By Hezy Mutzafi
Neo-Mandaic is the final section of a pre-modern vernacular heavily relating to Classical Mandaic, a Mesopotamian Aramaic idiom of past due Antiquity. This exact language is significantly endangered, being spoken through a number of hundred adherents of Mandaeism, the one gnostic faith to have survived till the current day. All different Mandaeans, numbering a number of tens of millions, are Arabic or Persian audio system. the current learn issues the least recognized point of the language, specifically its lexicon as mirrored in either its dialects, these of the towns of Ahvaz and Khorramshahr within the Iranian province of Khuzestan. except lexicological and etymological reports in Neo-Mandaic itself, the booklet discusses the contribution of the Neo-Mandaic lexis to our wisdom of literary Mandaic in addition to features of this lexis in the framework of Neo-Aramaic as a complete.
Read or Download Comparative Lexical Studies in Neo-Mandaic PDF
Similar foreign languages books
Your all-audio survival software for conversational talent in sensible abilities, from greetings to go back and forth round, reserving a inn room to buying and consuming out communicate Swedish with self belief includes ten themes (with conversations every one) with particular goals. each one subject introduces 15 key phrases (plus a few cognates), 3 structures/useful words, and one major grammar aspect.
This edited quantity brings jointly fourteen unique contributions to the on-going debate approximately what's attainable in contact-induced language swap. The authors current a couple of new vistas on language touch which characterize new advancements within the field.
In the 1st a part of the quantity, the focal point is on technique and idea. Thomas Stolz defines the learn of Romancisation approaches as a really promising laboratory for language-contact orientated examine and theoretical paintings established thereon. The reader is knowledgeable concerning the huge scale tasks on loanword typology within the contribution via Martin Haspelmath and on contact-induced grammatical switch carried out via Jeanette Sakel and Yaron Matras. Christel Stolz reports strategies of gender-assignment to personal loan nouns in German and German-based kinds. The typology of mortgage verbs is the subject of the contribution by means of Søren Wichmann and Jan Wohlgemuth. within the articles through Wolfgang Wildgen and Klaus Zimmermann, greatly new ways to the idea of language touch are recommend: a dynamic version and a constructivism-based idea, respectively.
The moment a part of the amount is devoted to extra empirically orientated stories which check out language-contact constellations with a Romance donor language and a non-European recipient language. Spanish-Amerindian (Guaraní, Otomí, Quichua) contacts are investigated within the comparative learn via Dik Bakker, Jorge Gómez-Rendón and Ewald Hekking. Peter Bakker and Robert A. Papen speak about the impact exerted by way of French at the indigenous languages ofCanada. the level of the Portuguese impression at the Amazonian language Kulina is studied by way of Stefan Dienst. John Holm appears to be like on the validity of the speculation that certain morphology often falls sufferer to Creolization tactics and attracts his facts almost always from Portuguese-based Creoles. For Austronesia, borrowings and calques from French nonetheless are an understudied phenomenon. Claire Moyse-Faurie’s contribution to this subject is therefore a pioneer’s paintings. equally, Françoise Rose and Odile Renault-Lescure supply us with clean information on language touch in French Guiana. the ultimate article of this assortment by way of Mauro Tosco demonstrates that the Italianization of languages of the previous Italian colonies in East Africa is barely weak.
This quantity offers the reader with new insights on all degrees of language-contact similar reviews. the quantity addresses particularly a readership that has a powerful curiosity in language touch generally and its repercussions at the phonology, grammar and lexicon of the recipient languages. specialists of Romance language touch, and experts of Amerindian languages, Afro-Asiatic languages, Austronesian languages and Pidgins and Creoles will locate the quantity hugely useful.
This quantity provides chosen papers from the thirty sixth LSRL convention held at Rutgers collage in 2006. It comprises twenty-two articles of present ways to the examine of Romance linguistics. famous researchers current their findings in parts reminiscent of of syntax and semantics, phonology, psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics.
This scarce antiquarian ebook is a facsimile reprint of the unique. as a result of its age, it will possibly include imperfections corresponding to marks, notations, marginalia and wrong pages. simply because we think this paintings is culturally very important, now we have made it to be had as a part of our dedication for safeguarding, retaining, and selling the world's literature in reasonable, prime quality, sleek variants which are precise to the unique paintings.
Additional info for Comparative Lexical Studies in Neo-Mandaic
Aruštu ‘throat’ (cf. Neo-Assyrian ḫarurtu)—see Abraham and Sokoloff 2011: 35, and cf. Holma 1911: 42, CAD Ḫ: 121a. 11 The form xāruša is from Maclean 1901: 106a, where it is defined as ‘throat’. This meaning is unlikely, since in all known NENA dialects the word for ‘throat’ is derived from *blʕ ‘to swallow’—see below. : aspects of previous research 19 2. There are two words for ‘rainbow’ in NM: Khorramshahr has the opaque compound ṭallɔ-w-bérqɔ, composed of reflexes of CM ṭala ‘dew’ ن (replaced in NM by nam ‘moisture, dew’ < NP �), u ‘and’ (NM u, w) and م birqa ‘lightning’ (in NM changed to tešberqɔ—see p.
Rdf persecute, maltreat41 5. šxš disturb, confuse, deceive42 6. šxw lie down, rest43 7. dyṣ to fix, pile44 Neo-Mandaic denotation fox reed-bed, thicket, forest eyelashes shiver, tremble be startled fall asleep insert (something sharp) Comments: 1. NM rəwɔ́ ‘fox’ (from Luri ruwɔ́ , see Lorimer 1922: 125) was somehow incorrectly defined as ‘hare, rabbit’. A possible explanation to this error is that Macuch confused rəwá with the NM word “ārβa” ‘hare’ (HCMM 214:16, 35 The form “gefo” in Ritter 1979: 174, attributed to the dialect of Midin, should be corrected to glefo (as indeed in Jastrow 1993: 182).
13 4. NM həḏɔyɔ, həḏɔ́ y ‘Jew’ (f. həḏeṯɔ),14 stemming from *həḏāyā < yəhūḏāyā, exhibits the same aphaeresis of y as in most other NA languages: NENA huḏāya, hədāya (and other dialectal variants), Ṭur. 15 Thus the NM form is very much related to the forms found in the rest of the NAspeaking area, and most probably reflects an old vernacular form that has been used alongside a form related to the literary pl. form iahuṭaiia ‘Jews’, which, although well-known to some learned Mandaeans, is not used in modern speech.