Á#õ§ìÐ¢ ì¾Pg
346
#ÈíÔQª¢síÓg#G¢ìóÖûk#Õ÷¾ºL#Iì¾Ï#ì¥ãÏÎÖûÍ#ì§UPÔ¹#ÈíÔQªsíÓ#Äìhµ#2#FúÎÖÔPD
# F# Óì âÎÆ¢ìolí²Áíg#ì§Æ¢Qóíµ#FìÓâÎ¢ÅúªÁ#Fìh¢\##1h# ¢PÔ©íhL#GìtÐì±#hæLÍ#ì§UPÔ¹
347
#G¢çÐì¾#Õ¢éLôDg# D# ú¢©#âÎÊ¾ô±#DìhìÐ©ûÍ#GìÐìÂ¾ì©#GìtÆô¹#ÔíÆÐíL#GìÆìtô½#ÓâÎÆìÏûkÓíg
348

total 340
forced displacement 341
Gaelic (Celtic) 342
similarly 343
global integration 344
young generations 345
constant 346
a careful observation of the pervasiveness 347
subconscious manner 348
#§ì Ð¢ì¾É#Dìh¢\#GìÆ¢ìt½ô #ÓâÎ¢ÆìÏkû Óíg#Ô¢PEìÆÏì Îì¶Á#I¢ì¾Ï#DékâÍl¢ítÁ#aI# ¢ì¾Q¶Mì\#E÷¹

# ##. Iì¾Ï#ì§ÏìhìÐ©#ìì§ÐìÆìtô½#GìtÙíÅÍ#ì§Ð±ìÓÎìs#ì§ÐìÆìtô½#´ìÓÎìs
349
#GìÆ¢ ìtô½#h¢¢í\##a¿# ¢ æª¾íL#G¢¢ìÆìÏûkÓ#GìÂì\âÍÔ¢¢L#Èû¢ ÁöDg#e¢¢ÏíD##=G¢¢ìÐìªQTk# #

#G¢¢ìÐ¾ûÊÁ#FéÎ¢úÖÍ#GéÅéj¢\öD#GçÆ¢ìtô½#lPÔ¢¢íÏ#ÍìD#h¢¢í\#Ã¢¢í©#G¢¢ìÏúkâÎ#l¢¢éMì©g#E¢¢ìÁàÎµ
#FìÓâÎÆìÐÆ¢¢¢ítÁíg#F÷ÓìiâÍg#ÑÖÏûÍkôÔ¢ ¢L#aG¢¢¢ìÆPD##1G# ¢ ¢ì¶ì½âÎó½#ÍìD#FìÓâÎÆìÐÆ¢¢¢ítÂí½
#G¢ìÆTûm#h¢í\#kíÔ¢ìL#2#GìÁÔ¢ì\#G¢÷¹#Ô¢PDìhÐì ©#FìÓkâÍg#Dìh¢\#¿¹#a¿æª¾íL#GéÂQsk
#FõÓÎú ÐìÆPh¢Á#¿¢í©g#E¢ìÉlæÖ#h¢í\#G¢ìµ#GìÂQ#lPÔíÏ#ShÆæÁ##1GìÆìtô½#ÓâÎÆìÏûkÓíg
#%FìÓâÎÆìÐÆ¢¢ítÁíg#FìÓl¢¢ìMèÆíÉ#FìÓkâÍg%#G¢¢ìÏlôµ#Õ¢¢÷¾Ï#G¢¢ìtQ±g#G¢¢ìÁ#Õ¢¢÷¾P#õ§ì¶PÔ¢¢í©
#G¢úÖDì g#ì§¢Lûk#ì§Æì ¢Á#Dìh¢\#1G# Æç ¢æs#G¢ì²½íD#h¢í#Déigì #E¢ìÂ¹#2#GìÏÎí¶Á#E÷¹g#RÆÏìD
#ÓâÎ¢ÆìÏkû Ó# gí #ì§l¢íÏ#FìÓâÎÔ¢Á#Dìh¢\íg#FìÓkâÍÝ¢L#FéÎÖú g#K÷½Íú #EìlíÏ Eì\ÔæÁ
#G¢ìÆP#K¢ì¾Öú ½ûÍ#G¢ìÆÏ#G¢éÏÎæ Ö#FõÓÎú Ô¢Á#G¢çÅDí ##1F# Óì âÎÏúl²¢æo#ÓâÎ¢ÆìÏkû ÓgûÍ#GìÆ¢ìt½ô
##1F# õÓúÎÐìÆPh¢ÁgûÍ#GìtìÅlíLg#ì§QªsíÓg#DìÓâÎckíhÁûÍ#Gì¶ìsâÎ±#aGìÏúÜâÎM½#GçÆìªÐípÁ
#Dú¢ ÂÉ G# \ì Ô¢¢Áæ #e¢¢PkíD#G¢¢Ïì Üú âÎL#h¢¢\í #G¢¢µì #ì§Q¢¢ÁkíÓ#Dìh¢ ]¾¹#aÔPDúlPl¢¢ís%
#h¢í\#G¢ìUÖìÏg#K¢÷½Íú #aâ#Î¢Âí¾éÁg#ì§Q¢ÁkíÓ#eÏíD#aÇPjÖíÅ#ÔÐéLg#GçÆìtô½Í#F÷ÓúÍgjíÁg
#FìÓâÍglíÁ#ÓâÎÆìÏûkÓgûÍ#GìÆìtô½#ÓâÎÆìÏûkÓíg#E÷jíÏ#Gç\ÔæÁ#RÅìÞ#FúnPní©#DúlµâÎÏ
#Ç¢í¾¹##1Ñ# ¢ÖÐí¾©í #RÆôó¾¢ítÁ#G¢÷¹g#G¢çÆªì PnÁ#Gõ¾Ðí\#Ãí©#FìÓâÎÏúl²æo#ÓâÎÆìÏûkÓgûÍ
#G¢çpì®½âÎo#ÑÖÐíµâÎtí²½#ÈàÎÖ½DéÝÁ#GçÆìÆtí¾ÁûÍ#GéÐìQàÎ½àÎÐ¹iíDg#bûlcìgg#K÷½úÍ
#Ñ¢ìÆÏì kû Ó# G# ¢õµâÍgg#Gì\kâÍEL#ÑÖïÏíÓúÎÐìÆPhÁ#ÑÖÐíÅâÍlÖíM½ûÍ#Gõ¶PÔí©#GçÆìtô½g
350
#G¢¢¢ì±Eô¹Í##ÈâÍÔ¢¢¢pæÖéLg#ì§ÂæÐ¢ ¢ìµ#e¢¢¢ÏíD#a§ì# PÎ¢¢¢\íÓg#GìÆ¢ ¢ìtô½#ÒìEQÊ¢¢¢íoÍ#GìÆ¢ ¢ìtô½

# #.(Odisho, 2001: 147) "FìÓÔéoàÍkg
# #=E©ÎMÁ
#1DÔÏnÐ¾ÊÅD#DÔ\ÜD#ÎÉ#EÏÜÎLg#E©ÎM#Òn\

a normal sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic phenomenon 349
pieces 350
Chapter 14: Arabic Version
ϪϳϮΒϴγ ϒϴϨμΘϟ ϲϋΎΒτϧϻ΍ϭ ϲγΎδΣϻ΍ ϭ ϲϣΎϨϳΩϮϬϟ΍ ήϴδϔΘϟ΍

ΓέϮϬΠϤϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ ϦϴΑ ˯Ύτϟ΍ϭ ϑΎϘϠϟ
ΔϣΪϘϤϟ΍ .1
ΐϠΟ Ϣ˷ Η (Odisho) 1988 ϭ 1975 ϲϣΎϋ ϦϴΑ ΓέϮθϨϤϟ΍ ΙϮΤΒϟ΍ϭ ΕϻΎϘϤϟ΍ Ϧϣ ΔϠδϠγ ϲϓ
1988 ϭ 1977 ϲΜΤΑ ϲϓ .ΔϴΑήόϟ΍ Δϐ˷Ϡϟ ϲΗϮμϟ΍ ϡΎψϨϟ΍ ϲϓ [aspiration] ΢ϔϨϟ΍ ΓήϫΎχ έϭΩ ϰϟ΍ ϩΎΒΘϧϻ΍
ϦϴΑ ΓΰϤϬϟ΍ϭ ϑΎϘϟ΍ϭ ˯Ύτϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλ΍ ϢπΑ ϲοΎϘϟ΍ ϝΪΠϠϟ ήϴΜϤϟ΍ ϪϳϮΒϴγ έ΍ήϘΑ ϖϠόΘϳ Ε΍άϟΎΑ ΪϴϛΎΘϟ΍ ϥΎϛ
ΪϘΘϋ΍ ΖϨϛ 1988 ΚΤΑ ϲϓ .ΔγϮϤϬϤϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ ϰϟ΍ Ϣ΋ΎϘϟ΍ ΖϗϮϟ΍ ϲϓ ΐδϨ˵˰Η ΎϬϧ΍ ΎϤϠϋ ΓέϮϬΠϤϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍
Al-) ϝΎΜϣ΍ ϦϴΜΣΎΒϟ΍ Ϧϣ ϱήϴϏ ˯΍έ΍ ϰϠϋ ϲϋϼσ΍ ϥ΍ ΪϴΑ ΔϠϜθϤϟ΍ ϩάϫ ΩΪμΑ ϱΩϮϬΟ ΕάϔϨΘγ΍ Ϊϗ ϲϨϧΎΑ
ϖϠόΘϳ ΎϤϴϓ ΔλΎΧ ˬϝΎΜϤϟ΍ ϞϴΒγ ϰϠϋ ˬ(Carter, 2004) ϭ (Versteegh, 1977) ϭ (Nassir, 1993
ΓέϭήπΑ Εήόη ˬϪϳϮΒϴγ ϥΎϣί άϨϣ ΎϴΗϮλ ΕήϴϐΗ Ϊϗ ΎϬϨϜϟϭ ΓέϮϬΠϣ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ ϩάϫ ϥϮϛ ΔϴϧΎϜϣϻ ϢϫΪϴϳΎΘΑ
1
ΔϴϣΎϨϳΩϮϬϟ΍ ϭ [phonatory] ΔϴΑάΑάΘϟ΍ ϪΒϧ΍ϮΟ Ϧϣ ήΜϛ΍ ϞϴλΎϔΘΑ ϪΘθϗΎϨϤϟ ϯήΧ΍ Γήϣ ωϮοϮϤϟ΍ ϰϟ΍ ΓΩϮόϟ΍
kinesthetic-] ΔϴϛήΤϟ΍-ΔϴγΎδΣϻ΍ ϭ [perceptual] ΔϴϋΎΒτϧϻ΍/ΔϴόϤδϟ΍ϭ [aerodynamic]
ϪΘΣϭήσ΍ ΔϏΎϴλ ϲϓ ϪϳϮΒϴγ ΎϬόΒΗ΍ ϲΘϟ΍ ΔϘϳήτϠϟ Ϟπϓ΍ ϢϬϓ ϰϟ΍ Ϟμϧ ϥ΍ Ϟϣ΍ ϰϠϋ [proprioceptive
.ΔϴΑήόϟ΍ ΔϐϠϠϟ ϲΗϮμϟ΍ ϡΎψϨϟ΍ Ϧϋ ΓέϮϬθϤϟ΍
ϢϬΗϻϮϘϣ βΒΘϘϧ ˬϪϳϮΒϴγ ΔΣϭήσΎΑ ΔϘϠόΘϤϟ΍ ΔΛϼΜϟ΍ ΏΎΘϜϟ΍ ΕϻϮϘϤΑ ΉέΎϘϟ΍ ϊϴΒτΗϭ ΔϗΪϠϟ Ύ˱ϴΧϮΗϭ
ϱ΍[G] ϥΎϛ ϑΎϘϠϟ ϲϠλϻ΍ ΕϮμϟ΍ ϥΎΑ ΩΎϘΘϋϼϟ Ε΍έήΒϤϟ΍ Ϟϛ ϚϟΎϨϫ " :ήλΎϨϟ΍ ϝϮϘϳ .ΎϴϓήΣ ϩΎϧΩ΍ ϲϓ
ΔΠϴΘϧ ϻ΍ βϴϟ [q ϱ΍] ϡϮϴϟ΍ ϰΤμϔϟ΍ ΔϴΑήόϟ΍ ϲϓ Ϫϟ αϮϤϬϤϟ΍ ήϴψϨϟ΍ ϥ΍ϭ ΍ΪϳΪη ΎϳϮϬϟ ΍έϮϬΠϣ ΎΗϮλ
ϞΜϣ ϩήϬΟ ϲϓήϴϐΗ Ϊϗ ήΧϻ΍ Ϯϫ ϪϧΎΑ ΪϘΘόϳ ϪϧΎϓ ˬ˯Ύτϟ΍ ΕϮμΑ ϖϠόΘϳ ΎϤϴϓ ... Ϧϣΰϟ΍ ήΒϋ ϲΗϮμϟ΍ έϮτΘϟ΍
ΔϴΨϳέΎΘϟ΍ Ϊϫ΍Ϯθϟ΍ ϰϟ΍ ΍ΩΎϨΘγ΍ " :ϝϮϘϟ΍ ϰϟ΍ κϠΨΘδϴϓ Versteegh Ύϣ΍ ".(37 :1993) ϑΎϘϟ΍ ΕϮλ
Ύϣ΍ .(89 :1997) ΓέϮϬΠϣ ΎϘΣ ΖϧΎϛ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ ϩάϫ ϥΎΑ ν΍ήΘϓϻ΍ ϝϮϘόϤϟ΍ ήϴϏ Ϧϣ βϴϟ ˬϪϳϮΒϴδϟ
Ύϣ΍ ΍˱έϮϬΠϣ ϥϮϜϳ ϥ΍ ΎϨϜϤϣ ϥΎϛ ϑΎϘϟ΍ ΕϮλ ϥΎΑ ΩΎϘΘϋϻ΍ ϰϟ΍ ϞϴϤϳ Ϫϧ΍ .Ίθϟ΍ ξόΑ Ύ˱ψϔΤΘϣ ϭΪΒϴϓ Carter
.(126 :2004) Ϫόοϭ ήϴδϔΗ ΐόμϟ΍ ϦϤϓ ˯Ύτϟ΍
ϡΎΘϟ΍ ϕϼϏϻ΍ ΐϠτΘΗ ΓΰϤϬϟ΍ " ϥϻ ΍˱ήψϧ ΔθϗΎϨϤϟ΍ ϩάϫ Ϧϣ ΖϴϨΜΘγ΍ Ϊϗ ΓΰϤϬϟ΍ ϥ΍ ήϛάϟΎΑ ήϳΪΟ
Laver, )ήϬΠϟΎΑ ΓΰϤϬϟ΍ ΕϮλ ˯΍Ω΍ ϦϜϤϤϟ΍ ήϴϏ Ϧϣ ΢Βμϳ ΍άϟ [glottis έΎϣΰϤϟ΍ ΔΤΘϓ] ϦϴϴΗϮμϟ΍ ϦϳήΗϮϠϟ
΢Θϓ ϥΎϜϣϻΎΑ βϴϟ ΓΰϤϬϟ΍ ˯΍Ω΍ ˯ΎϨΛ΍ Ύ˱ϴϠϛ ΔϘΒτϣ ΔϴΗϮμϟ΍ έΎΗϭϻ΍ ΖϧΎϛ ΎϤϟ ˬήΧ΍ ϰϨόϤΑ .(1994: 206
ΓΰϤϬϟ΍ ϯΩΆΗ ϥ΍ ϞϴΤΘδϤϟ΍ Ϧϣ ˬήΧ΁ ήϴδϔΘΑϭ .(Catfor, 1988:57) ήϬΠϟ΍ ϭ΍ βϤϬϟ΍ ϞΟ΍ Ϧϣ έΎΗϻ΍
΍˱έ΍ήϗ ΓέϮϬΠϤϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ ϦϴΑ ϪϳϮΒϴγ ϞΒϗ Ϧϣ ΓΰϤϬϟ΍ ϒϴϨμΗ ΢Βμϳ ΍άϜϫϭ [aspiration] ΢ϔϨϟ΍ ΔΒΣΎμϤΑ
ϒϨμ˵Η ΎϤϨϴΑ ΓέϮϬΠϣ ΖϔϨ˵˰λ ϲΘϟ΍ ϑΎϘϟ΍ϭ ˯Ύτϟ΍ ϰϠϋ ΎϨϫ ΰϴϛήΘϟ΍ ϥϮϜϴγ ϚϟΫ ϰϠϋ ˯˱ ΎϨΑ .Ύ˱ ϗϼσ΍ Ϫϟ ΪϨγ ϻ
.ΔγϮϤϬϣ ϡϮϴϟ΍
ΖϧΎϛ ϑΎϘϟ΍ϭ ˯Ύτϟ΍ ϥΎΑ ν΍ήΘϓϻ΍ ϰϟ΍ ϞϴϤΗ ϲΘϟ΍ ΔΛϼΜϟ΍ ΏΎΘϜϟ΍ ˯΍έϻ ΔΒδϨϟΎΑ ϡΎόϟ΍ ΎϨϠόϓ Ωέ ϥ΍
βϴϟ Ϧϣΰϟ΍ ήΒϋ ϲΗϮμϟ΍ ήϴϐΘϟ΍ ϥ΍ .ϲΗϻΎϛ κΨϠΘϳ Ϧϣΰϟ΍ ήΒϋ ΎϫήϬΟ ΕΪϘϓ ΎϬϨϜϟϭ ΓέϮϬΠϣ ΎΗ΍Ϯλ΍
ΖϧΎϛ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ ϩάϫ ϥΎΑ ν΍ήΘϓϻ΍ ϝϮΒϗ ϞΒϗ ϯήΧ΍ Ϟϣ΍Ϯϋ έΎΒΘϋϻ΍ ήψϨΑ άΧϻ΍ ΐΟϮΘδϳ ϦϜϟϭ .ϼϴΤΘδϣ
ΖϧΎϛ ˯Ύτϟ΍ϭ ϑΎϘϟ΍ ϥ΍ ˬϻ ˱ ϭ΍ :ΔϴΗϻ΍ ϲϫ Ϟϣ΍Ϯόϟ΍ ϩάϫ Γέ΍Ϊλ ϲϓ .Ϧϣΰϟ΍ ήΒϋ ΕήϴϐΗ Ϊϗ ΎϬϨϜϟϭ ΓέϮϬΠϣ
Ώήϗ΍ ϲϫ Δϴϣ΍έϻ΍ ϥ΍ ΢ο΍Ϯϟ΍ Ϧϣ .Δϴϣ΍έϻ΍ϭ ΔϴΑήόϟ΍ ϲϓ ΕΎϤϠϜϟ΍ έϭάΟ Ϧϣ ΕΎΌϤϟ΍ ϲϓ Δό΋Ύη Ζϟ΍ί Ύϣϭ
βϴϟϭ ˯˱ ΎϨΜΘγ΍ ϥϮϜϳ Ϊϗ ΔϴΑήόϟ΍ ΕΎΠϬϠϟ΍ ξόΑ ϲϓ ˯Ύτϟ΍ϭ ϑΎϘϠϟ ΓέϮϬΠϣ ΝΫΎϤϧ ΩϮΟϭ ϥ΍ ΍άϟ ˬΔϴΑήόϠϟ ΕΎϐϠϟ΍

Ε΍ήϴϐΗ Δγ΍έΪΑ ϖϠόΘϳ ϱάϟ΍ " aerodynamics" ϱΰϴϠϜϧϻ΍ ΢ϠτμϤϠϟ ϞϘϧ ϯήΣϻΎΑ ϭ΍ ˬΔϤΟήΗ ϩάϫ 1
.ϖτϨϟ΍ ίΎϬΟ ϒϳϭΎΠΗ ϲϓ Δϴ΋΍ϮϬϟ΍ ρϮϐπϟ΍
ϰϟ΍ ήϴθΗ ϻ Δϴϣ΍έϻ΍ ϲϓ ˯Ύτϟ΍ϭ ϑΎϘϠϟ Δϴ΋Ύϳΰϴϔϟ΍ϭ ΔϴόϤδϟ΍ϭ Δϴ΋΍Ωϻ΍ Ε΍˯ΎμϘΘγϻ΍ ϥ΍ Ϛϟάϟ ΔϓΎο΍ .ΓΪϋΎϘϟ΍
ϥ΍ ϲϋΪ˷ ϳ ΚΣΎΑ ϱ΍ ΪΟϮϳ ϻ ΎϤϛ .(Odisho, 1975a; 1975b; 1977c) ΔϴΑήόϟ΍ ϲϓ Ύϫή΋Ύψϧ Ϧϋ ΎϬϓϼΘΧ΍
ςϤϧ Ϧϣ ˯˳ ΰΠϛ ΎϬμϴΨθΗ ˯Ύδϳ Ϊϗ [phonation] ΏάΑάΘϟ΍ ΓήϫΎχ ϥ΍ ˬΎ˱ϴϧΎΛ .ΓέϮϬΠϣ ΖϧΎϛ ϑΎϘϟ΍ϭ ˯Ύτϟ΍
ΏάΑάΘϟ΍ ΓήϫΎχ ϥ΍ ϥ΍ ΔϘϴϘΤϟ΍ ϲϓ .[2004, 126] Carter Ϟόϓ ΎϤϠΜϣ [manner of articulation] ˯΍Ωϻ΍
ςϤϧϭ [place of articulation] ˯΍Ωϻ΍ ΝήΨϣ ϞΜϣ ϞϘΘδϣ ϲϔϴϨμΗ αΎγ΍ ΎϬΗ΍Ϋ ΪΤΑ ϲϫ [phonation]
ϲ΋ΎϨΛ νέΎόΗ ΎϬϧΎϛϭ ϞϣΎόΗ ΏάΑάΘϟ΍ ΓήϫΎχ ϥΎϓ ˬϚϟάϟ ΔϓΎο΍ .[manner of articulation] ˯΍Ωϻ΍
ϒλϭ ϰϠϋ ϝϮμΤϟ΍ ΔϴϐΑϭ .[voiceless] αϮϤϬϤϟ΍ϭ [voiced]έϮϬΠϤϠϟ [binary contrast]
ΕΎϴϟΎόϔϟ΍ Ϧϣ ΪϳΪόϟ΍ ΔϴΗϮμϟ΍ έΎΗϭϼϟ ϥΎΑ ϢϠόϧ ϥ΍ ΐΠϳ ΔϴϧΎδϧϻ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ ΔϤ΋ΎϘϟ ϖϴϗΩ ϒϴϨμΗϭ
Catford, 1977: 16; ) [synchronization] Ϧϣ΍ΰΘϟ΍ ΝΫΎϤϧϭ [modes] ρΎϤϧϻ΍ϭ [activities]
[voice] ΏάΑάΘϟ΍/ήϬΠϟ΍ ϞΜϣ ΔϴΗϮμϟ΍ έΎΗϭϻ΍ ΕΎϴϟΎόϓ ϕΎτϧ ϦϤο ϊϘΗ ϲΘϟ΍ (1988: 51-4
ΔϘϴϘΤϟ΍ ϲϓ ΍άϟ .(Catford, 1988: 53-4) [creak] ήϳήμϟ΍ϭ [whisper] βϤϬϟ΍ϭ [breath]βϔϨϟ΍ϭ
ΔϴγΎϴϗ –[dichotomy] Δϴ΋ΎϨΜϛ βϴϟϭ –[continuum] ϞδϠδϣ αΎϴϘϤϛ ΏάΑάΘϟ΍ ΓήϫΎχ έΎΒΘϋ΍ ΐΟϮΘδϳ
Ϧϣ ΔϴΗϮμϟ΍ έΎΗϭϻ΍ ΕΎϴϟΎόϓ ςϴδΒΗ ϥ΍ .ϢϟΎόϟ΍ ΕΎϐϟ ϰΘη ϲϓ ΓΩϮΟϮϤϟ΍ ΔϴΗϮμϟ΍ βϴϳΎϘϤϟ΍ Ϧϣ ΎϫήϴϏ ϞΜϣ
΢Βμϳ ΎϬϧϭΪΑ ϲΘϟ΍ ΓΰϴϤϤϟ΍ ΔϴΗϮμϟ΍ ΕΎϤδϟ΍ Ϧϣ ΪϳΪόϟ΍ ϲϔΨ˵ϳ ϲ΋ΎϨΛ αΎϴϘϣ ϰϟ΍ ϡΎδϗϻ΍ ΩΪόΘϣ ϞδϠδϣ αΎϴϘϣ
έΎΗϭϻ΍ ΩϮΟϮΑ [ϞϬΠϟ΍] ΔϓήόϤϟ΍ ϡΪϋ ϥ΍ .ΔϗΪϟ΍ ϡΪόΑ Ύ˱ϓϮϔΤϣ ΔϴϧΎδϧϻ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ ϒϴϨμΗϭ κϴΨθΗϭ ϒλϭ
ϞΒϗ Ϧϣ [synchronization] ΔϴϨϣ΍ΰΘϟ΍ ΎϬΟΫΎϤϧϭ [modes] ΎϬσΎϤϧ΍ϭ [activities] ΎϬΗΎϴϟΎόϓϭ ΔϴΗϮμϟ΍
ΓΩΎϳί .ΓέϮϬΠϤϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ ϦϤο ΎϬόοϭϭ ϑΎϘϟ΍ϭ ˯Ύτϟ΍ κϴΨθΗ ϲϓ ϕΎϔΧϻ΍ ϰϟ΍ ϩΩΎϗ ϱάϟ΍ Ϯϫ ϪϳϮΒϴγ
ΔϳήΠϨΤϟ΍ ΕΎϨϣ΍ΰΘϟ΍ϭ ρΎϤϧϻ΍ϭ ωΎοϭϻ΍ Ϧϣ ΪϳΪόϟΎΑ ΖϧήΘϗ΍ ϪϣΪϋ ϭ΍ ΏάΑάΘϟ΍ Δϴ΋ΎϨΛ ϥ΍ Ϯϟ ˬϚϟΫ Ϟϛ ϰϠϋ
ΕΎϴ΋ΎϨΜϟ΍ Ϧϣ ΪϳΪόϟ΍ ϲϫ ΔΠϴΘϨϟΎϓ [non-aspiration] ΢ϔϧϼϟ΍ ϭ΍ [aspiration] ΢ϔϨϟ΍ ΞΘϨ˵Η ϲΘϟ΍ ϯήΧϻ΍
ΕΎϔλ ϊΑέ΍ ΔΠϴΘϨϟ΍ ΖϧΎϜϟ βϤϬϟ΍ϭ ήϬΠϟ΍ ΓΰϴϤΑ ΎϬϧ΍ήϗ΍ ϢΗ Ϯϟ ΢ϔϨϟ΍ Γΰϴϣ ϥ΍ ˬϝΎΜϤϟ΍ ϞϴΒγ ϰϠϋ .ΓΰϴϤϤϟ΍
ˬ[voiced aspirated] αϮϤϬϣ έϮϬΠϣ ˬ[voiced unaspirated]αϮϤϬϣ ήϴϏ έϮϬΠϣ :ϲϫ ΓΰϴϤϣ
Ϊ˷ϟϮΗ ϲΘϟ΍ [voiceless aspirated] ΡϮϔϨϣϭ αϮϤϬϣϭ [voiceless unaspirated] ΡϮϔϨϣ ήϴϏ αϮϤϬϣ
ϲϓ ΢ϔϨϟ΍ ΓήϫΎψϟ ΔϧΎϜϣ ϻ ϦϳάϠϟ ΔλΎΧ ΰϴϴϤΘϠϟ ΔΑϮόμϟ΍ ΔϳΎϏ ϲϓ ΎϬπόΑ ϥϮϜΗ Δϴ΋Ύϳΰϴϓϭ ΔϴόϤγ ΕΎϓϼΘΧ΍
ϑΎϘϟ΍ϭ ˯Ύτϟ΍ ΔΒδϧ ϲϓ ϪϳϮΒϴγ ϙΎΒΗέ΍ ϥ΍ ΎϨϟ ΢πΘϴγ ΔθϗΎϨϤϟ΍ ϩάϫ ϲϓ ΎϨϠγήΘγ΍ ΎϤϠϛϭ .ϲΗϮμϟ΍ ϢϬϣΎψϧ
.ϑΎϘϟ΍ϭ ˯Ύτϟ΍ ϲΗϮλ ϲϓ ΎΗΎϤΗ ΞϔϨϟ΍ Δϔλ ϡ΍Ϊόϧ΍ ϰϟ΍ ϯΰό˰˵ϳ ΓέϮϬΠϤϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϼϟ
ˮ΢ϔϨϟ΍ ϮϫΎϣ .2
ϥ΍ .ΎϬϨϣ ΓΪϳΪθϟ΍ ΔλΎΧ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ ξόΑ ˯΍Ω΍ ΐϘόΗ ˯˳ ΍Ϯϫ ΔΤϔϧ ΎϬϧΎΑ ΢ϔϨϟ΍ ΓήϫΎχ ϒϳήόΗ ϢΗ ΎϳΪϴϠϘΗ
ΔϴϣΎϨϳΩϮϬϟ΍ ϭ [articulatory] Δϴ΋΍Ωϻ΍ ωΎοϭϻ΍ βϜόϳ ϻϭ ΍ΪΟ ϲΤτγ ϮϬϟ ϒϳήόΘϟ΍ ΍άϫ ϞΜϣ
[supraglottal] ΔϳήΠϨΤϟ΍ ϕϮϓ Ύϣϭ [glottal] ΔϳήΠϨΤϟ΍ [phonatory] ΔϳάΑάΘϟ΍ ϭ [aerodynamic]
.ϪϣΪϋ ϭ΍ ΢ϔϨϟ΍ ϰϟ΍ ϱΩΆΗ ϲΘϟ΍
ΚϴΣ ΢ϔϨϠϟ Δϳήψϧ [Kim 1965, 1967, 1970 ] Ϣ˶˰ϛ έϮσ ΓήϴΜϤϟ΍ ΙϮΤΒϟ΍ Ϧϣ ΔϠδϠγ ϲϓ
Ϣ˶˰ϛ ϥΎϓ ΍άϟ .ΕϮμϟ΍ ϖϠτ˵ϳ ΎϣΪϨϋ [glottal opening] ΔϳέΎϣΰϤϟ΍ ΔΤΘϔϟ΍ Δόγ ΔΠϴΘϧ" ϪϧΎΑ ΢ϔϨϟ΍ ϑή˷ όϳ
ΔϴϣΎϨϳΩϮϬϟ΍ ϭ [articulatory] Δϴ΋΍Ωϻ΍ ΕΎϨϣ΍ΰΘϟ΍ϭ ΕΎϔϴϴϜΘϟ΍ ΔΠϴΘϧ ϪϧϮϜΑ ΢ϔϨϟ΍ κΨθϳ
ΔϳήΠϨΤϟ΍ ϕϮϓ Ύϣϭ [glottal] ΔϳήΠϨΤϟ΍ ΕΎΤΘϔϟ΍ ϲϓ [phonatory] ΔϳάΑάΘϟ΍ ϭ [aerodynamic]
΍˱έϮϬΠϣ ΕϮμϟ΍ ΢Βλ΍ ΔϳήΠϨΤϟ΍-ϕϮϓ ΔΤΘϔϟ΍ ϖϠϏ ϝϼΧ έΎΗϭϻ΍ ΔΑάΑΫ ΖϘϠτϧ΍ Ϯϟ ΍άϟ .[supraglottal]
ΕϮμϟ΍ ϕϼσ΍ ϊϣ ΔΑάΑάϟ΍ Ε΍ΪΑ ϢΛ ΔϳήΠϨΤϟ΍-ϕϮϓ ΔΤΘϔϟ΍ ϖϠϏ ϝϼΧ ΔΑάΑάϟ΍ ΖϣΪόϧ΍ ΍Ϋ΍ϭ .[voiced]
ΔΤΘϔϟ΍ ϖϠϏ ϝϼΧ ΏάΑάΘϟ΍ ϡΪόϧ΍ ΍Ϋ΍ϭ .[voiceless unaspirated] ΡϮϔϨϣ ήϴϏ ΎγϮϤϬϣ ΕϮμϟ΍ ΢Βλ΍
΢Βλ΍ ΕϮμϟ΍ ϕϼσ΍ ΪόΑ Ύϣ ϰϟ΍ [milli seconds] ϒϟ΍/Ι 50 ΓΪϤϟ ΏάΑάΘϟ΍ ήΧΎΗϭ ΔϳήΠϨΤϟ΍-ϕϮϓ
Ϯϫ ΢ϔϨϟ΍ ϥ΍ ˬϕΩ΍ ΓέϮμΑϭ . (Shadle, 1997: 49) [voiceless aspirated] Ύ˱ΣϮϔϨϣϭ Ύ˱ γϮϤϬϣ ΕϮμϟ΍
Fujimura and Erickson, ) ˯ΎϬϟ΍ ΕϮλ ϞΜϣ [frication noise] ϲϛΎϜΘΣϻ΍ ΞϴΠπϟ΍ Ϧϣ ωϮϧ
ϲΘϟ΍ ˯΍ϮϬϟ΍ ΔΤϔϨϟ ΔϴϣΎϨϳΩϮϬϟ΍ ϑϭήψϟ΍ έήϘΗ ϲΘϟ΍ ϲϫ ΔϳήΠϨΤϟ΍ϭ Δϴ΋΍Ωϻ΍ ΔϴϔϴϴϜΘϟ΍ ρΎϤϧϻ΍ ϥ΍ .(1997: 76
.ϑϭήψϟ΍ ϩάϬϟ ΔΠϴΘϧ ϻ΍ Ζδϴϟ
Appendix. Chapter 14: Arabic Version 277
voice onset ] ΔΑάΑάϟ΍ ϕϼτϧ΍ ΖϴϗϮΗ ϡϮϬϔϤΑ ΓΪϳΪθϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ ϲϓ ΢ϔϨϟ΍ κϴΨθΗ Ύ˱πϳ΍ ϦϜϤϳ
ϕϼσ΍ ϞΒϗ έΎΗϭϻ΍ ΔΑάΑΫ ϖϠτϨΗ ˬ[d] ϝ΍Ϊϟ΍ ϞΜϣ ˬΓέϮϬΠϤϟ΍ ΓΪϳΪθϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ ϲϓ .[time = VOT
Ύϣ΍ .Ω΍Ϊδϧϻ΍ ϕϼσ΍ ϊϣ ϖϠτϨΗ ΓάΑάϟ΍ ϥΎϓ [] ˯Ύτϟ΍ ϞΜϣ ΔΣϮϔϨϤϟ΍ ήϴϏ ΔγϮϤϬϤϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ ϲϓ .Ω΍Ϊδϧϻ΍
.Ω΍Ϊδϧϻ΍ ϕϼσ΍ ΪόΑ Ύϣ ϰϟ΍ ήΧΎΘΗ ΔΑάΑάϟΎϓ [t*] ˯ΎΘϟ΍ ϞΜϣ ΔΣϮϔϨϤϟ΍ ΔγϮϤϬϤϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍
.ϩΎϧΩ΍ ϝϭϻ΍ ϞϜθϟ΍ ϲϓ ΎϤϛ Ϯϫ ΓΪϳΪθϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ Ϧϣ ΔΛϼΜϟ΍ ΝΫΎϤϨϟ΍ ϩάϬϟ ϲτϴτΨΘϟ΍ ΢ϴοϮΘϟ΍ϭ
Closing Release
Gesture Gesture
Voiced έϮϬΠϣ
Voiceless Unaspirated ΡϮϔϨϣ ήϴϏ αϮϤϬϣ
Voiceless Aspirated ΡϮϔϨϣ ϭ αϮϤϬϣ
Voicing
No Voicing
.ΔΛϼΜϟ΍ ΓΪϳΪθϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ ΝΫΎϤϧ ϲϓ ΢ϔϨϟ΍ϭ ΏάΑάΘϟ΍ Ϧϣ΍ΰΗϭ ΖϴϗϮΗ .1 ϞϜθϟ΍
ϞΟΆϤϟ΍ ˯ΪΒϟ΍" ϞΜϤΘϟ [delayed] "ϞΟΆϣ " [distinctive feature] ΓΰϴϤϤϟ΍ ΔϤδϟ΍ ΎϨϠϤόΘγ΍ Ϯϟ Ύϣ΍
ΔϴΑήόϟ΍ ϲϓ ΓΪϳΪθϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϼϟ ΔΛϼΜϟ΍ ϑΎϨλϻ΍ ϥΎϓ ˬΪϳΪθϟ΍ ΕϮμϟ΍ ϲϠϳ ϱάϟ΍ ΕϮμϤϟ΍ ϲϓ " ΏάΑάΘϠϟ
+voice –] ΕΎϤδϟ΍ άΨΘϴγ [d] ϝ΍Ϊϟ΍ ϞΜϣ έϮϬΠϤϟ΍ ϒϨμϟ΍ :ϲΗϻΎϛ ϯήΧϻ΍ Ϧϋ ΓΪΣ΍Ϯϟ΍ ΰϴϤΘΘγ
Ύϣ΍ [–voice, –delayed] ΕΎϤδϟ΍ άΨΘϴγ [ ρ ˬϕ] ϞΜϣ ΡϮϔϨϤϟ΍ ήϴϏ αϮϤϬϤϟ΍ ϒϨμϟ΍ ˬ [delayed
.ϩΎϧΩ΍ 1 ϝϭΪΠϟ΍ ϲϓ ΎϤϛ [–voice, +delayed] ΕΎϤγ άΨΘϴγ [t*] ˯ΎΘϟ΍ ϞΜϣ ΡϮϔϨϤϟ΍ϭ αϮϤϬϤϟ΍ ϒϨλ
ΔϴΑήόϟ΍ ΓΪϳΪθϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ ΏάΑάΘϟ΍ ϞΟΆϣ

/d/ = /Ω/ + –
// = /ρ/ or /q/ = /ϕ/ – –
/t/ = /Ε/ – +
ˬΓΰϴϤϤϟ΍ ΕΎϤδϟ΍ ϲϓ ϒϠΘΨΗ ΓΪϳΪθϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ Ϧϣ ϑΎϨλ΍ ΔΛϼΛ .1 ϝϭΪΠϟ΍
Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ ϥΎϓ "ϕΎΒσϻ΍ ϭ΍ ϢϴΨϔΘϟ΍" ϭ "ΏάΑάΘϟ΍" ΕΎϤγ ϰϟ΍ [΢ϔϨϟ΍ ϱ΍] " ϞΟΆϣ" ΔϤγ ΔϓΎο΍ ϊϣ
.2 ϝϭΪΠϟ΍ ϲϓ ΎϤϛ ΰϴϤ˵˰Θγ ΎϬΗΎΠϬϟ ΐϠϏ΍ϭ ΔϤϳΪϘϟ΍ Δϴϣ΍έϻ΍ϭ ΎϬΗΎΠϬϟ ΐϠϏ΍ϭ ΓήλΎόϤϟ΍ ΔϴΑήόϟ΍ ϲϓ ΓΪϳΪθϟ΍
ϕΎΒσϻ΍ :ϦϴΘϤδΑ ˯Ύτϟ΍ Ϧϋ ˯ΎΘϟ΍ ϒϠΘΨΗ ˬ2 ϝϭΪΠϟ΍ ϩΎϧΩ΍ ΓΰϴϤϤϟ΍ ΕΎϤδϟ΍ ΔϋϮϤΠϣ ϰϟ΍ ΍ΩΎϨΘγ΍
˰ϛ ϢγήΗ ϥ΍ ΐΠϳ ˯Ύτϟ΍ ΎϤϨϴΑ ˬ΢ϔϨϟ΍ ϞΜϤϳ [*] ΰϣήϟ΍ ϥ΍ ΚϴΣ [t*] ˰ϛ Ϣγή˵˰Η ϥ΍ ΐΠϳ ˯ΎΘϟ΍ ϥΎϓ ΍άϜϫϭ .΢ϔϨϟ΍ϭ
ϕήϔϟ΍ ϞΜϣ ˬϑΎϘϟ΍ϭ ϑΎϜϟ΍ ϦϴΑ ϕήϔϟ΍ϭ .ϕΎΒσϻ΍ ϰϟ΍ ΰϣήΘϟ ΎϬΘΤΗ ΔτϘϧ ϊϣ ΔΣϮϔϨϣ ήϴϏ ΎϬϧϻ [*] ϥϭΪΑ []
˯Ϯο ϲϓ .[aspiration] ΢ϔϨϟ΍ϭ [place] ΝήΨϤϟ΍ ΔϟΎΤϟ΍ ϩάϫ ϲϓ ΎϤϫ ϦϴΘϤδΑ Ύ˱ πϳ΍ Ϯϫ ˬ˯Ύτϟ΍ϭ ˯ΎΘϟ΍ ϦϴΑ
βϴϟ ΢ϔϨϟ΍ ήΒΘό˵˰ϳ ϲϜϟήϳήΒΘϟ΍ Ϟϛ ϚϟΎϨϫ ˬϑΎϘϟ΍ϭ ϑΎϜϟ΍ ϦϴΑϭ ˯Ύτϟ΍ϭ ˯ΎΘϟ΍ ϦϴΑ ΔϴϓΎοϻ΍ ΓΰϴϤϤϟ΍ ΔϤδϟ΍ ϩάϫ
ΔϤγ ϞΑ ΓΪϳΪθϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϼϟ ΕΎϴ΋ΎϨΜϟ΍ ϩάϫ ϦϴΑ ϕήϔϟ΍ ϢΨπ˵˰Η ϲΘϟ΍ [phonetic feature] ΔϴΗϮλ ΔϤγ ςϘϓ
ΩΎπΘϟ΍ ΍άϫ ϞΜϣ ϥ΍ ˬϲΗϮμϟ΍ Ϣ˶˰ϟΎόϟ΍ ήψϧ ΔϬΟϭ Ϧϣ .[phonological feature] Δϴϔϴχϭ ΔϴΗϮλ
phonological ] ΔϴΗϮλ Ε΍ΩΎπΗ ϰϠϋ Ύϣ Δϐϟ ϱϮΘΤΗ ΎϣΪϨϋ ϩΩϮΟϭ έήΒ˵˰ϳ ΓΰϴϤϤϟ΍ ΕΎϤδϟ΍ ϲϓ ϒϋΎπϤϟ΍
ϞΜϣ ϥ΍ ϊϟΎτϟ΍ ˯Ϯγ Ϧϣ .ΔϴϣΎδϟ΍ ΕΎϐϠϟ΍ ϲϓ ΔϴϘϠΤϟ΍ϭ ΔϳϮϬϠϟ΍ϭ ΔϤΨϔϤϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ ϞΜϣ ΓέΩΎϧ [contrasts
ϡΪϋ ϰϟ΍ ΔϓΎο΍ ΢ϔϨϟ΍ ΓήϫΎψΑ ΎϣΎϤΗ ΔϓήόϤϟ΍ ϡ΍Ϊόϧϻ ΍˱ήψϧ ϪϳϮΒϴγ ϚΑέ΍ Ϊϗ ϑϮϟΎϤϟ΍ ήϴϏ ϲΗϮμϟ΍ ΪϴϘόΘϟ΍ ΍άϫ
.ήΧ΍ ΐϧΎΟ Ϧϣ ΢ϔϨϟΎΑϭ ΐϧΎΟ Ϧϣ ΏάΑάΘϟΎΑ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ ΰϴϴϤΗ ϲϓ ΎϫέϭΩϭ ΔϴΗϮμϟ΍ έΎΗϭϻ΍ ΩϮΟϮΑ ϪΘϓήόϣ
ˬΡϮϔϨϣ αϮϤϬϣ ϱ΍ ΔϳΰϴϴϤΗ ΔϴΛϼΜϛ [phonation] ΏάΑάΘϟ΍ ΓήϫΎψΑ ϞϣΎόΘϳ ϥ΍ Ϧϋ ΎοϮϋ ˬΏΎπΘϗΎΑ
trichotomy of voiceless aspirated, voiceless unaspirated ] έϮϬΠϣϭ ΡϮϔϨϣ ήϴϏ αϮϤϬϣ
ΔΣϮϔϨϤϟ΍ ΔγϮϤϬϤϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ ϊοϭ ϪϧΎϓ ΍άϟ [dichtomy] ΔϳΰϴϴϤΗ Δϴ΋ΎϨΛ ϪϳϮΒϴγ ΎϫήΒΘϋ΍[and voiced
΢ϴΤλ .ήΧϻ΍ ΐϧΎΠϟ΍ ϲϓ Ύ˱όϣ ΓέϮϬΠϤϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ ϊϣ ΔΣϮϔϨϤϟ΍ ήϴϏ ΔγϮϤϬϤϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ ϊϤΟϭ ΐϧΎΟ ϲϓ
ΔϴϔϴχϮϟ΍ ΔϴΗϮμϟ΍ ΔϴΣΎϨϟ΍ Ϧϣ ϞϴϤΗ ΎϫήϴϏϭ ΔΜϳΪΤϟ΍ Δϴϣ΍έϻ΍ϭ ΔϳΪϨϠϳΎΘϟ΍ϭ ΔϳέϮϜϟ΍ϭ ΔϳΪϨϬϟ΍ ϞΜϣ ΕΎϐϟ ϥ΍
ΕΎϐϠϟ΍ ϩάϫ ϞΜϣ ϲϓ .Δϴ΋ΎϨΜϟ΍ Ϧϋ ΎοϮϋ [trichotomy] ΔϳΰϴϴϤΘϟ΍ ΔϴΛϼΜϟ΍ ϲϨΒΗ ϰϟ΍ [phonology]
.(Fujimura and Erickson, 1997: 76) ΏάΑάΘϟΎΑ ΔϧϭήϘϣ ήϴϏ ϭ΍ ΔϧϭήϘϣ ΓΰϴϤϣ ΔϤγ ΢ϔϨϟ΍ ϞϤόΘδϳ
ϲΗϮμϟ΍ΰϣήϟ΍ϭ ΝήΨϤϟ΍ ΏάΑάΘϟ΍ ΢ϔϨϟ΍ ϕΎΒσϻ΍

ϱϮϔηΎϨΛ΍ /b/ 2 = Ώ + – –
ϱϮΜϟ /d/ = Ω + – –
ϱϮΜϟ /D/3 = ν + – +
ϱϮΜϟ /t/ = Ε – + –
ϱϮΜϟ /T/ = ρ – – +
ϲϘΒσ /k/ = ϙ – + –
ϱϮϬϟ /q/ = ϕ – – –
ϱήΠϨΣ /!/ = ˯ – – –
.Δϴϣ΍έϻ΍ϭ ΔϴΑήόϟ΍ ΓΪϳΪγ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϼϟ ΔϴγΎγϻ΍ ΓΰϴϤϤϟ΍ ΕΎϤδϟ΍ .2 ϝϭΪΠϟ΍
βϳέΪΗ ϑϮϔλ ϲϔϓ .ΔΣϮϔϨϤϟ΍ ήϴϏ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ ΔϳϮϫ κϴΨθΗ ϲϓ ϖϔΧ΍ ϱάϟ΍ ΪϴΣϮϟ΍ ϪϳϮΒϴγ βϴϟ
Ϫϟ ΔϴΗϮλ Δϔϴχϭ ϻ ΢ϔϨϟ΍ ϥ΍ ϭ΍ ΔϴΤϔϧ ΎΗ΍Ϯλ΍ ϢϬΗΎϐϟ ϲϓ Ζδϴϟ Ϧϳάϟ΍ ΔΒϠτϟ΍ ϖϔΨϳ Ύϣ ΎΒϟΎϏ ˬϥέΎϘϤϟ΍ φϔϠΘϟ΍
ϲϓ Ύπϳ΍ ΔΒϠτϟ΍ ˯ϻΆϫ ϖϔΨ˵˰ϳ ϭ .ΔΣϮϔϨϤϟ΍ήϴϏ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ Ϧϋ ΎϫΰϴϴϤΗ ϭ΍ ΔΣϮϔϨϤϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ κϴΨθΗ ϲϓ
ΔϳΰϴϠϜϧϻ΍ ΔϐϠϟ΍ ΔΒϠσ ΎϬϓΩΎμϳ Ύϣ ΎΒϟΎϏ ΕϻΎΤϟ΍ ϩάϫ ϞΜϣ .ϒΜϜϣ ΐϳέΪΗϭ ϪϴΟϮΗ ϥϭΩ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ ϩάϫ ϢϠόΗ
ϲϓ ΔΣϮϔϨϤϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ ϦϴΑ ΰϴϴϤΘϟ΍ ΰϴϠϜϧϻ΍ ΔΒϠτϟ΍ ϊϴτΘδϳ ϻ ˬϝΎΜϤϟ΍ ϞϴΒγ ϰϠϋ .ΔϴϧΎΒγϻ΍ ΔϐϠϟ΍ ϢϬϤϠόΗ ϯΪϟ
ϲϓ ΍ϮϘϔΧ΍ Ύϣ ΍Ϋ΍ ΔΑ΍ήϏ ϻ .<skinϭ stickϭ spin> ϲϓ ΔΣϮϔϨϤϟ΍ ήϴϏ Ύϫή΋Ύψϧ Ϧϋ <kin ϭ tick ϭ pin>
Ϧϣ βϴϟϭ .ΔϠϳϮσ ΓήΘϓ ϕήϐΘδϳ ΎϬϤϠόΗϭ ΔϴϧΎΒγϻ΍ ϲϓ ΔΣϮϔϨϤϟ΍ ήϴϏ [p, t, k] Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ φϔϟϭ κϴΨθΗ
ϭΪΒϳϭ .ΔΣϮϔϨϤϟ΍ ήϴϏ ΔγϮϤϬϤϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ϭ ΓέϮϬΠϤϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ ϦϴΑ ΰϴϴϤΘϟ΍ ϥϮϤϠόΘϤϟ΍ ϖϔΨϳ ϥ΍ ΏήϐΘδϤϟ΍
ΔΣϮϔϨϤϟ΍ ήϴϏ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ ϊϗϮϣ ϥ΍ ˬϩϼϋ΍ ΓΰϴϤϤϟ΍ ΕΎϤδϟ΍ϭ ςϴτΨΘϟ΍ ϰϠϋ ˯ΎϨΑ .ϪϳϮΒϴδϟ ΙΪΣ Ύϣ Ϯϫ ΍άϫ ϥ΍
ΐϧΎΟ Ϧϣ ΓέϮϬΠϤϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ ϊϗϮϣ ϦϴΑ ςΒπϟΎΑ Ϯϫ [perceptual coordinate] ϲόϤδϟ΍ ϲΛ΍ΪΣϻ΍ ϰϠϋ
ΔΣϮϔϨϤϟ΍ ήϴϏ ΔγϮϤϬϤϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ ϥΎϓ ΍άϜϫϭ .ήΧ΍ ΐϧΎΟ Ϧϣ ΔΣϮϔϨϤϟ΍ ΔγϮϤϬϤϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ ϊϗϮϣ ϦϴΑϭ
Ϧϋ ΓήϴΧϻ΍ ϒϠΘΨΗ ΎϤϨϴΑ ςϘϓ [voice] ΔΑάΑάϟ΍ ϲϓ ϒϠΘΨΗ ΎϬϧϻ ΓέϮϬΠϤϟ΍ Ε΍ϮλϻΎΑ ΎϴόϤγ ΔϬϴΒη
.[voice & aspiration] ΢ϔϨϟ΍ϭ ΔΑάΑάϟ΍ :ϦϴΘϤδΑ ΔΣϮϔϨϤϟ΍ ΔγϮϤϬϤϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍

.ΎϬΟέΎΨϣ ϲϓ ϯήΧϻ΍ Ϧϋ ϒϠΘΨΗ ΓΰϴϤϤϟ΍ ΕΎϤδϟ΍ βϔϧ ΎϬϟ ϲΘϟ΍ ΓΪϳΪθϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ ϥ΍ φΣϻ 2
ϖΒτϤϟ΍ ΕϮμϟ΍ ΍άϫ ϚϠϤΗ ϻ Δϴϣ΍έϻ΍ 3
ΔϴδϨϜϟ΍ ΕΎϤϠϜϟ΍ Ϧϣ ΪϳΪόϟ΍ ϲϓ ΕήϴϐΗ ϲΘϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ ξόΑ ΩΪμΑ ΔϴΨϳέΎΘϟ΍ ΔϟΎΤϟ΍ ϩάϫ ΩήδϨϟ
ϥΎΗϮμϟ΍ . ΓήϴΧϻ΍ ΔϐϠϟ΍ ϲϓ ΔΣϮϔϨϤϟ΍ ήϴϏ Ε΍ϮλϻΎΑ ϖϠόΘΗ ϲΘϟ΍ϭ ΔϴϘϳήϏϻ΍ Ϧϣ Δϴϣ΍έϻ΍ ΎϬΘοήΘϗ΍ ϲΘϟ΍
ϲΘϟ΍ "țȜȘȡȚțȩȢ"ϭ "ʌĮĲȡȚȐȡȤȘȢ" ϲΘϤϠϛ ϲϓ ΎϤϛ ϦϴΣϮϔϨϣ ήϴϏ ϥΎΗϮλ ΔϴϘϳήϏϻ΍ ϲϓ [Ĳ] ϭ [ț]
ΖϟϮΤΗ ΍˱ΪΟ ΔϤψΘϨϣ ΓέϮμΑ .(Odisho, 2002) "¾ùØûÙàø" ϭ "¾ÜûØûÓñ" ϰϟ΍ Δϴϣ΍έϻ΍ ϲϓ ΖϟϮΤΗ
˯Ύτϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλ΍ ϰϟ΍ Δϴϣ΍έϻ΍ ΎϬΗέΎόΘγ΍ ϲΘϟ΍ ΕΎϤϠϜϟ΍ Ϟϛ ϲϓ ΔΒσΎϗ ΔϴϘϳήϏϻ΍ [k] ϑΎϜϟ΍ϭ [t] ˯ΎΘϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλ΍
ΓΎϔμϣ ϲϓ ϦϴΣϮϔϨϤϟ΍ ήϴϏ ϥΎϴϘϳήϏϻ΍ ϥΎΗϮμϟ΍ ϥ΍άϫ ϥ΍ Ϯϫ ϝϮΤΘϟ΍ ΍άϬϟ ΪϴΣϮϟ΍ ήϴδϔΘϟ΍ .ϑΎϘϟ΍ϭ
ήϴϏ [] ϑΎϘϟ΍ϭ [] ˯Ύτϟ΍ ϲΗϮμΑ Ύ˱ϬΒη ήΜϛ΍ ϲϣ΍έϻ΍ [psycholinguistic filter] ϱϮϐϠϟ΍ϮϜϳΎδϟ΍
ˬΐϧΎΟϼϟ ΔϴΑήόϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ βϳέΪΘΑ ϖϠόΘϳ ΎϤϴϓ .ϦϴΣϮϔϨϤϟ΍ [] ϑΎϜϟ΍ϭ [] ˯ΎΘϟ΍ ϲΗϮλ Ϧϣ ϦϴΣϮϔϨϤϟ΍
ϡΪϋϭ ΢ϴΤμϟ΍ ΎϤϬϘτϧ ϥΎϤο ϞΟ΍ Ϧϣ ϑΎϘϟ΍ϭ ˯Ύτϟ΍ ϲΗϮμϟ ΔΣϮϔϨϤϟ΍ ήϴϏ ΔόϴΒτϟ΍ ϰϠϋ ΪϴϛΎΘϟ΍ ϲϐΒϨϳ
.΍˱ΪΟ ϊ΋Ύη Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ ϩάϫ ϦϴΑ ςϠΨϟ΍ϭ .(Odisho, 1981) ϑΎϜϟ΍ϭ ˯ΎΘϟΎΑ ΎϬϟ΍ΪΑ΍
ϲϫϭ ϻ΍ ˬΓέϮϬΠϤϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ ϦϴΑ ˯Ύτϟ΍ Ϣο ϪϳϮΒϴγ έ΍ήϗ ϰϠϋ ΖΒΗήΗ ΔϤϬϣ ϯήΧ΍ ΔΠϴΘϧ ϚϟΎϨϫ
ήϴψϧ ϥϭΪΑ [Ύ˱ϘΒτϣ] Ύ˱ϤΨϔϣ ΎΗϮλ ΩΎπϟ΍ Ζϛή˵˰Η ΍άϟ ˯ΎΘϠϟ βϴϟϭ ϝ΍ΪϠϟ ϢΨϔϤϟ΍ ήϴψϨϟ΍ ΕήΒΘϋ΍ ˯Ύτϟ΍ ϥ΍
.ΩΪμϟ΍ ΍άϫ ϲϓ ϪϳϮΒϴδϟ ΔϟϮϘϤϟ ϲϠλϻ΍ κϨϟ΍ ϩΎϧΩ΍ ϲϓ .ϞϔΘδϣ
˱ ΍Ω ˯Ύτϟ΍ ΕέΎμϟ ϕΎΒσϻ΍ ϻϮϟ"

ϡϼϜϟ΍ Ϧϣ ΩΎπϟ΍ ΖΟήΧϭ ˬ˱ϻ΍Ϋ ˯Ύψϟ΍ϭ Ύ˱Ϩϴγ ΩΎμϟ΍ϭ ˬ ϻ
Al-KitƗb (1965: 404) “΍ϩήϴϏ ΎϬόοϮϣ Ϧϣ ϲ ˱ η βϴϟ Ϫϧϻ
ϦϴΘϤδΑ ϦϜϟϭ ˯ΎΘϠϟ ϢΨϔϤϟ΍ ήϴψϨϟ΍ ˯Ύτϟ΍ ΢ΒμΗ ΍άϟ ϝ΍ΪϠϟ ϢΨϔϤϟ΍ ήϴψϨϟ΍ Ϯϫ ΩΎπϟ΍ ΕϮλ ϥ΍ Ϣ΋ΎϘϟ΍ ΖϗϮϟ΍ ϲϓ
[ΔϘΒτϤϟ΍] ΔϤΨϔϤϟ΍ϭ ΔϠϔΘδϤϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ [ϞΑΎϘΗ] ΩΎπΗ ϥϼΜϤϳ 4 ϭ 3 ϥϻϭΪΠϟ΍ .΢ϔϨϟ΍ϭ ϢϴΨϔΘϟ΍ :ϲϫ ϦϴΗΰϴϤϣ
.ϡϮϴϟ΍ ΎϬΒϴΗήΗϭ ϪϳϮΒϴγ ΐϴΗήΗ ΐδΣ
3 ϝϭΪΠϟ΍ 4ϝϭΪΠϟ΍
ϞϔΘδϤϟ΍ ΕϮμϟ΍ ϢΨϔϤϟ΍ ΕϮμϟ΍ ϞϔΘδϤϟ΍ ΕϮμϟ΍ ϢΨϔϤϟ΍ ΕϮμϟ΍
/s/ = α // = ι /s/ =α // = ι
/į/ = Ϋ /įҕ/ = υ /į/ = Ϋ /įҕ/ = υ
/d/ = Ω // = ρ /d/ = Ω // =ν
Ϫϟ ήϴψϧ ϻ //=ν /t/ = Ε // = ρ
.ΔϤΨϔϤϟ΍ϭ ΔϠϔΘδϤϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϼϟ ϪϳϮΒϴγ ΐϴΗήΗ .3 ϝϭΪΠϟ΍

.ΔϤΨϔϤϟ΍ϭ ΔϠϔΘδϤϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϼϟ Ϣ΋ΎϘϟ΍ ΐϴΗήΘϟ΍ .4 ϝϭΪΠϟ΍
ˮ" αϮϤϬϤϟ΍" ϭ "έϮϬΠϤϟ΍" ΎΤϠτμϣ ΍ΫΎϤϟ .3

ϞΒϗ ΔϴΑήόϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϼϟ ϪϔϴϨμΗϭ Ϫϔλϭ ϥΎϓ ˬϪϳϮΒϴγ ΔΣϭήσ΍ ϲϓ ϙΎΑέϻ΍ ξόΑ Ϧϣ ϢϏήϟ΍ ϰϠϋ
ΔϳϮϐϠϟ΍ ϪΘϳήϘΒϋ ϰϠϋ ήϜϨΗ ϻ ΓΩΎϬη ϲϫ ΓΪϳήϔϟ΍ ΔϴΗϮμϟ΍ ΕΎΤϠτμϤϠϟ ϪϟΎϤόΘγ΍ϭ Ύ˱ϧήϗ ήθϋ ΎϨΛ΍ ϲϟ΍ϮΣ
έϮϬΠϤϟ΍ Δϴ΋ΎϨΛ ϥ΍ ˬΕ΍άϟΎΑϭ .ΎϬΟ΍ήΧ΍ ίΎϬΠΑ ϡΎϤϟϻ΍ϭ ΔϳήθΒϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϼϟ ϪδδΤΗϭ άϔϟ΍ ϲΗϮμϟ΍ ϪϗϭάΗϭ
ΔϴϔϴϨμΘϟ΍ϭ ΔϴϔλϮϟ΍ βγϻ΍ ϊϣ ήϴΒϛ ΪΣ ϰϟ΍ ϢΠδϨΗ ΔϴϫΎϨΘϣ ΔϗΪΑ ΎϬϴϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ ΔϴΒϟΎϏ ΔΒδϧϭ αϮϤϬϤϟ΍ϭ
.ΔϴΗϮμϟ΍ ϪΘϗΎϴϟϭ ϪΘΒϫϮϣ ϰϠϋ ΪϴϛΎΘϟ΍ Ϟϛ ΪϛΆΗ ϭ ΓήλΎόϤϟ΍
Ϧϣ ϩΩήΟ Ϊϗ ΎϬϔλϭϭ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ ΝΎΘϧ΍ ϲϓ ΎϫέϭΩϭ ΔϴΗϮμϟ΍ έΎΗϭϻ΍ ΩϮΟϭ ΔϘϴϘΤΑ ϪϤϠϋ ϡΪϋ ϥ΍
ϱήθΒϟ΍ ΕϮμϟ΍ ΝΎΘϧϻ ΓήλΎόϤϟ΍ ΔϳήψϨϟ΍ ΐδΣ .4ΎϬμϴΨθΗϭ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ ϒλϭ ΔϴϠϤϋ ϲϓ ϢϬϣ ϞϣΎϋ
.ΔϴΗϮμϟ΍ έΎΗϮϟ΍ ί΍ΰΘϫ΍ ΔΑΎΜϤΑ Ϯϫϭ [voice] ΏάΑάΘϟ΍ ϭ΍ ΕϮμϟ΍ :ϲϫϭ ϪΟΎΘϧϻ έΩΎμϣ ΔΛϼΛ ϚϟΎϨϫ
ΔΟέ ΓέϮλ ϲϓ ϲΗΎϳ ϱάϟ΍ [transient] ήΑΎόϟ΍ ΞϴΠπϟ΍ϭ ϢψΘϨϤϟ΍ ήϴϏ ΏάΑάΘϟ΍ Ϯϫϭ [noise] ΞϴΠπϟ΍
for details see Fant 1967, 1970; Minifie 1973; ) ΍˱ήΑΎϋ ΎΠϴΠο ΎΛΪΤϣ Γήϴμϗϭ Δόϳήγ
Γήψϧ ϥ΍ .ΎϬΑ ϪΘϗϼϋ ϡ΍Ϊόϧϻ Δγ΍έΪϟ΍ ϩάϫ Ϧϣ ϰϨΜΘδ˵ϳ ΕϮμϠϟήϴΧϻ΍ ςϤϨϟ΍ ϥ΍ .(Shadle, 1997: 49
ΙϼΛ ϲϓ κΨϠΘΗ [Catford, 1977; 1988] ΩήϔΗΎϛ ήψϧ ΔϬΟϭ Ϧϣ ϱήθΒϟ΍ ΕϮμϟ΍ ΝΎΘϧ΍ έΩΎμϤϟ ΔϣΎϋ
ΖϧΎϓ ϡϮϬϔϤΑ .[articulation] ˯΍Ωϻ΍ ϭ [phonation] ΏάΑάΘϟ΍ϭ [initiation] ωϭήθϟ΍ :ϲϫ ΕΎϴϠϤϋ
ΪϳΪΤΘϟ΍ ϲϓ ϖϔΧ΍ Ϊϗ ϪϳϮΒϴγ ϥ΍ ήϬψϳ ˬϱήθΒϟ΍ ΕϮμϟ΍ ΝΎΘϧ΍ ΕΎϴϠϤϋϭ έΩΎμϤϟ ϞμϔϤϟ΍ ΩήϔΗΎϛϭ [Fant]
ϰϟ΍ ˯ϮΠϠϟ΍ ϯϮγέΎϴΧ Ϧϣ Ϫϟ ϦϜϳ Ϣϟ ϕΎϔΧϻ΍ ΍άϫ ˯Ϯο ϲϓϭ .[source of voice] ΏάΑάΘϟ΍ έΪμϤϟ ϖϴϗΪϟ΍
Ϧϣ ΕϮλϭ" ϭ " Ϣϔϟ΍ Ϧϣ ΕϮλ" ϰϟ΍ ϪΗέΎη΍ϭ έϮϬΠϤϟ΍ϭ αϮϤϬϤϟ΍ Δϴ΋ΎϨΛ ϥ΍ .ΕΎϣϮϠόϤϠϟ ϯήΧ΍ έΩΎμϣ
ΔΤΘϓ ϕϮϓ Ύϣ ΕϮμϟ΍ ϯήΠϣ ϲϓ Ϯϫ [noise] ΞϴΠπϟ΍ έΪμϣ ϥΎΑ ΔϴϤϠόϟ΍ ΔϘϴϘΤϟ΍ ϊϣ ΎϣΎϤΗ ϢΠδϨΗ "έΪμϟ΍
ϒϳϮΠΘϟ΍ ϕϮϓ ΓήηΎΒϣ ΓήΠϨΤϟ΍ Ϯϫ ΏάΑάΘϟ΍ έΪμϣϭ ϲϤϔϟ΍ ϒϳϮΠΘϟ΍ ϲϓ ήΜϛϻ΍ ϰϠϋϭ [glottis] έΎϣΰϤϟ΍
ϲϠΧ΍Ϊϟ΍ αΎδΣϻ΍ϭ βϤϠϟ΍ϭ ϊϤδϟ΍ ΓΰϬΟ΍ ήΒϋ ΓΩέ΍Ϯϟ΍ [Ε΍ΩϭΩήϤϟ΍] ΕΎϋΎΒτϧϻ΍ ϥ΍ .ϱέΪμϟ΍
.έϮϬΠϤϟ΍ϭ αϮϤϬϤϟ΍ ϲΘϔλ έΎϴΘΧ΍ ϰϟ΍ ϪΗΩΎϗ ϲΘϟ΍ ϲϫ [proprioception]
ήϴδϔΘϟ΍ ξόΑ ΐΟϮΘδϳ ΔϴϠΧ΍Ϊϟ΍ ΔϴγΎδΣϻ΍ϭ ΔϴόϤδϟ΍ [feedbacks] Ε΍ΩϭΩήϤϟ΍ ήϛΫ ϊϣ

ϲΟέΎΨϟ΍ ϊϤδϟ΍ ίΎϬΠϟ Ε΍ΰϴϔΤΗ Ϧϣ ϥϮϜΘϳ ϲόϤδϟ΍ ΩϭΩήϤϟ΍ ϥ΍ .Ε΍ΩϭΩήϤϟ΍ ϩάϬϟ ϲϓΎοϻ΍
ϲ΋΍ϮϬϟ΍ ϞϴλϮΘϟ΍ ήΒϋ ˬ˱ΎϴΟέΎΧ ϪϴϧΫ΍ ϞμΗ ϢϠϜΘϤϟ΍ Ϣϓ Ϧϣ ϖϠτϨΗ ΔϴΗϮλ ΕΎΟϮϤΑ [peripheral ϲθϣΎϬϟ΍]
(Catford, 1988: 6; [bone conduction] ϲϤψόϟ΍ ϞϴλϮΘϟ΍ ήΒϋ Ύ˱ ϴϠΧ΍Ω ϭ΍ ˬ[air conduction]
ΩϭΩήϤϟ΍ ϞϘϨϳ ϱάϟ΍ Ϧϴϧήϟ΍ Ϫϧ΍ ϦϴΘϟΎΤϟ΍ ΎΘϠϛ ϲϓ .see also Abercrombie, 1967: 22-3)
[sympathetic resonance] ϱϭΎΜΒϤδϟ΍ Ϧϴϧήϟ΍ :ϦϴϧήϠϟ ϥΎϴγΎγ΍ ϥΎϋϮϧ ϚϟΎϨϫ Ύ˱ϴϤϠϋ .[feedback]
ω΍Ϯϧ΍ ϼϛ ϥ΍ ϢϏέ .(119 (McKinney, 2005: [conductive resonance] ϲϠϴλϮΘϟ΍ Ϧϴϧήϟ΍ϭ
ΔϘϳήτϟ ΎϨΘθϗΎϨϤΑ Δϗϼϋϭ ΔϴϤϫ΍ ήΜϛ΍ ϲϠϴλϮΘϟ΍ Ϧϴϧήϟ΍ ϥ΍ ϻ΍ ˯ΎϨϐϟ΍ϭ ϡϼϜϟ΍ ˯ΎϨΛ΍ ΔϟϮϐθϣ ϥϮϜΗ Ϧϴϧήϟ΍
ΔϴΗϮμϟ΍ έΎΗϭϻ΍ ΎϫΪϟϮΗ ϲΘϟ΍ ΕΎΑάΑάϟ΍ ϥ΍" .ΎϬϟ ΕΎϴϤδΘϟ΍ έΎϴΘΧ΍ϭ ΎϬϔλϭϭ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ κϴΨθΗ ϲϓ ϪϳϮΒϴγ
McKinney, ) " έΪμϟ΍ Ϧϣ ϰϠϋϻ΍ ˯ΰΠϟ΍ϭ α΍ήϟ΍ϭ ϖϨόϟ΍ϭ Εϼπόϟ΍ϭ ϒϳέΎπϐϟ΍ϭ ϡΎψόϟ΍ ήΒϋ ϞϘΘϨΗ
– ΔϴΗϮμϟ΍ έΎΗϭϻ΍ ϞΜϣ– ΎϬΒΣΎμΗ ϲΘϟ΍ ΕΎΑάΑάϟ΍ϭ ϖτϨϟ΍ ίΎϬΠϟ ΔϔϠΘΨϤϟ΍ ϡΎδϗϻ΍ ΕΎϛήΣ ϥ΍ ΎϤϛ .(120
ϥϭΪΑ ϞϴΤΘδϳ ϥΎδϧϻ΍ ϡϼϛ ϥ΍" .[proprioception] ϲϠΧ΍Ϊϟ΍ αΎδΣϻ΍ Δτγ΍ϮΑ ΎϬόϴϤΟ ρΎϘΘϟ΍ ϦϜϤϳ
ϢϜΤΘϳϭ ςϘΘϠϳ ϱάϟ΍ Ϫδϔϧ Ϯπόϟ΍ ϞΧ΍Ω ϲϓ αΎδΣϻ΍ ϰϟ΍ ήϴθϳ ϱάϟ΍ [proprioception] ϲϠΧ΍Ϊϟ΍ αΎδΣϻ΍
ΏΎΠΤϟ΍ϭ ΔϴΗϮμϟ΍ έΎΗϭϻ΍ϭ Ϣϔϟ΍ ϥ΍ .ϡϼϜϟ΍ ϲϓ ϡΪΨΘδ˵Η ϲΘϟ΍ ϞλΎϔϤϟ΍ϭ έΎΗϭϻ΍ϭ Εϼπόϟ΍ ϊϗ΍Ϯϣϭ ΕΎϛήΤΑ
ϰϠϋ ΓήτϴδϠϟ ύΎϣΪϟ΍ ΎϬϣΪΨΘδϳ ϲΘϟ΍ ΔγΎδΤϟ΍ ΏΎμϋϻ΍ Ϧϣ ϑϻϻ΍ ϱϮΘΤΗ ΎϬόϴϤΟ Δ΋ήϟ΍ϭ ΰΟΎΤϟ΍
ΔϠϴγϭ Ϟπϓ΍ ϥ΍ .( http://www.freeenglishnow.com/lsfl1.html2008: 4) " ΎϬόϗ΍Ϯϣϭ ΕΎϛήΤϟ΍
ˬϝΎΜϤϟ΍ ϞϴΒγ ϰϠϋ . ϲϠΧ΍Ϊϟ΍ αΎδΣϻ΍ Ε΍ϮϨϗ ήΒϋ ϲϫ Δϴ΋΍ϮϬϟ΍ Ε΍ήϴϐΘϟ΍ϭ ϖτϨϟ΍ ˯Ύπϋ΍ ΕΎϛήΣ βδΤΘϟ
ϕϮϓ Ύϣ ϒϳϭΎΠΘϟ΍ϭ ΓήΠϨΤϟ΍ ΎϬϨϤο Ϧϣ ˬϖτϨϟ΍ ϯήΠϣ ϲϓ ςϐπϟ΍ ϲϓ Ε΍ήϴϐΘϟ΍ϭ ϲϠπόϟ΍ ήΗϮΘϟ΍ ϥ΍
ρϮϐπϟ΍ϭ ϊϗ΍ϮϤϟ΍ϭ ΕΎϛήΤϟ΍ Ϧϋ ΕΎϣϮϠόϤϟ΍ ΩϭΰΗ ΎϫέϭΪΑ ϲΘϟ΍ ΔϴδΤϟ΍ ϡϼΘγϻ΍ ΰϛ΍ήϣ ΎϬτϘΘϠΗ ΓήΠϨΤϟ΍
.(Daniloff 1973:183) ϖτϨϟ΍ ϯήΠϣ ϲϓ ϝΎμΗϻ΍ ρΎϘϧϭ
Ϧϴϧέ Ϫϧ΍ ˬϪϟ ΔϔϠΘΨϤϟ΍ ΕΎϤΟήΘϟ΍ Ϧϋ ήψϨϟ΍ ξϐΑϭ ˬ"ήϬΠϟ΍ ϭ΍ ΓέϮϬΠϤϟ΍ " ΢Ϡτμϣ ιϮμΨΑ
ϩέΪμϣ ϑήόϳ ϥ΍ ϥϭΩ ϪϳϮΒϴγ ϪΑ βΣ΍ ϱάϟ΍ ϥ΍Ϋϻ΍ϭ α΍ήϟ΍ ϲϓ ϰΘΣϭ ΓήΠϨΤϟ΍ϭ έΪμϟ΍ ϲϓ έΎΗϭϻ΍ ΔΑάΑΫ
ΪϳΪΤΗ ϰϠϋ ϪϳϮΒϴγ έήΒΟ΍ –ΚΣΎΑ ϱϻ ΔΒδϨϟΎΑ ΔϬϳΪΑ ϡϮϴϟ΍ Ϯϫ ϱάϟ΍–Ϧϴϧήϟ΍ έΪμϣ Δϓήόϣ ϡΪϋ ϥ΍ . ςΒπϟΎΑ
ϱ΍ ΏΎϴϏϭ .[Ε΍άϟΎΑ ΓήΠϨΤϟ΍ ϲϓ βϴϟϭ] έΪμϟ΍ ϲϓ ΕϮμϛ ϪμϴΨθΗϭ ϭ ϡΎϋ ϲϋΎΒτϧ΍ ϞϜθΑ έΪμϤϟ΍
Ύ˱πϳ΍ ΔϴμΨθϟ΍ ϪΗΎϋΎΒτϧ΍ ϥΎϓ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ Ϧϣ ΎϫήϴϏ ϲϓ...Φϟ΍ ΓήΠϨΤϟ΍ϭ ΔΒμϘϟ΍ϭ έΪμϟ΍ ϲϓ ΔΑάΑάϟΎΑ αΎδΣ΍
."βϤϬϟ΍ ϭ΍ ΔγϮϤϬϤϟ΍ " ΢ϠτμϤΑ Ϫϟ ΖΣϭ΍

ΔΛϼΛ ϲϟ΍ϮΤΑ ΎϨϴγ ϦΑ΍ ήϴΒϜϟ΍ ϢϟΎόϟ΍ ϝΎϤϋ΍ ϲϓ Ε˯ΎΟ ϲΑήϋ ήϜϔϣ ϞΒϗ Ϧϣ ϱήΠϨΤϟ΍ ΏάΑάΘϟ΍ ΓήϫΎχ ϰϟ΍ Ε΍έΎηϻ΍ ϰϟϭ΍ ϥ΍ 4
(Al-Nassir, 1993: 36). ϪϳϮΒϴγ ΪόΑ ϥϭήϗ
Ωέ΍ϭ ήϴϏ ΓέϮϬΠϤϟ΍ ϑϮϔλ ϲϓ ϑΎϘϟ΍ϭ ˯Ύτϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϻ ϪϳϮΒϴγ Ϣο ˯΍έϭήϴδϔΘϟ΍ ϝ΍ί Ύϣ ϦϜϟϭ
ϲϓ ΓήηΎΒϣ ΔΑάΑάϟ΍ ϕϼτϧ΍ϭ ϦϴΗϮμϟ΍ ϦϳάϬϟ ΔΣϮϔϨϤϟ΍ ήϴϏ ΔόϴΒτϟ΍ ϥΎΑ ΓϮϘΑ ϦϣΆΗ Δγ΍έΪϟ΍ ϩάϫ .ϥϻ΍ ΪΤϟ
ϪϳϮΒϴγ ΖϠϠο ϲΘϟ΍ ϲϫ ϦϴΣϮϔϨϤϟ΍ ήϴϏ ϦϳΪϳΪθϟ΍ [ρ ϕ] ϦϴΗϮμϟ΍ ϲϠϳ ϱάϟ΍ [vowel] Ζ΋Ύμϟ΍ ΕϮμϟ΍
[ϪϳϮΒϴδϟ] βϤϬϟ΍ϭ ήϬΠϟ΍ ΕΎΤϠτμϣ ΎϨόϤΟ Ϯϟϭ .ΓέϮϬΠϤϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ Ϧϣ ϯήΧϻ΍ ϲϫ ΎϬϧΎΑ Ϫϟ ΖΣϭ΍ϭ
[Ω ˬΏ] ϞΜϣ ΓέϮϬΠϤϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ :ϲΗΎϳ Ύϣ ϰϠϋ ΎϨϠμΤϟ ΓΪϳΪθϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϼϟ ΔΛϼΜϟ΍ ϑΎϨλϻ΍ ϒλϮϟ ΢ϔϨϟ΍ϭ
.[ϕ ˬρ] ϞΜϣ ΔΣϮϔϨϤϟ΍ ήϴϏ ΔγϮϤϬϤϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ϭ [ϙ ˬΕ] ϞΜϣ ΔΣϮϔϨϤϟ΍ ΔγϮϤϬϤϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ ϭ
ΕΎΟΎΘϨΘγϻ΍ .4
ˬΔϨγ ϒϟ΍ Ϧϣ ήΜϛ΍ ϞΒϗ ϞμΣ ϱάϟ΍ ˬΓέϮϬΠϤϟ΍ϭ ΔγϮϤϬϤϟ΍ ϰϟ΍ ΔϴΑήόϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ ϒΒϨμΗ ϥ΍
voiced ] ΓήλΎόϤϟ΍ αϮϤϬϤϟ΍ϭ έϮϬΠϤϟ΍ Δϴ΋ΎϨΛ ϊϣ ϪΑΎθΘϟ΍ ϰϟ΍ ϞϴϤΗ ϪϳϮΒϴγ Δϴ΋ΎϨΛ ϥ΍ ϢϏέϭ .ϊϣϻ ίΎΠϧ΍
Ύϣ έϮμΘϳ ϥ΍ κΨη ϱϻ ϖΤϳ .ϦϴΘϘΑΎτΘϣ ϦϴΘϴ΋ΎϨΜϟ΍ ΎΘϠϛ ϥΎΑ ήϫΎψϤϟ΍ ΎϨϳήϐΗ ϻ ϥ΍ ΐΠϳ [vs. voiceless
ˬϝΎΣ Δϳ΍ ϰϠϋ .Δϴ΋ΎϨΜϟ΍ ϩάϫ ϖϠΧ ΎϣΪϨϋ ϪϳϮΒϴγ ΔϠϴΨϣ ϲϓ ϥΎϛ Ύϣ ΕΎΒΛϻ ΪϠλ ϞϴϟΩ ϱ΍ ΪΟϮϳ ϻ ϦϜϟϭ ˬ˯Ύθϳ
ΔϴϣΎϨϳΩϮϬϟ΍ ϭ [articulatory]Δϴ΋΍Ωϻ΍ ΕΎϨϣ΍ΰΘϟ΍ϭ ΕΎϔϴϴϜΘϟ΍ϭ ΔϴΗϮμϟ΍ έΎΗϭϻ΍ ΩϮΟϮΑ ϪΘϓήόϣ ϡΪϋ ϥ΍
ΩϭΩήϤϟ΍ αΎγ΍ ϰϠϋ ϪΘϴ΋ΎϨΛ ΔϏΎϴλ ϯϮγ ΍˱έΎϴΧ ϪΤϨϤϳ Ϣϟ [phonatory] ΔϳάΑάΘϟ΍ ϭ [aerodynamic]
Δϴ΋΍Ωϻ΍ ΕΎγΎδΣϻ΍ Ϧϣ [ΔϋϮϤΠϣ] ΔϔϴϟϮΗ ϥΎϛ ϱάϟ΍ [impressionistic] ϲγΎδΣϻ΍ ϭ΍ ϲϋΎΒτϧϻ΍
ΎϬτϘΘϟ΍ ϲΘϟ΍ ΔϴϠΧ΍Ϊϟ΍ ΔϴΒμόϟ΍ ήϋΎθϤϟ΍ϭ ΕΎγΎδΣϻ΍ ϭ [aerodynamic] ΔϴϣΎϨϳΩϮϬϟ΍ ϭ [articulatory]
.ςΒπϟΎΑ ΎϫέΪμϣ ϑήόϳ ϥ΍ ϥϭΩ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ ˯΍Ω΍ ˯ΎϨΛ΍ ϪϏΎϣΩ
voiced/voiceless, ϝΎΜϣ΍ Ϧϣ] ϯήΧ΍ ΕΎϴ΋ΎϨΜΑ ϪϳϮΒϴγ Δϴ΋ΎϨΛ ΔϟΩΎόϣ ΍ϮϟϭΎΣ ϦϴΜΣΎΒϟ΍ Ϧϣ ΪϳΪόϟ΍
ˬ[lenis/fortis, pressed/non-pressed, sonorous,/muffled and non-breathed/breathed
Δϴϋ΍ΪΑ΍ ϪϳϮΒϴγ Δϴ΋ΎϨΛ έΎΒΘϋ΍ ΎϨϴϠϋ ΔϘΑΎτϤϟ΍ Ϧϋ Ύ˱οϮϋ ΍άϟ .ΎϬϨϣ Δϳ΍ ϊϣ ϖΑΎτΘΗ ϻ ϪϳϮΒϴγ Δϴ΋ΎϨΛ ϥ΍ ήϴϏ
ϥΎϛ ΎϤϋ ήΒό˵˰Η έϮϬΠϤϟ΍ ϭ αϮϤϬϤϟ΍ Δϴ΋ΎϨΛ ϥ΍ .ΓήλΎόϤϟ΍ ϯήΧϻ΍ ΕΎϴ΋ΎϨΜϟ΍ ΐϧΎΟ ϰϟ΍ ΎϬΘϓΎο΍ϭ ΎϬΗ΍άΑ ΔϤ΋Ύϗ
˯Ύτϟ΍ Ϣο ήϴδϔΗ ϪϴϠϋ " voiced/voiceless " ˰Α ϪϳϮΒϴγ Δϴ΋ΎϨΛ ΔϘΑΎτϣ Ω΍έ΍ Ϧϣ Ϟϛϭ .ϪϳϮΒϴγ ϦϫΫ ϲϓ
˯Ύτϟ΍ ΔΒδϧ ϞϴϠόΗ ΍ϭήΛ΁ ˬϩϼϋ΍ ϢϫήϛΫ ϖΒγ Ϧϳάϟ΍ ϝΎΜϣ΍ Ϧϣ ˬϦϴΜΣΎΒϟ΍ Ϧϣ ΪϳΪόϟ΍ .ΓέϮϬΠϤϟ΍ ϦϴΑ ϑΎϘϟ΍ϭ
ήΒϋ ήϬΠϟ΍ ΕΪϘϓ ΎϤϬϨϜϟϭ ϪϳϮΒϴγ Ϧϣί ϲϓ ϦϴΗέϮϬΠϣ ΎΘϧΎϛ ϑΎϘϟ΍ϭ ˯Ύτϟ΍ ϥΎΑ ˯ΎϋΩϻΎΑ ΓέϮϬΠϤϟ΍ ϰϟ΍ ϑΎϘϟ΍ϭ
ϥ΍ϭ ΔγϮϤϬϤϟ΍ ϭ΍ ΓέϮϬΠϤϟ΍ ϰϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ ϒϴϨμΗ ϲϓ ςϠΧ ϱ΍ ΩϮΟϭ ΪϳΆϳ ϻ ϞϴϠόΘϟ΍ ΍άϫ ϞΜϣ ϥ΍ .Ϧϣΰϟ΍
.(Al-Nassir, 1993: 37) ϙΎΒΗέ΍ ϭ΍ ςϠΧ ϱ΍ Ϧϣ ΔϣϮμόϣ ΖϧΎϛ ϪϳϮΒϴγ Δϴ΋ΎϨΛ
˯Ύτϟ΍ ΔόϴΒσ ϲϓ ϲΗϮλ ήϴϐΗ ΙϭΪΣ ΪϳΆϳ ϥΎϫήΑ ϱ΍ ΩϮΟϭ ϡΪόΑ ϝϮϘϟ΍ ϰϟ΍ ϲϬΘϨΗ ϩάϫ ΎϨΘγ΍έΩ ϥ΍
ΔϴΗϮμϟ΍ ΓΰϴϤϟ΍ ϲϫ ςϠΨϟ΍ ˯΍έϭ ΐΒδϟ΍ ϥ΍ϭ ϑΎϘϟ΍ϭ ˯Ύτϟ΍ κϴΨθΗ ϲϓ ςϠΧ ϚϟΎϨϫ ˬβϜόϟ΍ ϰϠϋ .ϑΎϘϟ΍ϭ
ϦϴΗϮμϟ΍ ϦϳάϬϟ ΔΣϮϔϨϤϟ΍ ήϴϏ ΔόϴΒτϟ΍ ϥΎΑ ΓϮϘΑ ϦϣΆΗ Δγ΍έΪϟ΍ ϩάϫ ϥ΍ ΎϤϛ .ϦϴΗϮμϟ΍ ϦϳάϬϟ ΔΣϮϔϨϤϟ΍ ήϴϏ
ήϴϏ ϦϳΪϳΪθϟ΍ [ρ ϕ] ϦϴΗϮμϟ΍ ϲϠϳ ϱάϟ΍ [vowel] Ζ΋Ύμϟ΍ ΕϮμϟ΍ ϲϓ ΓήηΎΒϣ ΔΑάΑάϟ΍ ϕϼτϧ΍ϭ
Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ Ϧϣ ϯήΧϻ΍ ϲϫ ΎϬϧΎΑ Ϫϟ ΖΣϭ΍ϭ ϪϳϮΒϴγ ϯΪϟ ΔϴϠΧ΍Ϊϟ΍ ΕΎγΎδΣϻ΍ ΖϘϠΧ ϲΘϟ΍ ϲϫ ϦϴΣϮϔϨϤϟ΍
ϑΎϘϟ΍ϭ ˯Ύτϟ΍ Ϣο ϰϟ΍ ϪΑ ΕΪΣϭ ϱήϘΒόϟ΍ ϪϳϮΒϴγ ΖϠϠο ϲΘϟ΍ ϲϫ ΔϴϠΧ΍Ϊϟ΍ ΕΎγΎδΣϻ΍ ϩάϫ ΎϬϧ΍ .ΓέϮϬΠϤϟ΍
.έϮϬΠϤϟ΍ ϒϨμϟ΍ ϦϴΑ
έΩΎμϤϟ΍
.ΔϳΰϴϠϜϧϻ΍ ΔΨδϨϟ΍ ϊΟ΍έ
:ΔϴΑήόϟ΍ ϲϓ ϢϴΠϟ΍ ϑήΤϟ ΔϳήϤϘϟ΍ ϭ΍ ΔϴδϤθϟ΍ ΔϧΎϜϤϟ΍

Δϴϔλϭ Δγ΍έΩ
ΔϣΪϘϤϟ΍ .1
ΓήλΎόϤϟ΍ ϰΤμϔϟ΍ϭ [Δϴϧ΁ήϘϟ΍] ΔϴϜϴγϼϜϟ΍ ΔϴΑήόϟ΍ ϲϓ Ϣ΋ΎϘϟ΍ ΖϗϮϟ΍ ϲϓ <Ν> ϑήΤϟ΍ ΕϮλ ϥ΍
Ϧϣ ϒλϭ Ϫϧ΍ ήϴϏ [ voiced palato-alveolar affricate1] ΐϛήϣ ϱϮΜϟ-ϱέΎϏ έϮϬΠϣ ΕϮλ Ϯϫ
ςγϭ ϦϴΑϭ ϪϨϴΑ ϥΎδϠϟ΍ ςγϭ Ϧϣ ϪΟήΨϣ [ voiced plosive] ΪϳΪη έϮϬΠϣ ΕϮλ ϪϧΎΑ Ώήόϟ΍ ΓΎΤϨϟ΍ ϞΒϗ
΍˱ΪΟ ήϴΒϛ ϦϴΘϟΎΤϟ΍ ΎΘϠϛ ϲϓ κϴΨθΘϟ΍ ϥ΍ Ϛη ϻ .ΎϳήϤϗ ΎϓήΣ ϒϨλ Ϊϗϭ ΎϤϛ (1881 ϪϳϮΒϴγ) ϰϠϋϻ΍ ϚϨΤϟ΍
ΔϴδϤθϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ ΓήϫΎχ ϰϠϋ ˯Ϯπϟ΍ ˯ΎϘϟ΍ ϱέϭήπϟ΍ Ϧϣ ΚΤΒϟ΍ ΍άϬϟ ΔΌσΆΘϛ .Δγ΍έΪϟ΍ ϩάϫ ωϮοϮϣ Ϯϫϭ
. [assimilation] ϞΛΎϤΘϟ΍ ϭ΍ ϡΎϏΩϻ΍ ήϫ΍Ϯχ Ϧϣ ΓήϫΎχ ΔϘϴϘΤϟ΍ ϲϓ ϲϫ ϲΘϟ΍ ΔϳήϤϘϟ΍ϭ
Ώήόϟ΍ ΓΎΤϨϟ΍ Ϧϋ ϩΎϨΛέϭ ΎϤϛ ϖϠτϣ ϞϜθΑ ΔϴΑήόϟ΍ ϲϓ ΎϤ΋Ύϗ ϝ΍ί Ύϣ ϱήϤϘϟ΍ϭ ϲδϤθϟ΍ ϒϴϨμΘϟ΍ϭ
ϪϨϋ Ωέϭ Ύϣ βϜϋ ΎϴδϤη ϥϮϜϳ ϥ΍ ϰϟ΍ ϞϴϤϳ Νέ΍Ϊϟ΍ϭ ΢ϴμϔϟ΍ Ϧϴϴϗ΍ήόϟ΍ ϡϼϛ ϲϓ <Ν> ΕϮλ ϥ΍ ϯϮγ
Ϧϋ ΎϘΑΎγ ΍ήθϧ Ϧϴϴϟϭ΍ ϦϴΜΤΒϟ ΔϴΗϮΒΜϟ΍ ΔϟΩϻ΍ Ϧϣ ΪϳΰϤϟ΍ ί΍ήΑϻ Δϴϔλϭ ΔϟϭΎΤϤΑ ΎϨϤϗ ΚΤΒϟ΍ ΍άϫ ϲϓ .ΎϴΤϳέΎΗ
.(Odisho, 1980 ˭1977) ϢϴΠϠϟ ΔϴδϤθϟ΍ ΔϧΎϜϤϟ΍
έΎΒΘΧϻ΍ϭ ΔϳϮϐϠϟ΍ ΓΩΎϤϟ΍ .2

ϲΗϻ΍ κϨϟ΍ Ω΍Ϊϋ΍ ϢΗ ΕϮμϟ΍ ΍άϬϟ ΔϳήϤϘϟ΍ ϭ΍ ΔϴδϤθϟ΍ ΔϧΎϜϤϟ΍ ήϳήϘΗ ϞΟ΍ Ϧϣ
ΔϨϳΪϤϟ΍ ωέ΍Ϯη ήΒϋ Γήϴδϣ ϲϓ ΩϮϨΠϟ΍ ΩϮϘϳ ϥ΍ ϪϴϠϋ ϥΎϛ ϡΎϳϻ΍ Ϧϣ ϡϮϳ ϲϓϭ ˬζϴΠϟ΍ ϲϓ ΎτΑΎο ϞΟήϟ΍ ϥΎϛ"
ΐϧΎΠϟ΍ ςΑήϳ ϱάϟ΍ ήδΠϟ΍ ΍ϭήΒϋ ϞϴϠϗ ΪόΑϭ .ϢϬΗήϴδϣ Ϧϴ΋ΪΘΒϣ ΪϨΠϟ΍ α΃έ ϰϠϋ ςΑΎπϟ΍ ΝήΧ ΡΎΒμϟ΍ ϲϓϭ .ΔϠϴϤΠϟ΍
.ΓήϴδϤϟ΍ ϡΎψΘϧΎΑ ΐΠϋ΍ ϱάϟ΍ ΔϳέϮϬϤΠϟ΍ βϴ΋έ ϢϬϓΩΎλ ήδΠϟ΍ ϢϫέϮΒϋ ϯΪϟϭ .ϦϤϳϻ΍ ΐϧΎΠϟΎΑ ΔϨϳΪϤϠϟ ήδϳϻ΍
ϞΟ΍ Ϧϣ ΩΎϬΠϟ΍ ϲϓ ΎϫϮϟάΑ ϲΘϟ΍ ΩϮϬΠϠϟ ήϳΪϘΘϟ΍ ϡΎγϭ ΩϮϨΠϟ΍ϭ ςΑΎπϟ΍ ΢Ϩϣ ΔϳέϮϬϤΠϟ΍ βϴ΋έ έήϗ ϚϟΫ ήΛ΍ ϰϠϋϭ
" ϦσϮϟ΍
Ϧϳάϟ΍ Ϧϣ ΎμΨη 30 έΎΒΘΧ΍ ϢΗ ΎϤϛ .ϒϳήόΘϟ΍ Γ΍Ω΍ ϊϣ ϢϴΠϠϟ ΎΟΫϮϤϧ΍ [13] ήθϋ ΔΛϼΛ ϰϠϋ ϱϮΘΤϳ ϱάϟ΍
ϑΪϫ Ϧϋ Ίη ϱ΍ κϨϟ΍ ΉέΎϗ ϑήόϳ Ϣϟϭ Ε΍˯΍ήϘϟ΍ Ϟϛ ϞϴΠδΗ ϢΗ .κϨϟ΍ Γ˯΍ήϘϟ ΔϴϣϮϘϟ΍ ϢϬΘϐϟ ΔϴΑήόϟ΍ ήΒΘόΗ
ϥΎϛ ΉέΎϘϟ΍ ϪΑ Ωϭί ϱάϟ΍ ΪϴΣϮϟ΍ ϪϴΟϮΘϟ΍ .ΔΑήΠΘϟ΍ ϑΪϬΑ κϨϠϟ ϢϬΗ˯΍ήϗ ήΛΎΘΗ ϼΌϟ ϚϟΫ ΎϧΪϤόΗ Ϊϗϭ .ΔΑήΠΘϟ΍
.ϲΑήϋ ϒϘΜϣ ΏϮϠγΎΑ κϨϟ΍ Γ˯΍ήϗ ΏϮΟϭ
Ϧϳάϟ΍ ˯΍ήϘϟ΍ (1 :ϲϫ ΔϴγΎγ΍ ΕΎϋϮϤΠϣ ΙϼΛ ΍ϮϠΜϤϴϟ ΩϮμϘϣ ϞϜθΑ ΍ϭήϴΘΧ΍ ΪϘϓ κϨϟ΍ ˯΍ήϗ Ύϣ΍
ήϴΘδΟΎϤϟ΍ ΔϠϤΣ Ϧϣ ΍ϮϧΎϛ ϢϬόϴϤΟ] ΎϬϴϓ ΔϴϟΎϋ ΓΩΎϬη ΍ϮϟΎϧϭ ΔϴΑήόϟ΍ ΔϐϠϟ΍ ϲϓ ΔϴϟϮλ΍ Δγ΍έΩ ΍ϮϠϤϛ΍
Ϧϣ ΍ϮϧΎϛ ΎόϴϤΟ ϢϬϨϜϟϭ ΔϴΑήόϟ΍ ΔϐϠϟ΍ ϲϓ ΔϴϟϮλ΍ Δγ΍έΩ ΍ϮϠϤϜϳ Ϣϟ Ϧϳάϟ΍ ˯΍ήϘϟ΍ ΔϋϮϤΠϣ (2 .[ϩ΍έϮΘϛΪϟ΍ϭ
Ϧϣ ΪμϘϟ΍ϭ .ΔϴΒϨΟϻ΍ ΕΎϐϠϟ΍ Ϣδϗ ΔΒϠσ (3 .ϯήΧ΍ ΔϳϮϐϟ ΕΎλΎμΘΧ΍ ϲϓ ϩ΍έϮΘϛΪϟ΍ϭ ήϴΘδΟΎϤϟ΍ ΔϠϤΣ
κΘΨϤϟ΍ ϦϴΑ ϱήϤϘϟ΍ ϭ΍ ϲδϤθϟ΍ ˯΍Ωϻ΍ ϲϓ ϑϼΘΧ΍ ϱ΍ Ϊλέ ΩήΠϤϟ ϥΎϛ ΙϼΜϟ΍ ΕΎϋϮϤΠϤϟ΍ ϩάϫ έΎϴΘΧ΍
ΔϓΎϘΜϟ΍ ϯϮΘδϣ ϰϟ΍ ϯΰόϳ ϑϼΘΧ΍ ϱ΍ ϭ΍ ΔϴϧΎΜϟ΍ϭ ϰϟϭϻ΍ ϦϴΘϋϮϤΠϤϠϟ ΔϴΑήόϟ΍ ΔϐϠϟ΍ ϲϓ κΘΨϤϟ΍ ήϴϏϭ
.ΔΜϟΎΜϟ΍ϭ ΔϴϧΎΜϟ΍ ϦϴΘϋϮϤΠϤϠϟ

voiced postalveolar affricate ˰Α Ύ˱πϳ΍ ϒλϮϳϭ 1
Ξ΋ΎΘϨϟ΍ .3
ΉέΎϘϟ΍ ϞΒϗ Ϧϣ ΖϘϘ˵Σ Ϊϗ ϢϴΠϟ΍ ϥ΍ ϰϟ΍ [+] Δϣϼϋ ΰϣήΗ Δγ΍έΪϟ΍ ϩάϫ ΓήΧΆϣ ϲϓ 2 ϝϭΪΠϟ΍ ϲϓ
ϝϭΪΠϟ΍ Ϧϣ ΉήϠϘϠϟ ΢πΘϳ ΍άϜϫϭ . ΎϴδϤη ΎϘϴϘΤΗ ΖϘϘ˵Σ Ϊϗ ϢϴΠϟ΍ ϥ΍ ϰϟ΍ ΰϣήΘϓ [–] Δϣϼϋ Ύϣ΍ ΎϳήϤϗ ΎϘϴϘΤΗ
ϲϓ ΎϳήϤϗ ΎϘϴϘΤΗ ϢϴΠϟ΍ ΍ϮϘϘΣ ςϘϓ ˯΍ήϗ ΔδϤΧ ϥ΍ Ϯϫ ϩΎΒΘϧϻΎΑ ήϳΪΠϟ΍ϭ .ΔϴδϤη ϲϫ ϢϴΠϟ΍ ΕΎϘϴϘΤΗ ΐϠϏ΍ ϥ΍
ΎϧΎϛ ˯΍ήϘϟ΍ Ϧϣ ϥΎϨΛ΍ .ΔϴϧΎΜϟ΍ ΔϋϮϤΠϤϟ΍ ϰϟ΍ ήΧϻ΍ϭ ϰϟϭϻ΍ ΔϋϮϤΠϤϟ΍ ϰϟ΍ ϥϮϤΘϨϳ ϢϬϨϣ ΔόΑέ΍ .ΕϻΎΤϟ΍ Ϟϛ
ϕϭήϓ ΪΟϮΗ ϻ .ϢϬϨϣ ϞϜϟ ΍ΪΣ΍ϭ ΎϳήϤϗ ΎϘϴϘΤΗ ΍ϮϠΠγ ˯΍ήϗ ΔδϤΧϭ ϱήϤϘϟ΍ϭ ϲδϤθϟ΍ ϖϴϘΤΘϟ΍ ϦϴΑ ϥΎΤΟέΎΘϳ
ϲϓ ΄τΧ΍ Ϊϗ ˯΍ήϘϟ΍ ΪΣ΍ ϥ΍ ϰϟ΍ ήϴθΗ ΔϟΎΣ Δϳ΍ ΩήΗ Ϣϟ ΎϤϛ .ΔΜϟΎΜϟ΍ϭ ΔϴϧΎΜϟ΍ ϦϴΘϋϮϤΠϤϟ΍ ˯΍ήϗ ϦϴΑ ήϛάϟΎΑ ΓήϳΪΟ
.ϢϴΠϟ΍ ήϴϏ ϯήΧϻ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϼϟ ϱήϤϘϟ΍ ϭ΍ ϲδϤθϟ΍ ϖϴϘΤΘϟ΍
.ΔϳήϤϗ [85] ϭ ΔϴδϤη [305] ΎϬϨϣ ϢϴΠϠϟ ΎΟΫϮϤϧ΍ [390] ΍ϭΩ΍ ˯΍ήϘϟ΍ ϥ΍ ϝϮϘϟ΍ κΨϠϣϭ
ΔθϗΎϨϤϟ΍ .4
΍άϫ ϯΰόϳϭ .ϰϟϭϻ΍ ΔϋϮϤΠϤϟ΍ ˯΍ήϗ ΔμΣ Ϧϣ ϲϫ ΔϳήϤϘϟ΍ ΕΎϘϴϘΤΘϟ΍ ΐϠϏ΍ ϥ΍ ΔψΣϼϤϟΎΑ ήϳΪΟ
Ώήόϟ΍ ΓΎΤϨϟ΍ ϥΎδϟ ϰϠϋ ΕΩέϭ ΎϤϛ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ ΕΎϔλ ϖϴΒτΗ ϰϟ΍ ΓΩΎϋ ϥϮϠϴϤϳ ΔϋϮϤΠϤϟ΍ ϩάϫ ˯Ύπϋ΍ ϥ΍ ϰϟ΍
˯΍ΩϻΎΑ ϥϮϣΰΘϠϳ ΔΒϠτϟ΍ ϥ΍ ϚϟΫ ϰϠϋ ΐΗήΘϳ ΎϳήϤϗ ΎϓήΣ ϢϴΠϟ΍ ΍Ϯϔλϭ Ϊϗ ϰϣ΍ΪϘϟ΍ ΓΎΤϨϟ΍ ϥΎϛ ΎϤϟϭ .ϰϣ΍ΪϘϟ΍
ωϮπΧ ϡΪϋ ϥ΍ .ΔϴΑήόϟ΍ ΔϐϠϟ΍ ϩΎΠΗ ϑήλ [prescriptive] ϱέΎϴόϣ ϒϗϮϣ ϪΗ΍Ϋ ΪΤΑ ΍άϫϭ .ϢϴΠϠϟ ϱήϤϘϟ΍
ΞϣήΒϣ ϞϜθΑϭ ΔϠϳϮσ ΓΪϤϟ ϰϟϭϻ΍ ΔϋϮϤΠϤϠϟ ϱέΎϴόϤϟ΍ νήϔϟ΍ ΍άϫ ϞΜϤϟ ΔΜϟΎΜϟ΍ϭ ΔϴϧΎΜϟ΍ ϦϴΘϋϮϤΠϤϟ΍ ˯΍ήϗ
.ΎΑήϤϗ ϢϴΠϟ΍ ϖϴϘΤΗ ϲϓ %90 ΔΒδϨΑ ϢϬϗΎϔΧ΍ ϞϠόϳ Ϊϗ ΔϴΑήόϟ΍ ΔϐϠϟ΍ ϢϬϤϠόΗ ϲϓ
΍ϮϘϘΣ Ϧϳάϟ΍ ϰϟϭϻ΍ ΔϋϮϤΠϤϟ΍ Ϧϣ ˯΍ήϗ ΔΛϼΛ ϥ΍ ήϬχ ˯΍ήϘϠϟ ΔϠΌγϻ΍ ϪϴΟϮΗ ϲϓ ϝΎγήΘγϻ΍ ϯΪϟ
ΪϳϮΠΗ ϭ΍ Γ˯΍ήϗ ϲϓ ϪΑ αΎΑ ϻ ΎΘϗϭ ΍Ϯϓήλϭ ΍ήϴΒϛ ΎϣΎϤΘϫ΍ ΍ϭέΎϋ΍ ιΎΨη΍ Ϣϫ ϖϠτϣ ϞϜθΑ ΎϳήϤϗ ϢϴΠϟ΍
ΎΧέΎλ ΎϛΎϬΘϧ΍ ήΒΘόϳ ϖϴϘΤΘϟ΍ ΍άϫ ϲϓ ϕΎϔΧ΍ ϱ΍ϭ ϢϴΠϠϟ ϖϠτϤϟ΍ ϱήϤϘϟ΍ ϖϴϘΤΘϟ΍ ϲϋΪΘδϳ ήϣ΍ Ϯϫϭ ϥ΍ήϘϟ΍
ΔϋϮϤΠϤϟ΍ ˯Ύπϋ΍ ΪΣ΍ ϞΒϗ Ϧϣ ϢϴΠϠϟ ϱήϤϘϟ΍ ϖϴϘΤΘϟ΍ Ύπϳ΍ ήδϔΗ ΔϘϴϘΤϟ΍ ϩάϫϭ .ΪϳϮΠΘϟ΍ϭ Γ˯΍ήϘϟ΍ ϝϮλϻ
ϰϟϭϻ΍ ΔϋϮϤΠϤϟ΍ Ϧϣ ϊΑ΍ήϟ΍ ΉέΎϘϟ΍ Ύϣ΍ .ΔΘϟϮϔσ ˯ΎϨΛ΍ ϥ΍ήϘϟ΍ ΪϳϮΠΗ ϲϓ ΎϴϓΎϛ ΎΒϳέΪΗ ϰϘϠΗ ϪϧΎΑ ήϗ΍ ϱάϟ΍ ΔϴϧΎΜϟ΍
Ϫϴϓ ϞϤόϟ΍ ρήΘθϳ ήΧ΍ ϥ΍Ϊϴϣ Ϫϧ΍ ΚϴΣ ϲϋ΍Ϋϻ΍ ˯ΎϘϟϻ΍ ϰϠϋ ΎΒϳέΪΗ ϰϘϠΗ ΖϗϮϟ΍ Ϧϴϋ ϲϓϭ ήϋΎη ϪϧΎΑ ήϬψϓ
.ΎϳήϤϗ ϢϴΠϟ΍ ϖϴϘΤΗ
ϰϟ΍ ϯΰόϳ ΎϳήϤϗ ϢϴΠϟ΍ ϖϴϘΤΗ ϲϓ ϰϟϭϻ΍ ΔϋϮϤΠϤϟ΍ ˯΍ήϗ Ϧϣ ΔδϤΨϟ ϞϣΎϜϟ΍ ϪΒη Ϟθϔϟ΍ ϥ΍ ΪϘΘό˵ϳϭ
:ΔϴΗϻ΍ ΏΎΒγϻ΍
.ϰϣ΍ΪϘϟ΍ ΓΎΤϨϟ΍ ΔϘϳήσ ϰϠϋ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ ˯΍Ω΍ ϲϓ ΢ϴΤμϟ΍ ΐϳέΪΘϟ΍ ϡ΍Ϊόϧ΍ (1
ΏΎϴϏ ΐϧΎΟ ϰϟ΍ ϩΪϳϮΠΗ ϭ΍ ϥ΍ήϘϟ΍ Γ˯΍ήϗ ϝΎΠϣ ϲϓ ΎϴϠϛ ΐϳέΪΘϟ΍ ΏΎϴϏ ϭ΍ ϲοήόϟ΍ ΐϳέΪΘϟ΍ (2
.ϢϴΠϠϟ ϱήϤϘϟ΍ ˯΍Ωϻ΍ ρήΘθϳ ήΧ΍ ϝΎΠϣ ϱ΍ ϲϓ ΐϳέΪΘϟ΍
ΓέϮμΑ ϲΗϮμϟ΍ ˯΍ΩϻΎΑ ΔϘϠόΘϤϟ΍ Ϟ΋ΎδϤϠϟ ΏϭΎΠΘϟ΍ ϲϓ ˯΍ήϘϟ΍ ϞΒϗ Ϧϣ αΎδΣϻ΍ ϒόο (3
.ΔϣΎϋ
ΓήλΎόϤϟ΍ ϢϴΠϠϟ ΔϴΗϮμϟ΍ ΔόϴΒτϟΎΑ ϖϠόΘϳ ˬΪόΑ ΎϤϴϓ ϞϴμϔΘϟΎΑ ϩήϛΫ ϲΗΎϴγ ϱάϟ΍ ˬϢϫϻ΍ ΐΒδϟ΍ (4
. [ voiced palato-alveolar affricate] ΐϛήϣ ϱϮΜϟ-ϱέΎϏ έϮϬΠϣ ΕϮμϛ
ΓΎΤϨϟ΍ ϩήϛΫ Ύϣ ϑϼΧ ˬϢϴΠϠϟ ϲδϤθϟ΍ ϖϴϘΤΘϟ΍ ϮΤϧ ΍ΪΟ ϱϮϘϟ΍ ϩΎΠΗϻΎΑ ϖϠόΘϤϟ΍ ϢϬϤϟ΍ ϝ΍ΆδϟΎϓ ϚϟΫ ϊϣϭ
ΐΒγ ήϴδϔΘϟ ΎϨΘθϗΎϨϣ ϖϳήσ Ϧϋ Ίθϟ΍ ξόΑ ΝήόΘϟ΍ ΎϨϴϠϋ ϢΘΤϳ ϪϴϠϋ Ωήϟ΍ϭ .Ωήϟ΍ ϲϋΪΘδϳ ϝ΍ί Ύϣ ˬϰϣ΍ΪϘϟ΍
.ΎϬϣΎϏΩ΍ ϡΪϋ ϭ΍ ϒϳήόΘϟ΍ ϡϻ ϡΎϏΩ΍
Ϧϣ [consonant] ΔϨϛΎγ Ε΍Ϯλ΍ ϲϫ ΔϴδϤθϟ΍ ϑϭήΤϟ΍ ϥ΍ ϯήϧ ϑϮγ [1] Ϣϗέ ϞϜθϟ΍ ΎϨϠϣΎΗ Ϯϟ
ΎϤϨϴΑ [palato-alveolar] ΔϳϮΜϟ-ΔϳέΎϏϭ [alveolar] ΔϳϮΜϟ ˬ[inter-dental] ΔϴϧΎϨγ΍ήΒϋ :ΔϴΗϻ΍ ΝέΎΨϤϟ΍
ˬ[labio-dental] ΔϴϧΎϨγ΍ ΔϳϮϔη ˬ[bilabial] ΔϳϮϔη ΝέΎΨϣ Ϧϣ ΔϨϛΎγ Ε΍Ϯλ΍ ϲϫ ΔϳήϤϘϟ΍ ϑϭήΤϟ΍
ΔϳήΠϨΣϭ [pharyngeal] ΔϴϘϠΣ ˬ[uvular] ΔϳϮϬϟ ˬ[velar] ΔϴϘΒσ ˬ[palatal ΔϳέΎϏ

.[laryngeal/glottal]
ΎϤΧΎΘϣ ΎΟήΨϣ ϭ΍ ϡϼϟ΍ ΝήΨϣ βϔϧ ΔϴδϤθϟ΍ ϑϭήΤϠϟ ϥ΍ Ϯϫ ϩΎΒΘϧϻ΍ ΐϠΠϳ ϱάϟ΍ ϝϭϻ΍ Ίθϟ΍
˯Ύπϋϻ Δϴ΋΍Ωϻ΍ Ε΍έϭΎϨϤϟ΍ ϲϓ ΩΎμΘϗϻ΍ ϡϮϬϔϣ ϊϣ ϢΠδϨϳ ϡΎϏΩϻ΍ ϥϻ ϞϤΘΤϣ ϡΎϏΩϻΎϓ ΍άϟ .ΎϬΟήΨϤϟ
ϡϼϠϟ ΎϤϫϻϭ΍ ϦϴΘϴϟΎΘΘϣ ϦϴΘϛήΣ [tongue tip] ϥΎδϠϟ΍ ΔϠγ΍ ϱΩΆΗ ϥ΍ Ϧϋ ΎοϮϋ ˬήΧ΍ ϡϮϔϤΑ .ϖτϨϟ΍
ΔϴϨΜΗ ϞΜϤΗ ΔϟϮτϣ ΓΪΣ΍ϭ ΔϛήΣ ϖϴϘΤΘΑ ϥΎδϠϟ΍ ΔϠγ΍ ϡϮϘΗ ˬΔϴδϤθϟ΍ ϑϭήΤϟ΍ Ω΍Ϊϋ ϲϓ Ϯϫ ΎϤϟ ΔϴϧΎΜϟ΍ϭ
ϲόΟ΍ήΘϟ΍ ϭ΍ ϱΩ΍ΪΗέϻ΍ ϡΎϏΩϻ΍ Ϧϣ ΔΤο΍ϭ ΔϟΎΣ ϩάϫϭ .ϒϳήόΘϟ΍ Γ΍Ω΍ ϲϓ ϡϼϟ΍ ρΎϘγ΍ ϊϣ ϲδϤθϟ΍ ϑήΤϠϟ
ϲϨϣΰϟ΍ ΪϴϘϟ΍ Ϧϣ ωϮϧ ΩϮΟϭ ϰϟ΍ Ύπϳ΍ ήϴθϳ ϪΗ΍Ϋ ΪΤΑ ϡΎϏΩϻ΍ ΍άϫϭ [Regressive Assimilation]
˯΍Ω΍ ϲϓ ΩϮΟϮϣ ήϴϏ ΪϴϘϟ΍ Ϧϣ ωϮϨϟ΍ ΍άϫ ϥ΍ ϭΪΒϳ ˬϚϟΫ ϑϼΧϭ .ϥΎδϠϟ΍ ΔϛήΣ ϰϠϋ [Constraint Time]
,ϭ ,ϡ ,Ώ> ϞΜϣ ϥΎδϠϟ΍ ήϴϏ ϲϫ ϯήΧ΍ ˯΍ΰΟΎΑ άϔϨ˵Η ϥ΍ Ύϣ΍ ΓήϴΧϻ΍ ϥϻ ΔϳήϤϘϟ΍ ϑϭήΤϟΎΑ ϰϤδϳ Ύϣ ϊϣ ϡϼϟ΍
[Scully] ϲϠϜγ ΓΪϴδϟ΍ ϊϣ ϖϔΘϧ ϦΤϧ ΍άϜϫϭ .ϥΎδϠϟ΍ ΔϠγ΍ ήϴϏ ϲϫ ϥΎδϠϟ΍ Ϧϣ ϯήΧ΍ ˯΍ΰΟΎΑ ϯΩΆΗ ϭ΍ <ϑ
ΔϠϘΘδϣ [Articulatory Systems] Δϴ΋΍Ω΍ ΔϤψϧ΍ ήΒΘόΗ ΔΗήΧΆϣϭ ϥΎδϠϟ΍ ΔϠγ΍ϭ ϩΎϔθϟ΍ ϥ΍ " ϝϮϘΗ ϲΘϟ΍
ϪϧΎΑ ϒλϮϳ ϡϮϴϟ΍ ϰΤμϔϟ΍ ΔϴΑήόϟ΍ ϲϓ ϢϴΠϟ΍ ΕϮλ ϥΎϛ ΎϤϟϭ .ΔϔϠΘΨϣ ΕΎΟέΪΑ ϯήΧϻ΍ Ϧϋ ΓΪΣ΍Ϯϟ΍
ΝήΨϣ βϔϧ Ϧϣ Ϫϧϻ ΎϴϬϳΪΑ ΍ήϣ΍ ΔϴδϤθϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ ϊϗϮϣ ϲϓ ϪόϗϮϣ ΢Βμϳ ΐϛήϣϭ έϮϬΠϣ ϱϮΜϟ -ϱέΎϏ
ϥ΍ ΔϘϴϘΤϟ΍ ϲϓ .ΎϴδϤη ΎΗϮλ Ϧϴθϟ΍ ΕϮλ ϝ΍ΰϳ Ύϣϭ ϥΎϛ ΪϘϟ .ΔϴδϤθϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ ΝΫϮϤϧ΍ Ϯϫ ϱάϟ΍ Ϧϴθϟ΍
ϖτϧ ϲϓ ϰϟϭϻ΍ ΔϠΣήϤϟ΍ ϥϻ ΎϴδϤη ΎΗϮλ ΢Βμϴϟ Ϧϴθϟ΍ Ϧϣ ϯϮϗ΍ Δϴ΋΍Ω΍ Ε΍έήΒϣ ΓήλΎόϤϟ΍ ϢϴΠϟ΍ ΕϮμϟ
ήϴψϨϟ΍ Ϯϫ ϱάϟ΍ [<] ΕϮλ ϞΜϤΘϓ ΔϴϧΎΜϟ΍ ΔϠΣήϤϟ΍ Ύϣ΍ ϲδϤθϟ΍ ϱϮΜϠϟ΍ ϝ΍Ϊϟ΍ ΕϮλ ϞΜϤΗ [] ΕϮμϟ΍ ΍άϫ
ϥΎΗϮλ ϥϼΜϤΗ ϪϴΘϠΣήϣ ΎΘϠϛ ΖϧΎϛ ΍Ϋ΍ ΎϳήϤϗ ϢϴΠϟ΍ ΕϮλ έΎΒΘϋ΍ έήΒϧ ϒϴϜϓ ΍άϟ .[5] ϦϴθϠϟ έϮϬΠϤϟ΍
ˮϥΎϴδϤη
.ϖτϨϟ΍ ίΎϬΟ ϲϓ ΔϳήϤϘϟ΍ϭ ΔϴδϤθϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ ΝέΎΨϤϟ ϲτϴτΨΗ ϞϴΜϤΗ .ϝϭϻ΍ ϞϜθϟ΍
ϲϓ [prescriptive orientation] ϱέΎϴόϤϟ΍ ϪϴΟϮΘϟ΍ ϡ΍Ϊόϧ΍ ΔϟΎΣ ϲϓ Ϫϧ΍ ΍ΫΎϤϟ ϥϻ΍ ΢πΘϳ ΎϤΑήϟ
ϮΤϧ ϩΎΠΗϻ΍ ϥ΍ .˯ήϤϟ΍ ΪϨϋ ϦϤϴϬϤϟ΍ Ϯϫ ϲδϤθϟ΍ ϖϴϘΤΘϟ΍ ϥϮϜϳ ΔϴϜϴγϼϜϟ΍ ΔϘϳήτϟ΍ ϰϠϋ ΔϴΑήόϟ΍ ΔϐϠϟ΍ ϖτϧ
˯Ϯπϟ΍ ϲϘϠϳ ΍άϫϭ .ϪΘϣϭΎϘϣ ϰϠϋ ϱέΎϴόϤϟ΍ ΐϳέΪΘϟ΍ ϰΘΣ ΎϧΎϴΣ΍ ϦϜϤϳ ϻ ΔΟέΩ ϰϟ΍ ϱϮϗ ϲδϤθϟ΍ ϖϴϘΤΘϟ΍
.Ύ˱ϳήϤϗ ϢϴΠϟ΍ ϖϴϘΤΗ ϲϓ %52 ΔΒδϨΑ ϰϟϭϻ΍ ΔϋϮϤΠϤϟ΍ ˯΍ήϗ Ϟθϓ ϰϠϋ
Δϴ˰δϤη Δ˰ϳήϤϗ
Δ˰ϳήϤϗ [6, &, t, , s, , z] [/g, j, k, :, ¯, q, Í]
[b, w, m, f, ] [Ι Ϋ Ε ρ α ι ί] [ Ν ϱ ϙ Υ ύ ϕ Ρ]
[ ! h]
ΔϴΗϮμϟ΍ ΔϳΪΠΑϻ΍ϭ ΔϴΑήόϟ΍ ίϮϣήϟΎΑ ΔϴδϤθϟ΍ϭ ΔϳήϤϘϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ .ϲϧΎΜϟ΍ ϞϜθϟ΍

.ϰϣ΍ΪϘϟ΍ ΓΎΤϨϟ΍ ϒϴϨμΗ ϲϓ ΎϤϛ ΔϴϤϟΎόϟ΍
ΔϤϴϘϟ΍ βϔϧ ΔϤϳΪϘϟ΍ ϢϴΠϠϟ ϥΎϛ Ϯϟ ˮΎϳήϤϗ ΎΗϮλ ϢϴΠϟ΍ Ώήόϟ΍ ΓΎΤϨϟ΍ ϒϨλ ΍ΫΎϤϟ :Ϯϫ ήΧϻ΍ ΢ϠϤϟ΍ ϝ΍Άδϟ΍ϭ
ϥ΍ ήϴϏ .Ϧϴθϟ΍ ϊϣ ϝΎΤϟ΍ ΎϤϛ ΔϴδϤθϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ ϊϣ ΎϬϔϴϨμΗ νϭήϔϤϟ΍ Ϧϣ ϥΎϜϟ ΓήλΎόϤϟ΍ ϢϴΠϠϟ ΔϴΗϮμϟ΍
΍ϮϔϨλ ϢϬϧ΍ ΪϴΑ ΪΣ΍ϭ ΝήΨϣ Ϧϣ <ϱ ˬΝ ˬε> ΍ϭήΒΘϋ΍ ϢϬϧ΍ ΢ϴΤλ .΍άϫ Ϧϋ ϒϠΘΨϳ ϰϣ΍ΪϘϟ΍ ΓΎΤϨϟ΍ ϪϠόϓ Ύϣ
Ϧϣ βϴϟ ˬΔϴ΋΍Ωϻ΍ ήψϨϟ΍ ΔϬΟϭ Ϧϣ .ϥΎϳήϤϗ ϥΎΗϮλ ΍ήΒΘϋ΍ ΪϘϓ ˯Ύϴϟ΍ϭ ϢϴΠϟ΍ Ύϣ΍ ϲδϤη ΕϮμϛ Ϧϴθϟ΍
ϥ΍ήΧϻ΍ ϥΎϨΛϻ΍ϭ ΎϳήϤϗ ΎϤϫΪΣ΍ κΨθ˵˰ϳ ϢΛ Ϧϣϭ ΝήΨϤϟ΍ Ϧϴϋ ϰϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλ΍ ΔΛϼΛ ΐδϨ˵˰Η ϥ΍ ΎΗΎΘΑ ϝϮϘόϤϟ΍
ϭ΍ ΔϴδϤθϟ΍ ΔϧΎϜϤϟ΍ ϦϴϴόΗ ϲϓ ΍ϭ΄τΧ΍ Ϊϗ ϰϣ΍ΪϘϟ΍ ΓΎΤϨϟ΍ ϥΎΑ ν΍ήΘϓϻ΍ Ύ˱πϳ΍ ϝϮϘόϤϟ΍ Ϧϣ βϴϟϭ ΎϤϛ .ϥΎϴδϤη
ΔΟέΩ ϰϟ΍ ΎϴόϤγ ΢ο΍ϭϭ ήϴΒϛ ˬϥΎϛ ΕϮλ ϱϻ ˬϦϴϘϴϘΤΘϟ΍ Ϧϋ ϢΟΎϨϟ΍ ϲΗϮμϟ΍ ϑϼΘΧϻ΍ ϥϻ ϢϴΠϠϟ ΔϳήϤϘϟ΍
ΔϴδϤθϟ΍ ΔϧΎϜϤϟ΍ ΪϳΪΤΗ ϲϓ ϝΎϜηϻ΍ ϥ΍ .ήΧϻ΍ Ϧϋ ΎϤϫΪΣ΍ ΰϴϤϳ ϥ΍ ΎϴΗϮλ ΏέΪΘϤϟ΍ ήϴϐϟ ϰΘΣ ϰϨδΘϳ ΚϴΤΑ
.ΓήλΎόϤϟ΍ ΔϴΗϮμϟ΍ ϪΘϤϴϗ Ϧϋ ΔϔϠΘΨϣ ΖϧΎϛ ϢϴΠϟ΍ ϑήΤϟ ΔϴΗϮμϟ΍ ΔϤϴϘϟ΍ ϥΎΑ ήϴϜϔΘϠϟ ΎϨόϓΪϳ ϢϴΠϠϟ ΔϳήϤϘϟ΍ϭ
ϥΎΑ ρΎΒϨΘγϻ΍ ϝϮϘόϤϟ΍ Ϧϣ ΢Βμϳ ˬϝΪΟ ϭ΍ Ϛη ϱ΍ ϥϭΩ ΎϴδϤη ΎΗϮλ ϞΜϤϳ ϝ΍ΰϳ Ύϣϭ Ϧϴθϟ΍ ϑήΣ ϥΎϛ ΎϤϟϭ
ΎΗϮλ ϥΎϛ ΎϤΑήϟ .[ϦϴΘϔθϟ΍ Ϧϣ ΍˱ΪΘΑ΍] Ϧϴθϟ΍ ΝήΨϣ ϒϠΧ ΝήΨϣ Ϧϣ ΎΗϮλ ϞΜϤϳ ϥΎϛ ϙ΍άϧ΍ ϢϴΠϟ΍ ϑήΣ
.[Velar] Ύ˱ϴϘΒσ ϭ΍ [Palatal] Ύ˱ϳέΎϏ
΍˱ΪϳΪη Ύ˱ϨϛΎγ Ύ˱ΗϮλ ϢϴΠϠϟ ϰϣ΍ΪϘϟ΍ ΓΎΤϨϟ΍ έΎΒΘϋ΍ Ϯϫ ήϴϜϔΘϟ΍ ϲϓ ϩΎΠΗϻ΍ ΍άϫ ϢϋΪϳ Ύϣϭ
ΔϤϳΪϘϟ΍ ΔϴΗϮμϟ΍ ΕΎϴΑΩϻ΍ ϲϓ ήϛΫ ϱ΍ ΪΟϮϳ ϻ ΎϤϛ .[Affricate] Ύ˱Βϛήϣ Ύ˱ ΗϮλ βϴϟϭ [Plosive/Stop]
ΓΪϳΪθϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ Ϧϋ ΎϴγΎγ΍ Ύ˱ϓϼΘΧ΍ ϒϠΘΨΗ ϲΘϟ΍ ΔΒϛήϤϟ΍ Ε΍ϮλϻΎΑ ϥϻ΍ ϪϴϤδϧ Ύϣ ΩϮΟϮΑ ϲΣϮϳ ΢ϠτμϤϟ
ϥΎϴγΎγ΍ ϥΎϗήϓ ΩϮΟϭ ϪϠϛ ΍άϫ ΪόΑ ϰϠΠΘϳ .Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ Ϧϣ ΪΣ΍ϭ ϒϨλ ΖΤΗ ΎϬόϤΟ ίϮΠϳ ϻϭ ϦϜϤϳ ϻ ΚϴΤΑ
Ϯϫ ΎϤϨϴΑ ΎϳήϤϗϭ ΍ΪϳΪη ΎΗϮλ ϞΜϤϳ ϑήΤϟ΍ ϥΎϛ ΪϘϟ – ΓήλΎόϤϟ΍ ϢϴΠϟ΍ϭ ΔϤϳΪϘϟ΍ ϢϴΠϠϟ ΔϴΗϮμϟ΍ ΕΎϤδϟ΍ ϦϴΑ
.ϲδϤηϭ ΐϛήϣ ΕϮλ ϥϻ΍
ϭΪΒϳ Ϫϧ΍ ϻ΍ Ϫδϔϧ ϑήΤϟ΍ ϥϮϛ ϢϏέ ϪϧΎΑ ΝΎΘϨΘγϻ΍ ϰϠϋ ΚΣΎΒϟ΍ ϥΎόΠθϳ ϥΎϴγΎγϻ΍ ϥΎϗήϔϟ΍ ϥ΍άϫϭ
voiced ] έϮϬΠϤϟ΍ ϱέΎϐϟ΍ ΪϳΪθϟ΍ ΕϮμϟ΍ ˬ [Ì] ϥΎϛ Ϫϧ΍ ϞϤΘΤϳ ήΧ΍ ΎΗϮλ ϞΜϤΗ ΖϧΎϛ ΔϤϳΪϘϟ΍ ϢϴΠϟ΍ ϥ΍
voiced velar ]έϮϬΠϤϟ΍ ϲϘΒτϟ΍ ΪϳΪθϟ΍ ΕϮμϟ΍ [g] ϭ΍ ϥ΍ΩϮδϟ΍ ΔϴΑήϋ ϲϓ ϊ΋Ύθϟ΍ [palatal plosive
ΔϔϠΘΨϤϟ΍ ΔϴΗϮμϟ΍ ΕΎϘϴϘΤΘϠϟ ΍ήψϧ ΍˱ΪΟ ϞϤΘΤϣ ΝΎΘϨΘγϻ΍ ΍άϫ ϞΜϣ ϥ΍ .ήμϣ ΔϴΑήϋ ϲϓ ϊ΋Ύθϟ΍ [plosive
ϥΎϨΒϟϭ ΎϳέϮγ ϲϓ [<] ΕϮλϭ ϕ΍ήόϟ΍ ϲϓ [] ΕϮλ Ϫϧ΍ ϼ ˱ ΜϤϓ .ΔϴΑήόϟΎΑ ϦϴϘσΎϨϟ΍ ρΎγϭ΍ ϲϓ ϢϴΠϟ΍ ϑήΤϟ
΍˱ήΧ΍ Ύ˱ΗϮλ ΍Ϯϔλϭ Ϊϗ ϰϣ΍ΪϘϟ΍ ΓΎΤϨϟ΍ ϥΎΑ ϲΣϮϳ ΍άϫ Ϟϛ .ήμϣ ϲϓ [I] ΕϮλϭ ϥ΍ΩϮδϟ΍ ϲϗ [Ì] ΕϮλϭ
.Ϫδϔϧ ϝ΍ί Ύϣ ϑήΤϟ΍ ϥ΍ ϢϏέ
ΕΎΟΎΘϨΘγϻ΃ .5
ήϴϐΘΑ ϲΣϮΗ Ϫϟ ΔϳήϤϘϟ΍ ϭ΍ ΔϴδϤθϟ΍ ΕΎϘϴϘΤΘϟ΍ϭ ϢϴΠϟ΍ ϑήΣ ˯΍Ω΍ ϲϓ ΔϴΗϮμϟ΍ ΕΎϓϼΘΧϻ΍ ϥ΍
ˬΎ˱ϴϧΎΛ .ΕϮμϟ΍ ϲϓ ήϴϐΗ ϰϟ΍ ήϴθϴϟ ήϴϐΘϳ Ϣϟ ϑήΤϟ΍ ϥ΍ ˬϻ
˱ ϭ΍ :ϦϴΒΒδϟ ϲϔΨϣ ϲΗϮμϟ΍ ήϴϐΘϟ΍ ϥ΍ ήϴϏ .ϲΗϮλ
ϲδϤθϟ΍ ϖϴϘΤΘϟ΍ ϥ΍ .ήϴϐΘΗ Ϣϟ ΎϬδϳέΪΗ ΔϘϳήσϭ ΔϴΑήόϟ΍ ΔϐϠϟ΍ Ϊϋ΍ϮϘϟ [archaic] ΔψϓΎΤϤϟ΍ ΔόϴΒτϟ΍ ϥ΍
Ϫϧ΍ϭ ϲΗϮμϟ΍ ήϴϐΘϟ΍ ϲϓ ϲόϴΒσ ϩΎΠΗ΍ ϰϟ΍ ήϴθϳ ΕΎϳϮΘδϤϟ΍ ϰΘη ϰϠϋ Ϧϴϴϗ΍ήόϟ΍ ϡϼϛ ϲϓ ϢϴΠϟ΍ ΕϮμϟ
ϢϴΠϟ΍ ΕϮλ ϥΎϓ ΎϴδϤη ΎΗϮλ ϝ΍ΰϳ Ύϣϭ Ϧϴθϟ΍ ΕϮλ ϥΎϛ ΎϤϟ .Ϧϴθϟ΍ ΕϮμϟ ϲδϤθϟ΍ ϖϴϘΤΘϟ΍ ϊϣ ϖΑΎτΘϳ
ΝήΨϣ βϔϧ Ϧϣ Ϛη ϥϭΩ Ϯϫ Ϣ΋ΎϘϟ΍ ϢϴΠϟ΍ ΕϮλ ΝήΨϣ ϥϻ ϲδϤη ϖϴϘΤΗ ϰϟ΍ ϲπϔϳ ϥ΍ ΐΠϳ ήλΎόϤϟ΍
.ΔϴδϤθϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍
ϰϟ΍ ϱέΎϏ ϭ΍ ϲϘΒσ Ϧϣ] ΍˱ΪΣ΍ϭ Ύ˱ΟήΨϣ ϡΎϣϻ΍ ϰϟ΍ ϒΣΰϟΎΑ ϢϴΠϟ΍ ΕϮλ ΝήΨϣ ήϴϐΗ Δϴοήϓ ϥ΍
ϲϓ ΔϴΑήόϟ΍ ΔϐϠϟ ϲΗϮμϟ΍ ϡΎψϨϟ΍ ήϴϐΗ ϥέΎϘϧ ΎϣΪϨϋ ϼΜϤϓ .ϊγϭ΍ έΎσ΍ ϲϓ ήδϔ˵˰Η ϥ΍ ϦϜϤϳ [ϱϮΜϟ-ϱέΎϏ
ϖτϨϟ΍ ϯήΠϣ ϲϓ Ύ˱ϔϠΧ ϒΣΰΗ ΔϳήμϤϟ΍ ΔϴϣΎόϟ΍ ϲϓ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ ξόΑ ϥ΍ ϯήϧ ϕ΍ήόϟ΍ ΔϴϣΎϋϭ ήμϣ ΔϴϣΎϋ
ˬϝΎΜϤϟ΍ ϞϴΒγ ϰϠϋ ˬϰϟϭϻ΍ ΔϴϣΎόϟ΍ ϲϓ .ϡΎϣϻ΍ ϰϟ΍ ϒΣΰϟ΍ ΚϴΣ Δϴϗ΍ήόϟ΍ ΔϴϣΎόϟ΍ βϜϋ [vocal tract]
[] = ϢϴΠϟ΍ ϰϘΒΗ Δϴϗ΍ήόϟ΍ ΔϴϣΎόϟ΍ ϲϓ ΎϤϨϴΑ [!] ΓΰϤϫ ΢ΒμΗ [S] = ϑΎϘϟ΍ϭ [I] ΢ΒμΗ [] = ϢϴΠϟ΍
ϖϴϘΤΘϟΎΑ ϖϠόΘϳ ΎϤϴϓ ΍άϟ .ϩΎϧΩ΍ 1 ϝϭϻ΍ ϝϭΪΠϟ΍ ϲϓ ΎϤϛ ˱ [I] ϑΎϘϟ΍ ΢ΒμΗϭ ˱ [] ϑΎϜϟ΍ ΢ΒμΗϭ Ύ˱ϤϴΟ
ϊϓΪϳ Ϫϧϻ ϢϴΠϠϟ ϲδϤθϟ΍ ϖϴϘΤΘϟ΍ ϊϣ ήΜϛ΍ ϢΠδϨϳ ϲϗ΍ήόϟ΍ ϲΗϮμϟ΍ ϡΎψϨϟ΍ ϥΎϓ ˬϢϴΠϠϟ ϱήϤϘϟ΍ ϭ΍ ϲδϤθϟ΍
ϊϓΪϳ ϱήμϤϟ΍ ϡΎψϨϟ΍ ΎϤϨϴΑ [ϩΎϧΩ΍ 3 ϞϜθϟ΍ ϲϓ ΎϤϛ] ΔϴδϤθϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ ΔϘτϨϣ ϦϤο ϡΎϣϻ΍ ϰϟ΍ ΎϬΟήΨϤΑ
.[ϩϼϋ΍ 2 ϞϜθϟ΍ ϲϓ ΎϤϛ] ΔϳήϤϘϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ ΔϘτϨϣ ϦϤο Ύ˱ϔϠΧ ϢϴΠϟ΍ ΝήΨϣ
Δϴϗ΍ήόϟ΍ ΔϴϣΎόϟ΍ ΔϳήμϤϟ΍ ΔϴϣΎόϟ΍
[ = ̧] ϱϮΜϟ-ϱέΎϏ I [M = ϙ] ϲϘΒσ [= Ν] ϱϮΜϟ-ϱέΎϏ J [ g = ̳ ] ϲϘΒσ
[g = ̳] ϲϘΒσ [S = ϕ] ϱϮϬϟ [ S = ϕ ] ϱϮϬϟ J [ ! = ˯] ϱήΠϨΣ

I
ϖτϨϟ΍ ίΎϬΟ ήΒϋ ϦϴδϛΎόϣ ϦϴϫΎΠΗΎΑ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ ΝέΎΨϣ ϒΣί .1 ϝϭΪΠϟ΍

.Δϴϗ΍ήόϟ΍ϭ ΔϳήμϤϟ΍ ΔϴϣΎόϟ΍ ϲϓ
ϊϣ ϊοϮϟ΍ Ϯϫ ΎϤϛ ιΎΨηϻ΍ ξόΒϟ ϱήϤϘϟ΍ ϖϴϘΤΘϟ΍ ίΰόϳ Ϊϗ ϢϴΠϠϟ ϱήϤϘϟ΍ ˯΍Ωϻ΍ ϰϠϋ ΐϳέΪΘϟ΍ ϥ΍
ϖϴϘΤΘϟ΍ ϲϓ ΔϴϟΎόϓ ήΜϛϻ΍ Ϯϫ ϥ΁ήϘϟ΍ ΪϳϮΠΗ ϰϠϋ ΐϳέΪΘϟ΍ ϥ΍ Ύπϳ΍ ΓέΎηϻΎΑ ήϳΪΟ .ϰϟϭϻ΍ ΔϋϮϤΠϤϟ΍
ϮΤϧ ϢϴΠϠϟ [natural assimilatory tendency] ϲόϴΒτϟ΍ ϲϣΎϏΩϻ΍ ϩΎΠΗϻ΍ ΓϮϘϓ ΍άϫ Ϟϛ ϢϏέϭ .ϱήϤϘϟ΍
αϭέΩ ϲϓ ϱέΎϴόϤϟ΍ ϦϴϘϠΘϟ΍ ϭ΍ ϲϧ΁ήϘϟ΍ ΪϳϮΠΘϟ΍ ΔγέΎϤϣ Ϧϣ ϰΗΎΘϳ ϱάϟ΍ ήϴΛΎΘϟ΍ ξόΑ ϡϭΎϘϳ ϲδϤθϟ΍ ϖϴϘΤΘϟ΍
ˬΐϛήϤϟ΍ ϱϮΜϠϟ΍-ϱέΎϐϟ΍ [] ΕϮλ ϰϨΒΗ Ϊϗ Δϴϗ΍ήόϟ΍ ΔϴΑήόϟ΍ ΔϴϣΎόϠϟ ϲΗϮμϟ΍ ϡΎψϨϟ΍ ϥ΍ ΎϤϛ .ΔϴΑήόϟ΍ ΔϐϠϟ΍
. “dog”= [kalb] Ϧϋ Ύ˱οϮϋ [al,b] ΔϤϠϛ ϲϓ ΎϤϛ ˬέϮϬΠϤϟ΍ [] ΕϮμϟ αϮϤϬϤϟ΍ ήϴψϨϟ΍ Ϯϫ ϱάϟ΍
ϞϜϟ ΎΗϮλ 14 Ϧϣ ϱΪϴϠϘΘϟ΍ ΔϳήϤϘϟ΍ϭ ΔϴδϤθϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ ϥ΍ΰϴϣ ήϴϐϴγ ΎϴδϤη ΎΗϮλ <Ν> έΎΒΘϋ΍ ϥΎϓ ΍άϟ
.3 ϞϜθϟ΍ ϲϓ Ϯϫ ΎϤϛ ΎϳήϤϗ ΎΗϮλ 13 ϞΑΎϘϣ ΎϴδϤη ΎΗϮλ 15 ϰϟ΍ [Thackston, 1994] ΎϤϬϨϣ
ϲΣϮϳ ϡΎϏΩϻ΍ Ϧϣ ΔΤο΍ϭ ΔϟΎΣ ϞΜϤϳ ϱάϟ΍ϭ ΔϴΑήόϟ΍ ϲϓ ϱήϤϘϟ΍ϭ ϲδϤθϟ΍ ϒϴϨμΘϟ΍ ΩϮΟϭ ϥ΍
ΐΒδϟ΍ ΍άϬϟ .ϖτϨϟ΍ ˯Ύπϋ΍ ϰϠϋ ΔοϭήϔϤϟ΍ Δϴ΋΍Ωϻ΍ ΩϮϴϘϟΎΑ ΔϘϠόΘϤϟ΍ϭ ϡΎόϟ΍ ΕϮμϟ΍ ϢϠϋ ϲϓ ϊγϭ΍ ϢϴϫΎϔϤΑ
[ϙήΤΘϟ΍] ϑήμΘϟ΍ ϊϴτΘδΗ ΔΛϼΛ ΔϤψϧ΍ ϪΗήΧΆϣϭ ϥΎδϠϟ΍ ΔϠγ΍ϭ ϩΎϔθϟ΍ ϥϮϜΗ ϥ΍ ϝϮϘόϤϟ΍ Ϧϣ ϯήϧ
ϲδϤθϟ΍ ϒϴϨμΘϟ΍ έήϘϳ ϱάϟ΍ Ϯϫ ΔΛϼΜϟ΍ ΔϤψϧϻ΍ ϩάϫ ϦϴΑ ϖϴδϨΘϟ΍ ϥ΍ .ϯήΧϻ΍ Ϧϋ ΓΪΣ΍Ϯϟ΍ ΔϴϟϼϘΘγΎΑ
.ϱήϤϘϟ΍ϭ
Δϴ΋΍Ωϻ΍ ΓΰϴϤϤϟ΍ ΕΎϤδϟΎΑ Δϗϼϋ ΎϬϟ ΔϳήϤϘϟ΍-ΔϴδϤθϟ΍ Δϴ΋ΎϨΜϠϟ ϯήΧϻ΍ ΔϤϬϤϟ΍ ΔϴϔϴϨμΘϟ΍ ΔϤϴϘϟ΍ϭ
ϲϓ ϰϟΎϫϭ ϲϜδϣϮθΗ ϞΒϗ Ϧϣ ϰϟϭϻ΍ ΓήϤϠϟ ΎϬΣήσ ϖΒγ ϲΘϟ΍ [articulatory distinctive features]
:ϲΗϻΎϛ [anterior/nonanterior] ϲϣΎϣϻ΍ ήϴϏ/ϲϣΎϣϻ΍ ΔϤγ ϒϳήόΗ ϢΗ ΪϘϟ . 1968
“Anterior sounds are produced with an obstruction that is located in front of the
palato-alveolar region of the mouth; nonanterior sounds are produced without
such an obstruction. The palato-alveolar region is that where the ordinary English
[6] is produced.” (cited in Ladefoged, 1982:246)
ϼϴϠϗ ΓΰϴϤϤϟ΍ ΔϤδϟ΍ ϩάϫ Ϣγ΍ ήϴϴϐΗ ϢΗ [Halle and Clemens, 1983] ΰϨϤ˶˰Ϡϛϭ ϲϟΎϫ ˰ϟ ήΧ΍ έΪμϣ ϲϓϭ
:ϲΗϻΎϛ Ζϓ˷ή˰˵ϋϭ
“Anterior sounds are produced with a primary constriction at or in front of the

alveolar ridge, while posterior sounds are produced with a primary constriction
behind the alveolar ridge.”
ϞλΎϔϟ΍ ςΨϟ΍ ϥϻ Ϫδϔϧ ϰϘΒϳ ϯϮΤϔϟΎϓ ΓΰϴϤϤϟ΍ ΔϤδϟ΍ ϩάϫ ϒϳήόΗϭ ΔϴϤδΗ ϲϓ ϒϴϔτϟ΍ ϕήϔϟ΍ Ϧϋ ήψϨϟ΍ ξϐΑ
ϱΎϓ .ΔϳϮΜϠϟ΍-ΔϳέΎϐϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ϭ ΔϳϮΜϠϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ ΝήΨϣ ϦϴΑ Ϟμϔϳ ϱάϟ΍ ςΨϟ΍ Ϯϫ ΔϤδϟ΍ ϩάϫ ϲϓήσ ϦϴΑ
ϡΎϣ΍ ϪΟήΨϣ ΕϮλ ϱ΍ϭ [nonanterior] ϲϣΎϣ΍-ήϴϏ ΕϮλ Ϯϫ ϱϮΜϠϟ΍ ΝήΨϤϟ΍ ϒϠΧ ϪΟήΨϣ ΕϮλ
ϲϫ ΔϳϮΜϠϟ΍ϭ ΔϴϧΎϨγϻ΍ϭ ΔϳϮϔθϟ΍ Ε΍ϮλϻΎϓ ΍άϟ .[anterior] ϲϣΎϣ΍ ΕϮλ ϮϬϓ ϱϮΜϠϟ΍-ϱέΎϐϟ΍ ΝήΨϤϟ΍
Ε΍Ϯλ΍ ϲϫ ΔϳήΠϨΤϟ΍ϭ ΔϴϘϠΤϟ΍ϭ ΔϳϮϬϠϟ΍ϭ ΔϴϘΒτϟ΍ϭ ΔϳέΎϐϟ΍ϭ ΔϳϮΜϠϟ΍-ΔϳέΎϐϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ϭ ΔϴϣΎϣ΍ Ε΍Ϯλ΍
ςΨϟ΍ Ϣγήϟ ϲϟΎϫϭ ϲϜδϣϮθΗ ϩΪϤΘϋ΍ ϱάϟ΍ ϲΒϳήΠΘϟ΍ αΎγϻ΍ ΢ο΍Ϯϟ΍ Ϧϣ βϴϟ ϝΎΣ Δϳ΍ ϰϠϋ .ΔϴϣΎϣ΍-ήϴϏ
ΔϠϴγϮϛ ΓΰϴϤϤϟ΍ ΔϤδϟ΍ ϩάϫ ϖϴΒτΗ ΎϨΌη Ϯϟ ˬϚϟΫ Ϟϛ ϢϏέϭ .ΔϴϣΎϣϻ΍-ήϴϏϭ ΔϴϣΎϣϵ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ ϦϴΑ ϞλΎϔϟ΍
ϒϴϨμΗ ϊϣ ΎϣΎϤΗ ϖΑΎτΘΗ ϻ ϑϮγ ΔϴϣΎϣϻ΍-ήϴϏϭ ΔϴϣΎϣϵ΍ ΓΰϴϤϤϟ΍ ΔϤδϟ΍ ϥΎϓ ΔϴΑήόϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϼϟ ΔϴϔϴϨμΗ
ϲϣΎϣ΍ ϲϟΎϫϭ ϲϜδϣϮθΗ Δϴ΋ΎϨΛ Ϧϣ Δϴόϗ΍ϭ ϭ ΔϴϘϴϘΣ ήΜϛ΍ ϒϴϨμΗ Ϯϫ ϱάϟ΍ ΔϳήϤϘϟ΍ /ΔϴδϤθϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍
ϦϴΑ ϞλΎϔϟ΍ ςΨϟ΍ ϥ΍ ˬϯήΧ΍ ΕΎϤϠϜΑ .Δϴόϗ΍ϭ ΎϬϧϮϛ Ϧϣ ήΜϛ΍ Δϳήψϧ ϥϮϜΗ ϥ΍ ϰϟ΍ ϞϴϤΗ ϲΘϟ΍ ϲϣΎϣ΍-ήϴϏϭ
ΔϳΰϴϴϤΘϟ΍ Δϴ΋ΎϨΜϟ΍ ϦϴΑ ϞμϔϠϟ αΎγΎϛ Δϴόϗ΍ϭ ήΜϛ΍ ϲΗϮλ ϞλΎϓ Ϯϫ ΔϳήϤϘϟ΍ϭ ΔϴδϤθϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍
Ω̳ϮϔϳΩϻ ϖϴϠόΗ ϢϋΪϳ ΝΎΘϨΘγϻ΍ ΍άϫ ϞΜϣ ϥ΍ .ϲϟΎϫϭ ϲϜδϣϮθΗ ϞΒϗ Ϧϣ ΔΣήΘϘϤϟ΍ ϲϣΎϣ΍ ήϴϏ/ϲϣΎϣ΍"
:Ϟ΋ΎϘϟ΍ ϲϟΎϫϭ ϲϜδϣϮθΘϟ ΓΰϴϤϤϟ΍ ΕΎϤδϟ΍ ϡΎψϧ ΩΪμΑ [Ladefoged]
“It is by no means certain that phonetic facts can be adequately described using
the Chomsky-Halle features. These features are more suitable for classifying the
phonological oppositions that occur in languages than describing their phonetic
structures”. (Ladefoged, 1982:246)
[distinctive features system]ΓΰϴϤϤϟ΍ ΕΎϤδϠϟ ϡΎψϧ ϱ΍ ϥΎΑ ΝΎΘϨΘγϻ΍ ϰϟ΍ ΎϨΑ ϲπϔ˵Η ΔθϗΎϨϤϟ΍ ϩάϫϭ
Ϧϴϫ΍ήΑ ί΍ήΑϻ ΓήϤΘδϣ ϑΎθΘϛ΍ ΔϴϠϤόϟ ϊπΨϳ ϥ΍ ΐΠϳϭ ΎϤϛ ΔϴΒϳήΠΗ Δϴόϗ΍ϭ βγ΍ ϰϠϋ ΪϨΘδϳ ϥ΍ ΐΠϳ
.ϻ
˱ ϮϤη ήΜϛ΍ Δϴϋήη ΓΰϴϤϤϟ΍ ΕΎϤδϟ΍ ϩάϬϟ ϥ΍ ΕΎΒΛϻ ΔγϮδΤϣ ΔϳϮϐϟ
Ζδϴϟ ΔϴΑήόϟ΍ ΔϐϠϟ΍ϭ ϲϠόϔϟ΍ ϝϭ΍ΪΘϟ΍ ϲϓ ΔϐϠϟ΍ Ζϣ΍Ω Ύϣ Δόϗ΍ϭ ΔϘϴϘΣ ΔϐϠϟ΍ ήϴϐΗ ϥ΍ ˬέΎμΘΧΎΑ
.Ύ˱ϤϳΪϗ ϪϴϠϋ ϥΎϛ ΎϤϋ ήϴϐΗ Ϊϗ <Ν> ΕϮλ ϥ΍ ϰϟ΍ ήϴθϳ ϱϮϗ ϞϴϟΩ ϚϟΎϨϫ .ϲϜϴϣΎϨϳΪϟ΍ ήϴϐΘϟ΍ ΍άϫ Ϧϣ ΔϧϮμϣ
ΝΎΘϨΘγ΍ Ϯϫ [I] ϭ΍ [Ì] ϢϴΠϟ΍ ΕϮλ Ϟλ΍ έΎΒΘϋ΍ ϥ΍ .[J] ϭ΍ [Ì] Ύϣ΍ ϥΎϛ ϢϴΠϟ΍ ΕϮλ ϥ΍ ϝΎϤΘΣϻ΍ ΐϠϏ΍
ϑήΤϟ ϲϠλϻ΍ ΕϮμϟ΍ ϥΎΑ Ϟ΋ΎϘϟ΍ϭ ΔϴΨϳέΎΘϟ΍ ΔϟΩϻ΍ ϰϠϋ ϲϨΒϤϟ΍ [Littmann] ϥΎϤΘϴϟ ν΍ήΘϓ΍ ϊϣ ϢΠδϨϳ
ϩήϴψϧ ϭ΍ ΔϴΑήόϟ΍ ϲϓ <Ν> ϑήΤϟ΍ ΕϮλ ϥ΍ ήϛάϟΎΑ ήϳΪΠϟ΍ .ϡϮϴϟ΍ ήμϣ ΔϴΑήϋ ϲϓ ΎϤϛ [I] ϥΎϛ ϢϴΠϟ΍
ΕϮλ [Ì] ϭ΍ ˬ ΐϛήϣ ϱϮΜϟ -ϱέΎϏ έϮϬΠϣ ΕϮλ [] Ύϣ΍ φϔϠϳ ΓήλΎόϤϟ΍ Δϴϣ΍έϻ΍ ϲϓ < >
.ΪϳΪη ϲϘΒσ έϮϬΠϣ ΕϮλ [g] ϭ΍ ΪϳΪη ϱέΎϏ έϮϬΠϣ
ϱήϤϗ
ϱήϤϗ ϲδϤη
[j, k, :, ¯, q, Í]
[b, w, m, f, ] [6, &, t, , s, , z]
<Ώ ,ϭ ˬϡ ˬϑ> [ ϱ ϙ Υ ύ ϕ Ρ]
[Ι Ϋ Ε ρ α ι ί]
[ , !, h]
ϲϓ ΔμΨθϣ ϲϫ ΎϤϛ [15] ΔϴδϤθϟ΍ϭ [13] ΔϳήϤϘϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍ ϊϳίϮΗ.ΚϟΎΜϟ΍ ϞϜθϟ΍

ΔϴδϤθϟ΍ ϰϟ΍ ϢϴΠϟ΍ ϝΎϘΘϧ΍ φΣϻ .ϕ΍ήόϟ΍ ΔϴΑήϋ
Subjects Tokens MR SR
Category # 1
1 – – – – – – – – – – – – – ––– 13
2 + + + + + + + + + + + + + 13 –––
3 – – – – – – – – – – – + – 1 12
4 – – – – – – – – – – – – – ––– 13
5 – + – – + + – – + + + – + 7 6
6 – – – – – – – – – – – – – ––– 13
7 + + + + + + + + + + + + + 13 –––
8 – – – – – – – – – – – – + 1 12
9 + + + + + + + + + + + + + 13 –––
10 + + + + + + + + + + + + + 13 –––
Category #2
1 – – – – – – – – – – – – – ––– 13
2 – – – – – – – – – – – – – ––– 13
3 – – – – – – – – – – – – – ––– 13
4 – – – – – – + – – – – – – 1 12
5 – – – – – – – – – – – – – ––– 13
6 – – – – – – – – – – – + – 1 12
7 – – – – – – – – – – – – – ––– 13
8 – – – – – – – – – – – – – ––– 13
9 – – – – – – – – – – – – – ––– 13
10 + + + + + + + + + + + + + 13 –––
Category #3
1 – – – – – – – – – – – – – ––– 13
2 – – – – – – – – – – – – – ––– 13
3 – – – – – – – – – – – – – ––– 13
4 + + – + + – + – + + + – – 8 5
5 + – – – – – – – – – – – – 1 12
6 – – – – – – – – – – – – – ––– 13
7 – – – – – – – – – – – – – ––– 13
8 – – – – – – – – – – – – – ––– 13
9 – – – – – – – – – – – – – ––– 13
10 – – – – – – – – – – – – – ––– 13
85 305
ΕΎϋϮϤΠϣ ΙϼΛ ϥϮϠΜϤϳ ΎμΨη [30] ϖτϧ ϲϓ ϢϴΠϠϟ ΔϴδϤθϟ΍ϭ ΔϳήϤϘϟ΍ ΕΎϘϴϘΤΘϟ΍ .2 ϝϭΪΠϟ΍
.ϰΤμϔϟ΍ Δϴϗ΍ήόϟ΍ ΔϴΑήόϟΎΑ ϦϴϘσΎϨϟ΍ Ϧϣ
έΩΎμϤϟ΍

ΡϮϔϨϣ ήϴϏ αϮϤϬϣ ϱϮϬϟ ΪϳΪη ΕϮλ :/ϕ/ ΔϴΑήόϟ΍ ϑΎϘϟ΍

ΔϣΪϘϤϟ΍ .1
ϲϓ ΢Ϡϔϳ ϻ ΕΎϴΗϮμϟ΍ ϲϓ αήϤΘϣ ήϴϏϭ Ύϣ Δϐϟ Δϳϻ Ϟϴλ΍ ϖσΎϧ ϱ΍ ϥ΍ ϥΎϴΒΘϟ ΔϟϭΎΤϣ ϲϓ
Erik Fudge ΪϤΘϋ΍ [Ϫϟ ΔϳΰϴϴϤΗ ΔϴΗϮλ Δϔϴχϭ ϻ ϱ΍] Ύ˱ϴϤϴϧϮϓ ήϴϏ ΎϤϫΪΣ΍ ϥΎϛ ΍Ϋ΍ ϦϴϬΑΎθΘϣ ϦϴΗϮλΰϴϴϤΗ
ΎϣΪϨϋ Ϫϧ΍ ϰϟ΍ ήϴθΗ ΔψΣϼϤϟ΍ .ΔϴΑϮϨΠϟ΍ ΕϮϳ΍̡ Δϐϟ Ϧϣ ϖσΎϨΑ ΔϘϠόΘϤϟ΍ Edward Sapir ΔψΣϼϣ ϰϠϋ
ϱϮϔθϟ΍ ΕϮμϟ΍ Ϧϋ νΎόΘγ΍ Ϫϧ΍ ϱ΍ [papa] ΖϧΎϛ ΔΠϴΘϨϟ΍ ϥΎϓ [pa$a] φϔϠϳ ϥ΍ ϖσΎϨϟ΍ ΍άϫ Ϧϣ ΐϠ˰˵σ
voiceless ] αϮϤϬϤϟ΍ ΪϳΪθϟ΍ ϱϮϔθϟ΍ ΕϮμϟΎΑ [voiced bilabial fricative] έϮϬΠϤϟ΍ ϲϛΎϜΘΣϻ΍
ΎϤϛˬϦϴΗϮμϟ΍ Ϧϳάϫ ϥ΍ .ΔϠϘΘδϣ Δϴϔϴχϭ ΔϴΗϮλ ΔϧΎϜϣ Ϫϟ Ζδϴϟ ϝϭϻ΍ ΕϮμϟ΍ ϥϻ [bilabial plosive
Fudge, 1970: ) ΔϴΗϮμϟ΍ ΔϳϮϐϠϟ΍ ΓΪΣϮϟ΍ βϔϨϟ [allophonic variants] ΔϴόϗϮϣ Ϟ΋΍ΪΑ ˬFudge Ϧψϳ
ϥ΍ ˬϚϟΫ Ϧϣ βϜόϟ΍ ϰϠϋ " Fudge ϝϮϘϳ ˬΔϴΑϮϨΠϟ΍ ΕϮϳ΍̡ ΔϐϠΑ ϖσΎϨϟ΍ Ϧϋ ΍ΪϴόΑ ˬήΧ΍ ϝΎΜϣ ϲϓϭ .(77
ϦϴϨϛΎδϟ΍ ϦϴΗϮμϟ΍ ϦϴΑ ΔϟϮϬδΑ ΰϴϤϳ ϪϧΎϓ ˬΕΎϴΗϮμϟ΍ ϲϓ αήϤΘϣ ήϴϏ ϥΎϛ ϥ΍ϭ ˬΔϴΑήόϟ΍ ΔϐϠϠΑ ϖσΎϨϟ΍
ϊϴτΘδϳ ϻ ΎϤϨϴΑ ([Sn:N] ϭ [ki:lÏ] ΔΌϴϬΑ Ύ˱ϴΗϮλ ΎϬϧ˷ϭΩ˴ ϲΘϟ΍) <call> ϭ <keel> ϲΘϨϠϛ ϲϓ Ϧϴϴϟϭϻ΍
΍άϫ ΔΤλ ϥ΍ .(76 .ι έΪμϤϟ΍ Ϧϴϋ) ΕΎϴΗϮμϟ΍ ϲϓ Ύ˱γήϤΘϣ ϦϜϳ Ϣϟ Ύϣ ΎϫΰϴϴϤΗ ϱΰϴϠϜϧϻ΍ Ϧσ΍ϮϤϟ΍
ϭ <keel> ϲΘϤϠϛ ϲϓ ϑΎϜϟ΍ ϲΗϮλ ϦϴΑ ΔϟϮϬδΑ ΰϴϤϳ ϥ΍ ϊϴτΘδϳ ΔϴΑήόϟΎΑ ϖσΎϨϟ΍ ϥ΍ " Ϟ΋ΎϘϟ΍ ˯ΎϋΩϻ΍
.ΚΤΒϟ΍ ΍άϫ ϲϓ ΰϴϛήΘϟ΍ ΔτϘϧ Ϯϫ " <call>
ΔθϗΎϨϤϟ΍ .2
ή΋ΎψϨϟ΍ ϦϴΑ ΰϴϴϤΘϠϟ ΔϠΜϣϻ΍ Ϟπϓ΍ ϥ΍ ˬΔϴΑήόϟ΍ ΔϐϠϟ΍ ˯ΎϨΑϻ ΔϳΰϴϠϜϧϻ΍ ΔϐϠϟ΍ ΕΎϴΗϮλ βϳέΪΗ ΪϨϋ
ϲϓ ϑΎϜϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλ΍ ϲϫ /k/ [phoneme] ΔϴΗϮμϟ΍ ΓΪΣϮϠϟ [allophonic variants] ΔϴΗϮμϟ΍ [Ϟ΋΍ΪΒϟ΍]
ϢϠόΘϤϟ΍ ΩΎηέ΍ ϲϓ ϩήϴϏϭ Gimson έΎΛ΍ ϲϔΘϘϧ ϦΤϧ .(Gimson, 1970: 47) <car> ϭ <key> ϲΘϤϠϛ
ϑΎϜϟ΍ Ύϣ΍ [palate] έΎϐϟ΍ ϩΎΠΗΎΑ Ίθϟ΍ ξόΑ ϡΎϣϻ΍ ϰϟ΍ ίΎΤϨϣ [ velar ϲϘΒτϟ΍] ΎϬόϗϮϣ ϰϟϭϻ΍ ϑΎϜϟ΍ ϥΎΑ
ϲϠϳ ϱάϟ΍ ΕϮμϤϟ΍ Ϧϋ ϢΠϨϳ ΎϤϬϨϴΑ ϕήϔϟ΍ϭ .[velum] ϖΒτϟ΍ ΓήΧΆϣ ϰϟ΍ Ίθϟ΍ ξόΑ ΓίΎΤϨϣ ϲϬϓ ΔϴϧΎΜϟ΍
ϝϭϻ΍ ΕϮμϤϟ΍ ϊϗϮϣ ΚϴΣ ΔϴϧΎΜϟ΍ ΔϤϠϜϟ΍ ϲϓ [a:] ΕϮμϤϟ΍ϭ ϰϟϭϻ΍ ΔϤϠϜϟ΍ ϲϓ [i:] ΕϮμϤϟ΍ ϱ΍ :ϑΎϜϟ΍
ϲϓ ϦϴϓΎϜϟ΍ ϦϴΑ ΰϴϴϤΘϟ΍ ϲϓ ΓΩΎΟ ΔΑϮόλ ϥϮϬΟ΍Ϯϳ ΓΩΎϋ Ώήόϟ΍ ΔΒϠτϟ΍ .ϲϧΎΜϟ΍ ΕϮμϤϟ΍ Ϧϣ Ύ˱ϣΎϣ΍ ήΜϛ΍
βϔϨϟ ΔϴόϗϮϣ ή΋Ύψϧ ΎΘϧΎϛ ΍Ϋ΍ ˬΐΗΎϜϟ΍ ˯ΎϋΩ΍ ΐδΣ ˬϦϴϓΎϜϟ΍ ΰϴϴϤΗ ϰϠϋ ϦϳέΩΎϗ ϢϬϠόΠϳ ϱάϟ΍ Ύϣ .Ύ˱πϳ΍ ΔϴΑήόϟ΍
ΕΎϴΗϮμϟ΍ ϲϓ ϦϴγήϤΘϤϟ΍ ήϴϏ Ϧϣ ΔϴΑήόϟΎΑ ϦϴϘσΎϨϟ΍ ϥ΍ .<ξ˴˰ϛ˴έ> ϭ <Ϊ˴ ˰˴ϛ˴έ> ϲΘϤϠϛ ϲϓ ΎϤϛ /ϙ/ ΕϮμϟ΍
.ϦϴΘϐϠϟ΍ ΎΘϠϛ ϲϓ ϑΎϜϟ΍ ϲΗϮμϟ ΔϴόϗϮϤϟ΍ ή΋ΎψϨϟ΍ ϦϴΑ ΰϴϴϤΘϟ΍ ϲϓ ΰϴϠϜϧϻ΍ ϢϬϧ΍ήϗ΍ Ϧϣ ϊοϭ ϞπϓΎΑ ΍Ϯδϴϟ
ϦϴϓΎϜϟ΍ ϦϴΑ ΰϴϴϤΘϟ΍ ϊϴτΘδϳ ϱάϟ΍ κΨθϟ΍ ϞΜϤϴϟ ΔϴΑήόϟΎΑ ϖσΎϨϟ΍ Fudge έΎΘΧ΍ ΍ΫΎϤϟ ϥϻ΍ ϝ΍Άδϟ΍
ϦϴΘϤϠϜϟ΍ Fudge ϥϭΩ ϲΘϟ΍ ΔϘϳήτϟ΍ κΤϓ ΐΟϮΘδϳ ϝ΍Άδϟ΍ ΍άϫ ϰϠϋ ΩήϠϟ ˮ ‘keel’ and ‘call’ ϲΘϤϠϛ ϲϓ
ˬϖϴϗΩ ϲΗϮλ ϦϳϭΪΗ ϪϧΎΑ ΍ΪϛΆϣ ˬ [qn:l]ϭ [ki:l]ϞϜθΑ ϦϴΘϤϠϜϠϟ ϪϨϳϭΪΗ ϥ΍ ΪϘΘόϧ ϦΤϧ .ΔϴΗϮμϟ΍ ίϮϣήϟΎΑ
[kɛ*i:lÏ] :ϲΗϻΎϛ ϥϮϜϳ ϥ΍ ΐΠϳ ϥΎϛ ϦϳϭΪΘϟ΍ ϥ΍ Ύ˱πϳ΍ ΪϘΘόϧϭ ΔϗΪϟ΍ ϪμϘϨΗ ϦϳϭΪΘϟΎϓ ΍άϟ ϖ΋ΎϘΤϟ΍ ξόΑ ϞϤϬϳ
ϪΟήΨϣ ϲϓ [k ϙ] ΕϮλ Ϧϋ ϒϠΘΨϣ ϪϧΎΑ [q ϕ] ΕϮλ ϒλϭ ϝϭΎΤϳ Fudge ϥ΍ ϢϏέϭ .[kʈ*n:lÏ] ϭ
ϦϳϭΪΘϟ΍ ϞόΠΗ ϲΘϟ΍ ΔϠϤϬϤϟ΍ ρΎϘϨϟ΍ Ϧϣ ΪϳΪόϟ΍ ϚϟΎϨϫ Ϫϧ΍ ήϴϏ [ϙ] Ϧϣ ήΜϛ΍ ϒϠΨϟ΍ ϲϓ ϪΟήΨϣ ϥ΍ϭ ςϘϓ
έϮΒϨϤϟ΍ ϲϟϭϻ΍ ϊϗϮϤϟ΍ ϲϓ ϑΎϜϟ΍ ΰϴϤ˰˵Η ϲΘϟ΍ [aspiration] ΢ϔϨϟ΍ ΔϤγ ϰϟ΍ ήϴθϳ ϻ Ϫϧ΍ ˬϻϭ΍ .Ύ˱πϣΎϏ
ϲϓ ϪϠϤόΘδϳ ϱάϟ΍– [q] ΝήΨϣ ϥΎϛ ΍Ϋ΍ ΎϤϴϓ ΢οϮϳ ϻ Ϫϧ΍ ˬΎϴϧΎΛ .[stressed word-initial position]
ϲΗϮμϟ΍ ΝήΨϤϟ΍ ϲϓ ϲγΎγ΍ ϑϼΘΧ΍ ϰϟ΍ ϰϗήϳ ˬϑΎϜϟ΍ ΝήΨϣ ϒϠΧ Ϯϫ –<call> ϲϓ ϑΎϜϟ΍ ΕϮλ ϦϳϭΪΗ
.Ϫδϔϧ Ϯϫ ΝήΨϤϟ΍ ϥ΍ ϭ΍ [velar to uvular] ϱϮϬϟ ΝήΨϣ ϰϟ΍ ϲϘΒσ ΝήΨϣ Ϧϣ ϱ΍
ΔϴΗϮμϟ΍ ΔϳΪΠΑϻ΍ ΉΩΎΒϣ ϖϓϭ [q] ϲΗϮμϟ΍ ΰϣήϟ΍ ϢϴϴϘΗ ΎϨϴϠϋ ˬ Fudge ήϴδϔΗ ϲϓ νϮϤϐϟ΍ ϢϏέ
ήϴψϧ Ϯϫ [q] ϲΗϮμϟ΍ ΰϣήϟ΍ ϥ΍ ˬϯήΧ΍ ΔϤϠϜΑ .[International Phonetic Association] ΔϴϤϟΎόϟ΍
IPA– The Principles, 1949: 11; 1999: ) αϮϤϬϣ ϱϮϬϟ ΪϳΪη ΕϮλ Ϫϧ΍ ϱ΍ ˬΔϴΑήόϟ΍ ϑΎϘϟ΍
ϥ΍ϭ ϑΎϜϟ΍ Ϧϋ ϒϠΘΨΗ ϑΎϘϟ΍ ϥΎΑ ϝϮϘϳ Fudge ϡ΍Ω Ύϣ ϒλϮϟ΍ ΍άϫ ήϴϐΑ ϪμϴΨθΗ ϦϜϤϳ ϻϭ .(165
ϦϜϟϭ ΢ϴΤλ ϑΎϜϟ΍ Ϧϋ ϑΎϘϟ΍ ΰϴϴϤΗ ΔϟϮϬδΑ Fudge ϝϮϗϭ .ϰϨόϤϟ΍ ϲϓ ϑϼΘΧϻ΍ ϰϟ΍ ϱΩΆϳ ϑϼΘΧϻ΍
ϕήϔϟ΍ βϔϧ βϴϟ ϑΎϜϟ΍ϭ ϑΎϘϟ΍ ϦϴΑ ϲΗϮμϟ΍ ϕήϔϟ΍ ϥ΍ .<call> ϲϓ ϑΎϜϟ΍ ΕϮμΑ ϑΎϘϟ΍ Γ΍ϭΎδϣ ϡΪϋ ΐΠϳ
ΔϴΗϮλ ΓΪΣϭ ϥϼΜϤϳ ϦϴΘϤϠϜϟ΍ ϦϴΗΎϫ ϲϓ ϑΎϜϟ΍ ϲΗϮλ ϼϛ ϥ΍ .<call> ϭ <keel> ϲϓ ϑΎϜϟ΍ ϲΗϮλ ϦϴΑ
ϲϓ ϼ˱ ϴϠϗ ίΎΤϨϣ ΎϤϫΪΣ΍ ϥ΍ Ϯϫ ΎϤϬϨϴΑ ΪϴΣϮϟ΍ ϕήϔϟ΍ .ΡϮϔϨϤϟ΍ αϮϤϬϤϟ΍ ΪϳΪθϟ΍ ϲϘΒτϟ΍ ΕϮμϟ΍ Ϯϫϭ ΓΪΣ΍ϭ
ϑΎϘϟ΍ϭ ϑΎϜϟ΍ ϲΗϮμϟ Δϴ΋Ύϳΰϴϓ Δϴϔϴσ Δγ΍έΩ ϥ΍ .ϒϠΨϟ΍ ϰϟ΍ ϪΟήΨϣ ϲϓ ίΎΤϨϣ ήΧϻ΍ϭ ϡΎϣϻ΍ ϰϟ΍ ϪΟήΨϣ
ϲϘΒσ ϱ΍ ˬΕϮμϟ΍ ΝήΨϣ ϲϓ :ΎϤϫϭ ϦϴΘϓϭήόϣ ϦϴΘϴΗϮλ ϦϴΘϤγ ϲϓ ϥΎϔϠΘΨϳ ϦϴΗϮμϟ΍ ϥ΍ ϦϴΒ˵˰Η ΔϴΑήόϟ΍ ϲϓ
.[aspiration vs. nonaspiration] ΢ϔϨϟ΍ ϡΪϋϭ ΢ϔϨϟ΍ ΔϤγ ϲϓϭ [velar vs. Uvular] ϱϮϬϟ ϞΑΎϘϣ
ϦϳήϴΒόΘϟ΍ ϦΘϣ ϲϓ <ΐϠϗ> ϭ <ΐϠϛ> ϲΘϤϠϜϟ Ύ˱ϴϔϴσ ΎΟΫϮϤϧ ϦϴΒϳ Ώ/΍ 16/1 ϞϜθϟ΍
.<ΐϠϗ ϲϓ ϑΎϗ> ϭ <ΐϠϛ ϲϓ ϑΎϛ>
ϩΎΠΗ΍ Ϧϣ ήϬψϳ ϱάϟ΍ ΝήΨϤϟ΍ ϲϓ ϑΎϘϟ΍ Ϧϋ ϒϠΘΨϳ ϑΎϜϟ΍ ΕϮλ ϥΎΑ ϞϜθϟ΍ Ϧϣ Ύ˱Το΍ϭ ϭΪΒϳ
Ύϴϔϴσ Ϫδϔϧ Ϧϋ ήΒόϳ ϑΎϜϟ΍ ΕϮλ .ϦϴΗϮμϟ΍ ϦϴΗΪΣϮϟ΍ ϲϓ [formant excursion] Δϴϔϴτϟ΍ ΔϣΰΤϟ΍
Δϴϔϴσ ΔϣΰΤΑ Ϫδϔϧ Ϧϋ ϑΎϘϟ΍ ΕϮλ ήΒόϳ ΎϤϨϴΑ ˬ[F1] ΔπϔΨϨϣ Δϴϔϴσ ΔϣΰΣϭ [F2] ΔόϔΗήϣ Δϴϔϴσ ΔϣΰΤΑ
ϲϓ Ύ˱ϋϮϴη Ϟϗ΍ϭ έΩΎϧ Ϯϫ ϱάϟ΍ ˬήΧϻ΍ ΰϴϤϤϟ΍ ϞϣΎόϟ΍ Ύϣ΍ .[F1] ΔόϔΗήϣ Δϴϔϴσ ΔϣΰΣϭ [F2] ΔπϔΨϨϣ
΢ϔϨϟ΍ ϭ΍ [VOT= voice onset time] ΔΑάΑάϟ΍ ϕϼτϧ΍ Ϧϣί ϲϓ ϑϼΘΧϻ΍ Ϯϫ ˬΓέϮθϨϤϟ΍ ΕΎϴΑΩϻ΍
.[aspiration]
ϲΗϮλ ϲϓ [voice onset time:VOT] ΔΑάΑάϟ΍ ϕϼτϧ΍ Ϧϣί ϦϴΑ ΍ήϴΒϛ Ύϗήϓ ήϬψ˵˰ϳ 1 ϝϭΪΠϟ΍
glottal ] έΎϣΰϤϟ΍ ΔΤΘϓ ϲϓ ϕήϔϠϟ ΓήηΎΒϣ ΔΠϴΘϧ Ϯϫ ϕήϔϟ΍ ΍άϫϭ .1:4 ΔΒδϨΑ Ϯϫ ϱάϟ΍ ϑΎϘϟ΍ϭ ϑΎϜϟ΍
ϕϼτϧ΍ ˯ΎϨΛ΍ Δόγ΍ϭ έΎϣΰϣ ΔΤΘϓ ϰϠϋ ϝΪΗ ϑΎϜϟ΍ ΕϮλ ϲϓ [VOT] ˰ϟ ΓήϴΒϜϟ΍ ΔΒδϨϟ΍ ϥ΍ .[aperture
˰ϟ Γήϴϐμϟ΍ ΔΒδϨϟ΍ ΎϤϨϴΑ [supraglottal gesture] ϞϴϠϘΑ ΎϫΪόΑ Ύϣ ϭ΍ ΔϳήΠϨΤϟ΍/ΔϳέΎϣΰϤϟ΍ ϕϮϓ Ύϣ ΔΤΘϓ
ϭ΍ ΔϳήΠϨΤϟ΍/ΔϳέΎϣΰϤϟ΍ ϕϮϓ Ύϣ ΔΤΘϓ ϕϼτϧ΍ ˯ΎϨΛ΍ ΔϘϴο έΎϣΰϣ ΔΤΘϓ ϰϠϋ ϝΪΗ ϑΎϘϟ΍ ΕϮλ ϊϣ [VOT]
ϊϣ Ύ˱ϣΎϤΗ ϢΠδϨϳ [VOT or aspiration] ΢ϔϨϟ΍ ΔΒδϧϭ έΎϣΰϤϟ΍ ΔΤΘϓ Δόγ ϦϴΑ ςΑ΍ήΘϟ΍ ϥ΍ .ϞϴϠϘΑ ΎϬϠΒϗ Ύϣ
Ύϣ ΔΤΘϓ ϕϼτϧ΍ ΔψΤϟ ϲϓ έΎϣΰϤϟ΍ ΔΤΘϓ Δϔϴχϭ " ΎϬϧΎΑ [Kim] Ϣ˶˰ϛ ΫΎΘγϻ΍ ϞΒϗ Ϧϣ ΢ϔϨϟ΍ ΓήϫΎχ ϒϳήόΗ
.(Kim, 1970: 111) "ΔϳήΠϨΤϟ΍/ΔϳέΎϣΰϤϟ΍ ϕϮϓ
ΕϮμϟ΍ /ϕ/ ˰ϟ ΢ϔϨϟ΍ ΔΒδϧ /ϙ/ ˰ϟ ΢ϔϨϟ΍ ΔΒδϧ

1 ΔϟϭΎΤϤϟ΍ 25 65
2 ΔϟϭΎΤϤϟ΍ 0.0 60
ϝΪόϤϟ΍ 14 62
.<ΐϠϗ> ϭ <ΐϠϛ> ϲΘϤϠϛ ϦΘϣ ϲϓ ϑΎϜϟ΍ϭ ϑΎϘϟ΍ ϲΗϮμϟ [aspiration/VOT] ΢ϔϨϟ΍ Ϣϴϗ .1 ϝϭΪΠϟ΍
ϑΎϘϟ΍ ΕϮλ ήϴψϧ βϴϟ <call> ΔϤϠϛ ϲϓ ϑΎϜϟ΍ ΕϮλ ϥ΍ ˬήϛάϟ΍ ΔϔϟΎδϟ΍ ΕΎϣϮϠόϤϟ΍ ˯Ϯο ϲϓ
ϥϮϛ ΐΒδΑ Ύ˱ πϳ΍ ϞΑ [uvular] ϱϮϬϟ ϲϧΎΜϟ΍ ΕϮμϟ΍ϭ [velar] ϲϘΒσ Ϯϫ ϝϭϻ΍ ΕϮμϟ΍ ϥϻ ςϘϓ βϴϟ
.ΡϮϔϨϣ ήϴϏ ϑΎϘϟ΍ ΕϮλϭ [] Ύ˱ΣϮϔϨϣ ϑΎϜϟ΍ ΕϮλ
ΕΎΟΎΘϨΘγϻ΍ .3
<call> ϭ <keel> ϲΘϤϠϛ ϲϓ ϦϴϓΎϜϟ΍ ϦϴΑ ΰϴϴϤΘϟ΍ ϊϴτΘδϳ ΔϴΑήόϟ΍ ΔϐϠϟΎΑ ϖσΎϨϟ΍ ϥΎΑ ˯ΎϋΩϻ΍ ϥ΍
ϲθϣΎϫ ϲΗϮλ ϕήϓ Ϯϫ ϦϴϓΎϜϟ΍ ϦϴΑ ϕήϔϟ΍ ϥϻ ˬΔϳΰϴϠϜϧϻ΍ ΔϐϠϟΎΑ ϖσΎϨϟ΍ ϰϠϋ Ύ˱ πϳ΍ ϖΒτϨϳϭ ˬ ΊσΎΧ ϡϮϬϔϣ
Ϧϋ ϢΟΎϧ ΎτΨϟ΍ϭ.[phoneme] ΓΪΣ΍Ϯϟ΍ ΔϴΗϮμϟ΍ ΓΪΣϮϠϟ [allophonic variants] ΔϴΗϮμϟ΍ Ϟ΋΍ΪΒϟ΍ ϦϴΑ
ϦϴΘϤδΑ ϑΎϘϟ΍ Ϧϋ ϒϠΘΨϳ ϝϭϻ΍ ΕϮμϟ΍ ϥ΍ ϢϏέ ϑΎϘϟ΍ ΕϮμϟ ΍˱ήϴψϧ <call> ϲϓ ϑΎϜϟ΍ ΕϮλ έΎΒΘϋ΍
.΢ϔϨϟ΍ϭ ΝήΨϤϟ΍ ΎϤϫ [distinctive features] ϦϴΘϳΰϴϴϤΗ
έΩΎμϤϟ΍
Glossary
Accent = ΔϨϜϟ
Failure to produce a given sound or sound feature in the manner the native
speaker of a given language or language variety does.
Accent Acquisition = ΔϨϜϠϟ΍ ΏΎδΘϛ΃

An attempt by a speaker to willingly acquire a given accent in a target language or
language variety so as to sound like the native speakers.
Accent Reduction = ΔϨϜϠϟ΍ (ϒϴϔΨΗ)ϝ΍ΰΘΧ΍

An attempt by a speaker to acquire the most distinctive sounds or sound features
of a given target language or language variety and minimize the transfer of the
most salient features of the native language or language variety to the second
language.
Acoustics = ΕϮμϟ΍ ˯Ύϳΰϴϓ

The physical study of language in terms of sound waves and vibrations to
determine the nature of voice, noise, durations etc.
Aerodynamics = ϲϣΎϨϳΩϮϫ : ˯΍ϮϬϟ΍ ΔϴϣΎϨϳΩ

The study of speech in terms of airflows, pressure buildups and releases.
Affricate = ΐϛήϤϟ΍ (ϦϛΎδϟ΍) ΖϣΎμϟ΍

A complex consonantal sound initiated by a stop [plosive] and terminated by a
fricative sound as in [], [], [], [].
Allophone = ΖϳϮμϟ΍
A variant sound of a phoneme. In other words, any phoneme portrays itself in real
speech in different phonetic renditions each of which is called a phone or
allophone.
Approximant = ϲϧ΍ΪΘϣ ΕϮλ

A relatively new phonetic term embracing a wide variety of sounds that are
produced with a wide approximation of the articulators resulting in frictionless
mellow sounds. In this book, the term has been used broadly to include liquids,
glides, frictionless continuants and nasals.
Aspirated sounds = ΔΣϮϔϨ˴ϣ Ε΍Ϯλ΍ : Sounds the production of which is followed by

a puff of air. For instance, English <p, t , k> are typically aspirated sounds and are
transcribed phonetically as [R*,V*, M*], whereas, the same sounds in Spanish and
Greek, among other languages, are unaspirated and are transcribed as [R, V, M].
Aspiration = (˯΍Ϯϫ) ΔΤϔ˴ϧ: A puff of air that follows the production of sounds
usually plosives and affricates.
296
Auditory input = ϲόϤδϟ΍ Ωέ΍Ϯϟ΍

Any stimulus or feedback relevant to sound that is heard and detected by the brain
for processing.
Augmented Arabic Alphabet (AAA ) =ΔόγϮϤϟ΍ ΔϴΑήόϟ΍ ΔϳΪΠΑϻ΍

Arabic alphabet that is made of twenty-eight letters, unlike the core Semitic
alphabet of twenty-two letters traditionally known as ί˷Ϯϫ˴ ΪΠΑ΍ as opposed to Ε Ώ ΍
Υ Ρ Ν Ι.
Augmented Arabic Orthography (AAO) = ΔόγϮϤϟ΍ ΔϴΑήόϟ΍ ΔϳΎΘϜϟ΍

It is the writing system of Arabic in which additional letters and symbols from
other Arabic-based alphabets, such as Farsi, Kurdish and Urdu are included.
Those letters and symbols are added to achieve better phonetic accuracy in
transliteration of foreign words in Arabic.
Bilabial = ϱϮϔη ΎϨΛ΍

Sounds that are produced by the joint action of the two lips.
Centrifugal vowel system = ϱήϓΎϨΘϟ΍ Ζ΋΍Ϯμϟ΍ ϡΎψϧ

A vowel system in which the individual vowels tend to position themselves away
from the center and near the periphery of the vowel range. Usually, this type of
system is without the neutral vowel schwa [] and the rest of the vowels rarely
change their quality and quantity. Spanish has a typically centrifugal vowel
system.
Centripetal vowel system = ϱΰϛήϤΘϟ΍ Ζ΋΍Ϯμϟ΍ ϡΎψϧ

A vowel system in which the individual vowels tend to position themselves in
different places within the vowel range including the center. They usually
undergo quality and quantity change associated with the placement of stress. This
type of system is characterized by the presence of the neutral vowel schwa [].
English has a typically centripetal vowel system.
Classical Arabic (CA) = (ΔϤϳΪϘϟ΍)ϰΤμϔϟ΍ ΔϴΑήόϟ΍

Old version of Standard Arabic used in the Qur!Ɨn and other classics of Arabic
literature.
Consonant cluster = (Ζϣ΍Ϯμϟ΍) Ϧϛ΍Ϯδϟ΍ (ϊϤΠΗ:)˯ΎϘΘϟ΍

Two or more consonants that are articulated jointly within one syllable such as
<tr> in <track>.
Core Arabic Alphabet (CAO) =ΔϴγΎγϻ΍ ΔϴΑήόϟ΍ ΔϳΪΠΑϻ΍

Arabic alphabet that is made of twenty-two letters shared by other Semitic
alphabet such as Aramaic and Hebrew.
Diacritics = (ϑϭήΤϟ΍ ΖΤΗ/ϕϮϓ ϊοϮΗ)Ϣγήϟ΍ ΕΎϣϼϋ

297
Symbols that are placed over, under, within or next to core letters or characters to
modify their sounds or functions such as placing a tilde over Spanish <n> to
render it <ñ>.
Emphatic =(ϖΒτϣ) Ϣ˷Ψϔϣ

See below.
Emphatic sounds = (ϕΎΒσϻ΍)ϢϴΨϔΘϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλ΍

A class of sounds in the Semitic languages, especially Arabic, which is created as
a result of subjecting plain front sounds to a drastic backing gesture of the tongue
such as transforming a plain /V/ = <Ε> to an emphatic // = <ρ>.
Fricative = ϲϛΎϜΘΣ΍ (ΖϣΎλ) ϦϛΎγ

A sounds that is produced by forcing air through a narrow opening usually
resulting in turbulence noise such [U] and [5].
Interdental = ϲϧΎϨγ΍ ήΒ˶ϋ

Sound produced by the tip of the tongue placed at the biting edge of the upper
teeth such as the interdental fricatives [6] and [&].
Kinesthetic-proprioceptive ϲδΤϟ΍/ϲδϤϠϟ΍
The sensations and impressions detected by existing receptors in human vocal
organs as a result of movements, contacts and pressures and pressure changes.
Kinesthetic-proprioceptive input =ϲδΤϟ΍/ϲδϤϠϟ΍ Ωέ΍Ϯϟ΍

Any stimulus or feedback relevant to sound processing that is felt or sensed and
taken in by the brain.
Labial =ϱϮϔη
A sound in the articulation of which either lip is involved.
Labio-dental = ϲϧΎϨγ΍ ϱϮϔη

A sound produced by the lower lip approaching the upper incisors such as [H] or
[X].
Larynx = ΓήΠϨΤϟ΍
Part of the speech mechanism that houses the vocal folds.
Manner of articulation = ˯΍Ωϻ΍ ςϤ˴ϧ

The way in which the airstream is obstructed to produce a given sound; thus,
according to this manner sounds are categorized as: stops, affricates, fricative,
approximants, vowels etc.
Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) = ΓήλΎόϤϟ΍ ϰΤμϔϟ΍ ΔϴΑήόϟ΍

298
Formal Arabic used as the medium of education and information dissemination

that is understood by the literate and educated people throughout the Arab
countries.
Multicognitive = ϱΩΪόΗ ϲϨϫΫ

An approach that stipulates the simultaneous use of more than one cognitive
process such as association, comparison, analysis, synthesis, memorization etc.
Multisensory = ϱΩΪόΗ ϲγ΍ϮΣ

An approach that stipulates the simultaneous use of more than one sensory
modality such as visual, auditory, kinesthetic etc.
procedure or process.
Orthography = ϲΑΎΘϜϟ΍ ϡΎψϨϟ΍

The writing system as used in a given language.
Palate = ϚϨΤϟ΍
The arch or the roof of the oral cavity between the alveolar ridge and the uvula
primarily made up of the hard and soft sections.
Perception = αΎδΣϻ΍
The auditory sensing of sounds.
Pharyngeal = ΔϴϘϠΤϟ΍
A sound produced in the pharynx. Pharyngeal sounds are very rare and they are
typically attested in the Semitic languages such the Arabic [Í] or [].
Pharynx = ϖϠΤϟ΍
Part of the speech mechanism that is between the larynx and the posterior end of
the mouth.
Phonation =ΏάΑάΘϟ΍ ΔϴϠϤϋ

The vibration of the vocal folds [cords].
Phonatory Status = ϲΑάΑάϟ΍ ϊοϮϟ΍

The condition in which the vocal folds are in terms of vibrating or not. If they are
vibrating the sound is known as voiced if not it is voiceless.
Phoneme = ΔϴΗϮμϟ΍ ΓΪΣϮϟ΍

A unit of sound in a sound system or phonology of a given language.
Phonemics = ΔϴΗϮμϟ΍ Ε΍ΪΣϮϟ΍ ϢϠϋ

The study of phonemes; it may broadly be used for phonology.
Phonetic accent = ΔϴΗϮλ (ΕϮλ)ΔϨϜϟ

299
Failure to produce a sound in a language or language variety that does not result
in semantic change (change in meaning). For instance, to produce an /r/ in English
as a tap [4] or trill [T] or approximant [] does not result in semantic change.
Phonetic setting = ΔϴΗϮμϟ΍ ΓΪϋΎϘϟ΍

A set of the most salient features of a given language that are usually mastered the
earliest by a native speaker and the latest by the non-native speaker. The features
of the phonetic setting may be the most common sources of phonetic and
phonological accents.
Phonetics = ΕΎϴΗϮμϟ΍ (ΕϮμϟ΍)ϢϠϋ

The scientific study of human sound production potential in terms perception,
production, description and classification.
Phonology = ϲϔϴχϮϟ΍ ΕΎϴΗϮμϟ΍(ΕϮμϟ΍)ϢϠϋ

A comprehensive study of the sound system of a given language including all
segmental and suprasegmental features and the rules that govern them.
Phonological accent = Δϴϔϴχϭ ΔϴΗϮλ (ϰϨόϣ)ΔϨϜϟ

Failure to produce a sound in a language or language variety that results in
semantic change (change in meaning). For instance, the failure to distinguish a
Spanish tap [4] as in <pero> from a trill [T] as in <perro> will result in confusing
the meaning of <pero > “but” from the meaning of <perro> “dog”.
Place of articulation = ˯΍Ωϻ΍ ΝέΎΨϣ

The part of the vocal tract at which a sound is produced or where a sound is
produced along the vocal tract.
Plain sounds = Δ˷ϠϔΘδ˵Ϥϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍

Are the counterparts of the emphatic sounds.
Production = (˯΍Ωϻ΍)ΝΎΘϧϻ΍
The articulatory maneuvers that result in the performance of a given sound.
Pronunciation = φϔϠΘϟ΍
The overall rendition of sounds in isolation or in context of different grammatical
and syntactical structures including words, sentences and suprasentential
structures.
Psycholinguistic deafness = ϲϨϫάϟ΍ ϢϤμϟ΍

The temporary or permanent failure of the brain to perceive, recognize or produce
a given sound due to lack of exposure and sensitivity to L2 sounds and sound
system usually more commonly associated with adults.
Resonance cavities = ϯΪμϟ΍ ϒϳϭΎΠΗ

Spaces or small chambers that are used for the amplification of voice and noise.
300
Retroflex ‘r’ = ΔϴϨΜϨ˵Ϥϟ΍ ˯΍ήϟ΍

An ‘r’ produced with the tip and/or blade of the tongue tilted backwards.
Rhythm = ωΎϘϳϻ΍
A distribution of weak and strong stress placements within a stretch of speech.
Rolled ‘r’ = ΓέήϜϤϟ΍ ˯΍ήϟ΍

An ‘r’ that is produced with two or more taps (hits or touches) at the alveolar or
post alveolar area.
Schwa = ϱΩΎϴΤϟ΍ Ζ΋Ύμϟ΍

The neutral vowel usually reduced in both quality and quantity and represented by
the symbol [].
Schwaization = Ζ΋΍Ϯμϟ΍ ΪϴϴΤΗ

The process of reducing other vowels to schwa [] which is the maximum degree
of vowel reduction.
Sensory modalities = Δϴγ΍ϮΤϟ΍ ρΎϤϧϻ΍

Manners in which the senses process or handle a given sound activity.
Standard Arabic Orthography (SAO)

Use of the basic letters of the Arabic alphabet and its basic diacritic marks in
transcribing Arabic and transliterating foreign words.
Stop (plosive) = ΓΪϳΪθϟ΍ Ε΍Ϯλϻ΍

A sound that is produced as a result of total stoppage of airflow after which the
pressure is released suddenly such as [R], [V] and [M].
Stress = (ϊτϘϤϟ΍ ΪϳΪθΗ) ΓήΒϨϟ΍

The additional physical effort which a certain syllable receives within a bisyllabic
or multisyllabic word.
Stress placement =ΓήΒϨϟ΍ ϊοϭ

The syllable within a bisyllabic or multisyllabic word which receives the stress.
Subscript = ΔϴΘΤΗ ΕΎϣϼϋ

A symbol that is placed over a core on-line letter or character.
Superscript = ΔϴϗϮϓ ΕΎϣϼϋ

A symbol that is placed under a core on-line letter or character.
Syllable = ϊτϘϤϟ΍
Linguistic structure that is made of a single vowel with one or more consonants.
301
Syllabic structure = ΔϴότϘϤϟ΍ ΔϴϨΒϟ΍

The form or structure a syllable assumes in terms of the vowel and consonants
involved in its composition. Usually syllabic structures are schematically made up
of ‘C’s and ‘V’s standing for consonants and vowels, respectively. For instance,
V, VC, CV, CVC, CCVC, CVCC are different examples of syllabic structures.
Tap = (ΔΑήπϟ΍ ϱΩΎΣ΍) ΓήϘ˴ϧ

A sound that is produced by a single hit or touch of the tip of the tongue at the
alveolar ridge.
Tap ‘r’ = (ΓήϘϨϟ΍ ΔϳΩΎΣ΍) ΔϠΘδ˵Ϥϟ΍ ˯΍ήϟ΍

An that is produced with a single hit or touch of the tip of the tongue at the
alveolar ridge.
Tense vowel = ΪϳΪη Ζ΋Ύλ

Vowel that is produced with greater articulatory effort which usually results in a
longer vowel.
Tongue blade = ϥΎδϠϟ΍ Ϟμϧ

The section next to the tip and physically facing the alveolar ridge.
Tongue tip = ϥΎδϠϟ΍ ΔϠ˴γ΃˴

Extreme anterior end of the tongue.
Transliteration = ϯήΧ΍ ΔΑΎΘϛ ϑϭήΤΑ Ύϣ Δϐϟ Ε΍Ϯλ΍ ϦϳϭΪΗ

Transcription of the sounds of one language in terms of the a different system of
writing such as writing English words in Arabic letters.
Trill = έήϜϣ
A sound that is produced by repeated (usually two or more) hits or touches of the
tip of the tongue at the alveolar ridge or the uvula at the back of the tongue.
Unaspirated sounds = ΔΣϮϔϨϣ ήϴϏ Ε΍Ϯλ΍

Sounds that are produced without being followed by a puff of air.
Uvula = ΓΎϬϠϟ΍
The extreme fleshy end of the velum (soft palate) which is vulnerable to vibration
with forceful flow of air.
Uvular = ϱϮϬϟ
A sound produced by the extreme back of the tongue and the Uvula [the extreme
end of the velum] such as [S], [:] or [¯].
Velar =ϲϘ˴Βσ
A sound produced by the back of the tongue and the velum [soft palate] such as
[M] or [I].
302
Velum (Soft Palate) = (ϦϴϠϟ΍ ϚϨΤϟ΍) ϖ˴Βτ

˴ ϟ΍
The soft section of the roof of the oral cavity between the hard palate and the
uvula.
Voiced = έϮϬΠϣ (ΕϮλ)

A sound accompanied by vocal folds vibration such as [F] or [\].
Voiceless = αϮϤϬϣ (ΕϮλ) : A sound which is not accompanied by vocal folds

vibration such [V] or [U].
Vowel quality = Ζ΋Ύμϟ΍ ΔϴϋϮϧ

The impressionistic impact of a vowel on the ear that differentiates it from
another vowel. For instance, [C], [K] and [W] are maximally different in quality.
Vowel quantity = Ζ΋Ύμϟ΍ ϝϮσ

The difference in the length or duration of vowels. For instance, a schwa [] is
usually much shorter than [#] and the symbol [Ö] makes [KÖ] the long counterpart of
[K] or [+] as in <seat> vs. <sit>.
Vowel reduction = Ζ΋Ύμϟ΍ (ϒϴϔΤΗ) ϝ΍ΰΘΧ΍

The tendency to render a vowel shorter in quality [length] and less distinct and
well defined in quality.
Index
abutting consonants, 74 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147,
accent, 105, 107, 110, 111, 295, 298, 148, 149, 150, 151, 153, 154,
299 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160,
acoustic, xvii, xviii, xx, 85, 105, 196, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 167,
201 168, 169, 171, 172, 173, 174,
acoustics, 295 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180,
aerodynamic, xvii, xviii, xx, 81, 82, 181, 182, 184, 186, 187, 188,
105, 195, 197, 202, 203, 204, 189, 191, 192, 193, 195, 196,
275, 276, 281 198, 199, 200, 201, 203, 204,
aerodynamics, 295 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210,
affricate, xii, xiii, 104, 207, 210, 211, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216,
212, 213, 215, 283, 284, 295 217, 218, 219, 275, 283, 291,
allophone, 295 296, 297, 298, 300, 301
alveolar, xi, xii, xiii, xiv, xvii, 82, 85, Aramaic, i, v, vii, x, xi, xv, xviii, xix,
97, 104, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, xx, xxiii, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,
215, 283, 284, 288, 298, 300, 301 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23,
annihilation, 2, 5, 15, 17, 30, 222, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34,
240, 243 35, 39, 40, 52, 54, 56, 59, 60, 67,
approach, 298 68, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85,
approximant, xii, xiv, 104, 109, 110, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95,
295, 299 96, 97, 98, 99, 101, 102, 103,
approximants, 297 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110,
approximation, xx, 95, 105, 106, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 118,
109, 110, 146, 156, 158, 160, 295 133, 134, 196, 198, 199, 200,
Arab, vi, ix, xix, xxi, 51, 52, 54, 55, 205, 215, 221, 230, 239, 296
56, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 80, articulation, xvii, xx, xxi, 75, 81, 82,
83, 86, 87, 113, 114, 115, 116, 88, 104, 107, 108, 160, 195, 196,
117, 118, 120, 132, 133, 134, 199, 200, 202, 207, 209, 210,
135, 138, 139, 142, 150, 151, 211, 212, 213, 214, 217, 218,
155, 158, 161, 162, 163, 167, 219, 276, 280, 297, 299
169, 170, 171, 172, 175, 178, aspirated, xi, xii, xx, 79, 82, 85, 86,
179, 184, 191, 192, 207, 209, 105, 106, 107, 108, 196, 197,
210, 211, 212, 213, 217, 298 198, 199, 200, 203, 218, 219,
Arabic, i, vii, viii, ix, x, xi, xiii, xvii, 276, 278, 295
xviii, xx, xxi, xxiii, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, aspiration, xiii, xvii, xx, xxi, 79, 81,
12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 29, 32, 33, 82, 85, 86, 88, 105, 106, 107,
37, 38, 43, 44, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 108, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199,
55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 200, 201, 203, 218, 219, 275,
64, 65, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 84, 276, 277, 278, 291, 292, 293, 295
85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 93, 96, Assyria, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 13, 15, 16, 19,
98, 99, 103, 104, 106, 107, 112, 27, 28, 30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36,
114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 223, 231, 242
120, 121, 122, 123, 127, 130, Assyrian, vii, xviii, xix, xxiii, 1, 2, 3,
133, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15,
304
16, 17, 18, 19, 23, 25, 27, 28, 30, 123, 124, 125, 127, 132
31, 32, 33, 35, 39, 42, 67, 68, 69, fricative, xii, xiii, xiv, 87, 98, 100,
73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 83, 90, 91, 101, 103, 105, 108, 109, 110,
93, 96, 98, 99, 100, 102, 109, 212, 217, 291, 295, 297
112, 115, 116, 119, 121, 122, Fricative, 297
127, 128, 133,꒥134, 135, 205, glottal stop, xiii, 69, 75, 103, 195
hard palate, 217, 302
223, 230, 231, 254, 266
implement, vi, 38, 39, 40, 45, 125,
Athura, 6
126, 177
bilabial, xi, xii, xiii, xiv, xx, 210,
interdental, xii, xiii, xvii, 9, 97, 98,
217, 284, 291
100, 232, 297
bilingual, 7, 11, 12, 22, 23, 27, 28,
interdental fricatives, 297
30, 33, 34, 39, 40, 58, 59, 124,
IPA, xi, xiii, 68, 103, 104, 105, 106,
137, 138
107, 110, 111, 177, 218, 220, 292
centrifugal, 159, 167, 178, 296
Islam, 2, 8, 12, 19, 21, 26, 29, 52, 54,
centrifugal vowel system, 296
55, 56, 59, 61, 62, 64, 65, 80,
centripetal, 159, 167, 169, 178, 296
114, 115, 116, 118, 121, 133,
centripetal vowel system, 296
134, 135, 143, 151, 173, 192,
civilization, xix, 4, 21, 22, 25, 27,
209, 215, 250
28, 29, 30, 33, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42,
kinesthetic, 195, 202, 204, 275, 297,
45, 46, 48, 51, 56, 59, 60, 62, 80,
298
87, 99, 114, 118, 120, 121, 204,
labio-dental, xii, xiv, 109, 210, 284,
216
297
cluster, 146
laryngeal, 196, 210, 285
collapse, xix, 2, 5, 12, 17, 30, 33,
larynx, 202, 203, 297, 298
122, 266
lax, 156, 167, 169, 177, 187
consonant cluster, 82, 146, 296
linguistic, xvii, xviii, xix, xx, xxi,
cycle, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 33, 129,
xxiii, 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,
130, 249
18, 23, 24, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33,
description, 299
39, 40, 48, 51, 55, 56, 59, 68, 77,
diacritical mark, 159
80, 82, 83, 85, 88, 93, 94, 95, 96,
diacritics, xi, 174, 296
98, 99, 100, 101, 103, 108, 113,
dialect, 6, 10, 27, 28, 67, 89, 93, 94,
116, 118, 119, 124, 125, 127,
96, 98, 100, 101, 108, 109, 114,
129, 130, 137, 139, 140, 141,
120, 130, 137, 138, 141
147, 150, 153, 173, 175, 183,
diphthong, 173, 187
186, 187, 191, 192, 201, 214,
dual, 185, 186, 191
217, 257, 262, 264
emphatic, xiii, 69, 82, 87, 104, 107,
loanwords, 145, 146, 147
109, 145, 170, 199, 200, 201,
long counterpart, xiv, 302
297, 299
manner of articulation, 196, 276, 297
emphaticness, 107
medium, 10, 11, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42,
endangered, xx, 113, 122, 124, 131
43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 56, 60, 63, 93,
English, 112
94, 96, 99, 100, 114, 117, 120,
ethnic, xviii, xx, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 10,
121, 122, 126, 144, 149, 219, 298
11, 16, 24, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33,
mellow, 295
51, 52, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 80, 99,
moon, 47, 142, 207
101, 113, 115, 116, 118, 119,
305
multicognitive, 298 107, 108, 110

multisensory, 298 stop, xii, 31, 81, 105, 108, 132, 155,
Muslim, vi, xix, 13, 35, 51, 52, 53, 195, 212, 295, 300
54, 55, 56, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, stress, xiii, xxi, 3, 21, 69, 79, 156,
116, 117, 119, 133, 138, 151 163, 164, 167, 168, 169, 170,
orthography, xi, xix, xxi, 142, 144, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176,
148, 153, 154, 164, 168, 172, 177, 178, 179, 180, 184, 185,
173, 174, 176, 178, 182, 298 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 296, 300
perception, 202, 203, 298, 299 stressed syllable, 170, 177
pharyngeal, xii, xiii, xiv, 87, 98, 100, strong form, 170
101, 103, 145, 210, 285, 298 subscript, 104, 199
pharynx, 298 suffix, 76, 181, 188
phonation, 196, 199, 202, 276, 278, sun, 47, 142, 207
280, 298 superscript, xiv, 104, 106, 159, 160,
phoneme, 101, 155, 156, 159, 183, 176, 177, 184, 199
217, 291, 293, 295, 298 syllable-timed, 167, 168
phonemics, 298 Syriac, vii, viii, xx, 4, 8, 10, 21, 52,
phonetic accent, 105 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 60, 63, 64,
phonetic setting, 299 79, 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95, 98, 99,
phonetics, xvii, 81, 88, 213, 217, 299 100, 102, 105, 106, 108, 110,
phonological accent, 107, 111 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116,
phonology, xix, 81, 88, 144, 175, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122,
191, 278, 298, 299 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128,
place of articulation, 75, 81, 108, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134
196, 210, 214, 218, 276, 299 tap, xii, 299
plosive, xi, xii, xiii, xiv, xx, 82, 85, taps, 300
105, 108, 195, 197, 204, 207, tense, 167, 169, 177, 187
212, 215, 217, 218, 283, 286, tense vowel, 177, 301
291, 295, 300 transliteration, xix, xxi, 57, 79, 83,
plural, 37, 142, 181, 182, 183, 184, 84, 86, 88, 89, 145, 153, 154,
185, 186, 188, 189, 191 155, 156, 158, 159, 160, 161,
political system, 4, 5, 12, 15, 16, 17, 162, 163, 164, 174, 175, 176,
30, 32 177, 178, 296
production, 295, 299 trill, xii, xiii, 299
proprioception, 202, 280 unaspirated, xi, xii, xiii, xiv, xx, 79,
proprioceptive, 297 82, 85, 86, 87, 88, 105, 106, 107,
psycholinguistic deafness, 299 108, 196, 197, 198, 199, 203,
received pronunciation, 168 204, 219, 276, 278, 295
recognition, 48 unstressed, 167, 170, 171
rhythm, 156, 164, 167, 170, 171, uvula, 298, 301, 302
175, 180, 300 uvular, xii, xiii, xiv, xxi, 82, 86, 87,
RP English, xii, 160 108, 195, 210, 218, 219, 285,
schwa, xi, 155, 167, 170, 171, 172, 291, 293, 301
296, 300, 302 velar, xii, xiv, xxi, 68, 78, 85, 108,
schwaization, 171, 300 109, 110, 111, 112, 210, 212,
spirantization, xvii, xx, 79, 105, 106, 213, 215, 218, 219, 285, 286,
306
291, 292, 293, 301 217, 218, 276, 278, 281, 291,
Velar, 301 298, 302
vocal tract, 81, 87, 108, 202, 213, VOT, xx, 82, 85, 86, 197, 219, 277,
287, 299 292, 293
voice onset time, xx, 82, 197, 219, vowel quality, xxi, 167, 168, 169,
277, 292 170, 172, 187, 302
voiced, xiii, xiv, xvii, xx, 82, 83, 86, vowel quantity, xxi, 184, 187, 190,
101, 103, 109, 195, 196, 197, 191, 302
198, 199, 200, 203, 204, 207, vowel reduction, 168, 169, 170, 171,
210, 211, 212, 213, 215, 217, 172, 178, 300, 302
276, 278, 281, 283, 284, 286, weak form, 170
291, 298, 302 word deflation, xxi, 170, 171, 178
voiceless, xiii, xiv, xvii, xx, 82, 85, word inflation, xxi, 168, 172, 174,
86, 101, 104, 112, 195, 196, 197, 178, 179
198, 199, 200, 203, 204, 213,

Linguistic and Cultural Studies in Aramaic and Arabic

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Linguistic and Cultural Studies in Aramaic and Arabic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Linguistic and Cultural Studies in Aramaic and

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Printed in the United States of America

ϯήϛάϟ αήϜϣ ΏΎΘϜϟ΍ ΍άϫ

List of Symbols ..................................................................................................... xi

Foreword ............................................................................................................ xvii

Acknowledgements .......................................................................................... xxiii

Chapter 1 The Ethnic, Linguistic and Cultural Identity of Modern

Chapter 2 Bilingualism: A Salient and Dynamic Feature of Ancient

2.4.1 Highlights of Discussion ................................................................ 23

Chapter 3 ‘Bi-’ and ‘Multi-’ Situations in Writing Systems, Writing

Chapter 4 Arab/Muslim Scientific Heritage: A Mono or Multi-

Chapter 5 A Comparative Study of Petnames in English and Assyrian ........67

Chapter 6 The Role of Aspiration in the Transliteration of Loanwords in

Chapter 7 Recent Demographic Changes in Aramaic-Speaking

Chapter 8 Aspiration, Spirantization and Approximation in Neo-

Chapter 9 The Destiny of Modern Syriac ........................................................113

9.3.1 Absence of a Political Entity........................................................ 115

Chapter 10 Arabic and Spanish: Linguistic and Cultural Interactions .......137

Chapter 11 Empowering Arabic Orthography for better Transliteration

11.9 Conclusions ......................................................................................163

Chapter 12 Word Inflation vs. Word Deflation: A Major Source of

Chapter 13 Formation of Sound Plurals and Duals in Arabic: A

Chapter 14 An Aerodynamic, Proprioceptive and Perceptual

Chapter 15 The Sun or Moon Status of Arabic <Ν>: A Descriptive

Chapter 16 Arabic /q ϕ/: A Voiceless Unaspirated Uvular Plosive ...............217

16.2 Discussion ........................................................................................217

Vowels Phonetic Description

K Close front with spread lips

Consonants Phonetic Description

D Voiced bilabial plosive

E Voiceless unaspirated palatal plosive

˯ [!] glottal stop

ω [] voiced pharyngeal fricative

Additional Farsi Symbols

΍ [CÖ] long counterpart of [C]

˰˰˴˰˰ Superscript over consonant indicating short [C] vowel.

Aramaic and Greek Alphabets

cultural integrity. The second model is identified as ‘generational’ implying that

In conclusion, it is my sincere hope that the readers will enjoy browsing

Edward Odisho, Ph.D.

The Ethnic, Linguistic and Cultural Identity of

1.1 Introductory Remarks

“Nineveh was laid to waste...The population was slaughtered or enslaved...At one

Durant’s conclusion, among others, implies the total annihilation of the

1.2 A Spectrum of Views Relevant to the Connection

1.2.1 Political View

1.2.2 Nationalistic View

1.2.3 Academic View

This view is represented by a wide variety of individuals both Assyrian

1.3 The Assumptions

1.3.1 Cultural, Religious and Linguistic Conversions

1.3.2 Political System Collapse!!!

The downfall of a political system, regardless of how extensive its

1.3.3 Proof Always Needed for a Judgement

Any positive or negative judgement with regard to a controversial issue

1.4 The Approach to the Solution

1.4.1 The Political Reshuffle.

The argument here is primarily premised on assumption # 2 in that the

1.4.2 The Linguistic Shift.

1.4.2.1 Overlapping Geographic Borders

1.4.2.2 Aramaic as a Lingua Franca

1.4.2.3 Dominance of Aramaic Alphabet

1.4.2.4 Linguistic Similarity across Semitic Languages

ω [] voiced pharyngeal fricative