- The four references in chronological order are:
- J. Cantineau with Y. Helbaoui, Manuel élémentaire d'arabe oriental (parler de Damas). Paris, 1953.
- C. A. Ferguson, review of preceding, Language 30. 564–70 (1954).
- J. Cantineau, “The Phonemic System of Damascus Arabic”, Word 12. 117–24 (1956).
- B. H. Smeaton, “Some Problems in the Description of Arabic,” Word 12. 357–68 (1956).
- The word ‘diphthong’ is used here simply as a convenient term for the sequences ay and aw (as opposed to long vowels ē ō), with no technical meaning beyond that.
- Cf. N. S. Troubetzkoy, Principes de phonologie, tr. J. Cantineau, 114 (Paris, 1949); R. Jakobson, G. Fant, and M. Halle, Preliminaries to speech analysis, 34 (Cambridge, Mass., 1952). C. F. Hockett, Manual of phonology, 84 (Baltimore, 1953) even attributed this to Iraqi Arabic, which is surprising, since his authority seems to be M. Y. Van Wagoner, Spoken Iraqi Arabic (Madison, 1943), which gives four long vowels; my review of the latter [Word 7. 276–8 [1951]) suggested Ave for this dialect.
- Cf. C. Rabin, Ancient West-Arabian, 105–21 (London, 1951).
- J. Cantineau, « Esquisse d'une phonologie de l'arabe classique », BSL 43. 93–140 (1946), hereafter Esquisse. This study, in spite of minor flaws, is a landmark in Semitic linguistic studies.
- There is even another relevant contrast which may have existed in ClAr; at any rate it exists in the spelling although not in the present pronunciation of Arabs: ?ūwi ≠ ?uwwi; Cf. Cf. C1Ar qūwima ‘it was opposed’: quwwima ‘it was corrected’, which are spelled differently but pronounced alike today, as indeed may always have been the case.
- Cf. my review of J. S. Trimingham, Sudan Colloquial Arabic, JAOS 69. 42–4 (1949).
- Op. cit., 358–62. The whole problem of the present relationship of ClAr and the colloquiale is well worth detailed investigation. The best statement I know of it available in English is in S. J. Al-Toma, “The Teaching of Classical Arabic to Speakers of the Colloquial in Iraq: a Study of the Problem of Linguistic Duality and Its Impact on Language Education, 10–83 et passim (D. Ed. thesis Harvard Univ., 1957); this includes extensive bibliography. Although much has been said about the importance of modern oral ClAr, there has been remarkably little descriptive study of it. Linguistic works in the field are usually concerned with “correct” ClAr or with “pure” dialects. A first step has now been taken in R. S. Harrell, “Phonology and Morphology of Egyptian Radio Arabic” (research study, Harvard Center for Middle Eastern Studies, 1957). It is hoped that revised and enlarged versions of parts of these two studies will be published within the next two years.
- Op. cit., 359
- I do not understand Cantineau's persistent denial of the long vowel in these forms, which has been recognized by every serious student of DamAr. Cantineau's attempt at explaining it by the final drawl typical of certain intonation contours in DamAr fails because even with the drawl the phonemic distinction between long and short vowels remains and the imperative vowels referred to are unmistakably long. The presence of a long vowel in the masculine singular imperative of primary sound verbs when without suffixes is a widespread phenomenon in Syrian Arabic. Cantineau's pupil H. el-Hajjé cites these imperative forms as the chief source of ē and ō in Tripoli Arabic [Le Parler arabe de Tripoli [Libati], 23–4, 46–7 [Paris, 1954]).
- Cantineau was aware of the necessity of studying each variety on its own before generalizing, as can be seen from his meticulous studies of highly divergent dialects. It may be assumed that Smeaton is aware of this too, but his whole discussion of the virtual -h (op. cit., 357–60) reads as though the situation were the same everywhere, in spite of the clear comment to the contrary in my review of Cantineau Language 30. 567.
- Final glottal stop also dropped, under conditions similar to the dropping of h, but this is not discussed here since neither Cantineau nor Smeaton has suggested a “virtual” glottal stop.
- Cf. H. Birkeland, Growth and Structure of the Egyptian Arabic Dialect (Oslo, 1952) and my review of this, Language 30. 558–64 (1954).
- This suffix offers one of the few cases of differentiation between pause and context forms remaining in the modern dialects. Generally speaking the modern pause form presupposes *-ah, the context form *-it-; the latter is not under discussion here.
- Op. cit., fn. 12.
- Smeaton's transcriptions of a general Syrian /?ūḍa/[?o:ḍƆ] provide a good illustration of the pitfalls of cross-dialect transcription. DamAr and Jerusalem Arabic both have the ū: ō contrast but in DamAr the word is normally /?ūḍa/, in Jerusalem Arabic /?ōḍa/; in Lebanese dialects without the ū: ō contrast it is regularly /?ūḍa/. If he means to suggest that [o] is a low allophone of /ū/ next to a velarized consonant, this is true of some dialects (e. g. MorAr) but is not typical of Syrian dialects.
- This is the case in Jerusalem Arabic, for example. In most Lebanese Arabic the result is /a/ and /i/ where the i is identical with -i<-ī. Pertinent examples: Jerusalem sitte ‘six’ (fem. suf.), sitti ‘my grandmother’; cf. ˁašṛa ‘ten’ (fem. suf.). Lebanese sitti ‘six’, ‘my grandmother’; ˁašṛa ‘ten’.
- It may be of interest to note here that final short -o in IrAr is from a totally different source, apparently first from -aw in final weak verb forms e. g. bino ‘they built’ (cf. ClAr banaw) and then extended analogically to the perfect of other verbs kitbo ‘they wrote’. The final -u<-ū remains in a few forms, however, such as the plural imperative.
- It may, however, also be of type (b.). Cf. M. Sa'id, Descriptive grammar of Moroccan Arabic (Washington, 1955?).
- Cf. H. Birkeland, Stress patterns in Arabic (Oslo, 1954) and my review of this, Language 32. 384–7 (1956). For accounts of stress in Syrian dialects see esp. G. Bergsträsser, Zum arabischen Dialekt von Damaskus, 33 (Hannover, 1924); C. A. Ferguson, Spoken Damascus Arabic, Unit 4, Pronunciation note 3 (mimeog., Washington, 1949); H. Blanc, Studies in North Palestinian Arabic, 27–30 (Jerusalem, 1953).
- Cf. G. Bergsträsser, Sprachatlas von Syrien und Palästina Karte 17 (Leipzig, 1915).
- In DamAr this dropping of the h usually occurs only after consonants; in most Lebanese dialects it takes place everywhere except after a; cf. el-Hajjé, Parler arabe, 35–6. and R. Nakhla, Grammaire du dialecte libano-syrien, 61–2 (Beirut, 1939).
- Choose new content alerts to be informed about new research of interest to you
- Easy remote access to your institution's subscriptions on any device, from any location
- Save your searches and schedule alerts to send you new results
- Export your search results into a .csv file to support your research