damascus arabic according to the compendio of lucas caballero (1709)

© 2012 Koninklijke Brill NV ISBN 978 90 04 22229 8

Middle Arabic and Mixed Arabic

Diachrony and Synchrony

Edited by

Liesbeth Zack and Arie Schippers

LEIDEN • BOSTON2012


CONTENTS

List of Illustrations .......................................................................................... viiAcknowledgements ........................................................................................ ix

Introduction: Middle and Mixed Arabic, A New Trend in Arabic Studies ............................................................................................. 1Johannes den Heijer

Moyen arabe et variétés mixtes de l’arabe : premier essai de bibliographie, Supplément no 1 ............................................................. 27Jérôme Lentin

Some Remarks about Middle Arabic and Saʿadya Gaon’s Arabic Translation of the Pentateuch in Manuscripts of Jewish, Samaritan, Coptic Christian, and Muslim Provenance .................. 51Berend Jan Dikken

Linguistic and Cultural Features of an Iraqi Judeo-Arabic Text of the qiṣaṣ al-ʾanbiyāʾ Genre ................................................................. 83Lutz Edzard

Deux types de moyen arabe dans la version arabe du discours 41 de Grégoire de Nazianze ? .................................................................. 95Jacques Grand’Henry

Présentation du livre Le Conte du Portefaix et des Trois Jeunes Femmes, dans le manuscrit de Galland (XIVe–XVe siècles) ........... 113Bruno Halflants

Judeo-Arabic as a Mixed Language ........................................................... 125Benjamin Hary

The Story of Zayd and Kaḥlāʾ—A Folk Story in a Judaeo-Arabic Manuscript ................................................................................................... 145Rachel Hasson Kenat


vi contents

Towards an Inventory of Middle and Mixed Arabic Features: The Inscriptions of Deir Mar Musa (Syria) as a Case Study ......... 157Johannes den Heijer

Qui est arabophone? Les variétés de l’arabe dans la défĳinition d’une compétence native ........................................................................ 175Amr Helmy Ibrahim

Perspectives ecdotiques pour textes en moyen arabe : L’exemple des traités théologiques de Sulaymān al-Ġazzī ........... 187Paolo La Spisa

Normes orthographiques en moyen arabe : Sur la notation du vocalisme bref ............................................................................................. 209Jérôme Lentin

Playing the Same Game? Notes on Comparing Spoken Contemporary Mixed Arabic and (Pre)Modern Written Middle Arabic ............................................................................................. 235Gunvor Mejdell

Middle Arabic in Moshe Darʿī’s Judaeo-Arabic Poems ....................... 247Arie Schippers

Written Judeo-Arabic: Colloquial versus Middle Arabic .................... 265Yosef Tobi

Yefet ben ʿEli’s Commentary on the Book of Zechariah .................... 279Kees de Vreugd

Damascus Arabic According to the Compendio of Lucas Caballero (1709) ................................................................................ 295Otto Zwartjes and Manfred Woidich

List of Contributors ........................................................................................ 335Index ................................................................................................................... 341


DAMASCUS ARABIC ACCORDING TO THE COMPENDIO OF LUCAS CABALLERO (1709)

Otto Zwartjes and Manfred Woidich

Summary: The Compendio de los Rudimentos y Gramatica Araba en que se da sufĳiciente notizia de la lengua Vernacula o Vulgar y algunas Reglas de la literal Iustamente, which was created by the Spanish Franciscan Lucas Caballero in 1709, is an unpublished missionary grammar which describes the spoken variety of Damascus, although it also contains some rules for literary Arabic. This work is important for two fĳields of study: 1) the history of linguistics; and 2) historical linguistics.

The article briefly describes the approaches of missionary-linguists towards language description in diglossic societies in Asia. It also offfers a provisional linguistic analysis of a number of conspicuous features, comparing these to modern dialects spoken in the region. These features partly coincide with what we know from Modern Damascus Arabic, but also partly deviate from it, thus giving meaning to the question: from precisely whom did the missionaries obtain their linguistic data? Further thorough study, in particular with respect to scribal habits, will certainly reveal more details and lead to a better understand-ing of these sources, which could be a valuable source of information on the Levantine Arabic spoken 300 years ago.

1. Introduction

In this article, eighteenth-century Spanish grammars and Arabic diction-aries (both vernacular and classical) written by Franciscans in Damascus are the subject of our attention, in particular the work of Lucas Caballero and his teacher, Bernardino González (c. 1665–1735). A facsimile edition of the grammar and dictionary by the latter has been published recently (Lourido Díaz 2005), but the work of the former is still unpublished and has escaped the attention of scholars until today. In the Spanish Fran-ciscan tradition, the authors made use of both local native teachers and written sources. They were also familiar with grammars and dictionar-ies published in Latin, such as those by Thomas van Erpen (Erpenius, 1585–1624) and Jacob Golius (1596–1667), as well as works produced in Italy.1 As the title of the grammar indicates: Compendio de los Rudimentos y Gramatica Araba en que se da sufĳiciente notizia de la lengua Vernacula o Vulgar y algunas Reglas de la literal Iustamen[te], the vernacular spoken

1 Dominicus Germanus (1588–1670), Philippus Guadagnoli (1596–1656), Franciscus Martelottus (?–1618), Antonio ab Aquila (died in 1679), and Agapito da Valle Flemmarum (seventeenth century, fl. 1687). See Piemontese (1996).

296 otto zwartjes and manfred woidich


in Damascus is described and analysed, and there is an appendix added to the end of the book, containing “some rules of the literary language”. This work is important for two fĳields of study: 1) the history of linguistics; and 2) historical linguistics. The manuscript contains some interesting material concerning the colloquial speech of the period. The impact of the literary register in the representation of the colloquial is often vis-ible, while hybrid forms are sometimes provided as well, such as antum faʿaltu. However, classical elements can also be found, such as the use of the feminine plural in the verbal paradigms.

In the fĳirst place, we shall briefly describe the approaches taken by mis-sionary-linguists to language description and teaching in diglossic societ-ies in Asia in general. Secondly, we will analyse some phonological and morpho-syntactic features of the dialect spoken in Damascus according to the Franciscan Lucas Caballero.

2. Missionary Approaches to Diglossic Societies

Missionary grammarians generally followed the examples from traditional, classical grammars, and it is possible to see that the Greco-Latin based framework is often adapted in order to fĳit in with less common or hitherto unknown linguistic features. Sometimes, elements from non-Western tra-ditions are integrated into this traditional model. Ideologically, missionar-ies often followed their classical examples. As in Antiquity, in Renaissance Europe there was a relative lack of interest among humanist scholars in the study of ‘exotic’ languages, since they were not considered to be useful for understanding the Bible. In the sixteenth century and later, scholarly interest in Aramaic (Syrian), Hebrew and Arabic began to grow signifĳicantly.

When ‘vulgar Latin’ was separated into local idioms, these were regarded as analogous with the Greek dialects (Diderichsen 1974: 282). However, vernaculars such as German and the Romance languages were generally all considered to be ‘barbarian’ languages and the study of them was never viewed as a serious intellectual challenge, although interest in ‘national’ languages and the production of dictionaries and grammars of the stan-dard language increased gradually.2 We also see that in Muslim Spain, there was hardly any interest in the languages spoken in al-Andalus, other

2 It is not a surprise to fĳind a comparable attitude towards ‘exotic’ languages spoken by non-cultivated ‘savages’ in the New World. Grammars of European vernaculars were written in the context of the foundation of the modern nations, but grammars of the indigenous languages of America were not written with the same purposes.

damascus arabic in the compendio of caballero 297


than Arabic, and there are no Arabic dictionaries or grammars describ-ing Andalusī Romance, Basque, or Berber, which were all spoken in the Iberian Peninsula at that time.3

During the Renaissance period in Europe, the study of language grew simultaneously with European expansion into other countries (Bossong 1992: 5). Along with Latin and Greek, the study of Hebrew was added to the educational curricula of missionaries and academics, while gram-mars of the vernacular languages of the nations of Europe also began to emerge.4 The intellectual milieu in the Renaissance, and the emer-gence of new nations, created a situation whereby ‘vernacular grammars’ were required alongside their traditional Latin and Greek counterparts. At the same time, the production of dictionaries and grammars began to increase in both the New World and Asia, often outnumbering what was being produced in Europe. Missionaries abroad needed to describe diffferent languages typologically, and they often drastically adapted the traditional Greco-Latin model in order to accommodate linguistic fea-tures they were unfamiliar with. It must be noted that some missionary grammars and dictionaries are quite homogenous, but as Hovdhaugen (1996: 15) observes, most are not, since they vary enormously in quality and length. Some missionaries attempted to follow strictly the ‘normative’ approach of the language study of Antiquity. When they described lan-guages that had never been ‘reduced to grammar’, they often taught that some ‘vulgar’, ‘rude’, or ‘rustic’ pronunciations, forms or expressions were to be condemned, whereas others were considered to be ‘more elegant’ or ‘refĳined’ or ‘polished’ (‘lengua política/ pulítica’); in New Spain this was often called ‘the language of the court’.5

When missionaries initiated linguistic studies in diglossic societies where languages with a long-standing grammatical tradition and educa-tional infrastructure were spoken, they were forced to make an important decision when it came to writing a descriptive grammar of the colloquial speech or a normative grammar based on the literary written style. What follows are some examples of the approach taken by missionary-linguists to language usage (consuetudo) versus normative grammar, based on auctoritas.6

3 The same generally applies to other regions of the Muslim World; grammars and glos-saries of Qipčaq-Turkic are an important exception (see Ermers 1999).

4 For this ‘explosion’ of linguistic activity, see Padley (1988), Lepschy (1998), Law (2003: 210–257) and, in particular, Auroux (1992b).

5 Particularly in the grammars of Nahuatl (Flores Farfán 2007).6 Following the tradition of Antiquity, particularly Quintilian’s (c.35–c.100) Institutio

Oratoria, I.6.1–3.



Greek

The Franciscan Pedro Antonio Fuentes (fl. 1775/6) composed a grammar of both Classical Greek, a language that served as the “universal key of sciences” (“llave universal de las sciencias”, 1776:vi), and another of col-loquial Cypriote Greek, since this was the language that missionaries had to learn for their religious enterprises in that region. The colloquial variety was necessary for communicating with all kinds of people, whether liter-ate or uneducated, and for preaching and confessing.7 It must, however, be noted that Fuentes often also provides information on Classical Greek in his grammar of colloquial Greek (cf. 1776: 11).8

The Indian Sub-Continent

Two mainstream literary and grammatical traditions can be distinguished in India, Tamil and Sanskrit. In contrast to the practice in the Ameri-cas, missionaries were able to benefĳit from local grammatical traditions. Some missionaries, such as the Jesuit Heinrich Roth (1620–1668), used the technical terms of Indian grammar perfectly; Roth stands entirely within the Indian grammatical tradition (see Zwartjes 2011: 27–28). Portuguese sources reveal that they distinguished between the literary and colloquial registers of the Dravidian and Indo-Aryan languages, but the terminology they utilized is far from clear. For instance, the term ‘Malabar’ was used for both Malayalam and Tamil. The ‘Bracmana tongue’ did not necessarily mean Sanskrit, and in Goa it referred to Konkani or Marathi, whereas the term Hindostani was even applied to Marathi. In his Tamil grammar, the Jesuit Henrique Henriques (1520–1600) supplies a great deal of informa-tion about the linguistic varieties of Tamil (‘Malabar’). His grammar is pre-dominantly descriptive, although there are some normative/prescriptive observations where more ‘elegant forms’ are provided. Henriques had the tendency to use more literary forms in the declensions of nouns, whereas spoken Tamil is more recorded in the tense-formation of verbal morphol-ogy (Vermeer 1982: xx).

Japan

The Jesuit João Rodrigues (1562–1633) composed two Japanese grammars, in which he distinguished between three diffferent styles, two of which are ‘pure’, while the third is a ‘mixed’ variety:

7 “. . . no sólo el Misionero ha de hablar con todo género de personas, sino que ha de predicar, y confesar en esta lengua” (Fuentes 1775: v).

8 Sometimes he gives more details about the speech of the “los rústicos” (1775: 22).



1– Pure Yomi (“sem mistura de coye/ natural/ natiua”, “sua poesia”) [“without mixture of coye, i.e. ‘natural’, ‘native’, as in their poetry”]2– Pure Coye (“o qual usam os Bonzos quando rezam”) [“used by the ‘Bonzos’ when they pray”]3– Mixture of Yomi and Coye (“misturada de Yomi & Coye”) (see Zwartjes 2011: 111–114).

The variety described by Rodrigues belongs grosso modo to the third type, but information is often also given about the other styles. The distinction between the literary (“estillo de escritura”) and the colloquial styles (“fal-lar commum”) is determined by the following criteria:

– The word-endings (“as terminaçoens das voces”)– The tenses and modes of verbs (“os tempos & dos modos dos verbos”)– The great variety of particles (“variedade de particulas”).

China

The Jesuit Matteo Ricci (1552–1610) wrote as early as 1582 that “The Chi-nese have such diffferent languages in diffferent provinces, that they do not understand each other, other than by writing; for they write the same characters and letters, which, since they are the fĳigures of things and since things have everywhere the same fĳigure, are understood by everyone, although they use diffferent words in diffferent languages” (cited in Schreyer 1992: 9). According to Ricci, all missionaries should speak and write the language of the court, known as Mandarin (guānhuà,9 spelled as cuonhua by Ricci, or ‘la lingua della corte forense’) (Schreyer 1992: 31). This language “is used in audiences and tribunals” and “if one learns this, he can use it in all provinces; in addition, even the children and women know enough

9 Mandarin in Ricci’s time referred to the court language of the Nanjing area and was thus not based on the pronunciation of the Beijing region, like modern Mandarin. ‘Mandarin’ has distinct meanings. According to the defĳinitions of South Coblin (2000: 537), what missionaries called ‘la lengua mandarina, ‘falla mãdarin’ is “the universal standard language or koinè spoken by offfĳicials and educated people in traditional China during the Míng (1368–1644) and Qīng (1644–1912) dynasties”. The guānhuà is the direct continuation of what missionaries called ‘lengua mandarina’. Other senses of the word ‘Mandarin’ are zăoqí guānhuà (‘Old Mandarin’), which dates back to the Yuán period (1260–1368); běifāng fāngyán or guānhuà fāngyán, which is used for the entire northern or northern-like Chinese speech forms; and fĳinally ‘Mandarin’ is used as a synonym for Modern Standard Chinese. Chinese linguists classify Mandarin today into four subgroups: (1) northern, (2) north-western, (3) south-western and (4) eastern Mandarin (Norman 1988: 191). See also Zwartjes (2011: 284–285).



of it to be able to communicate with all the people of another province” (cited in Coblin 2000: 539).

The Spanish Dominican Francisco Varo (1627–1687) composed a gram-mar, a dictionary and a catechism, which are some of the few sources to shed light on the syntax of vernacular Chinese. His grammar is predom-inantly descriptive and, as the title of his dictionary demonstrates, the author does not concentrate on the literary variety, but on the language that is spoken “without elegance” (Vocabulario de la lengua Mandarina con el estilo y vocablos con que se habla sin elegancia). Varo’s approach is diffferent from that of Rodrigues. In his Chinese grammar we read that contemporary “vernacular novels” (siàoxuě) are the most appropriate texts for the learning of the Chinese language:

Con solas las reglas que da Nebrixa para aprender la latinidad, no se haze uno grande latino; tiene necesidad de Ciçeron, Virgilio, &c. Pero aunque tenga Cicerones y Virgilios sin tener primero las reglas de Nebrixa, no se forman latino. Assi mismo sepa sy este el Ministro primero en las reglas y advertencias de este breve tratado, y despues entre en los Ciçerones que son en China los libros que llaman Siào xuě. (Varo 2000 [1703]: Ia–Ib)

[Even if, in studying Latin, one knows all the rules of Nebrixa,10 that still does not make him a great Latinist. He needs Cicero, Virgil, etc. for that. However, even if he has Ciceros and Virgils, without fĳirst mastering the rules of Nebrixa he will not make a Latinist. In the same way the minister should fĳirst know the rules and monitions of this brief work, and thereafter he should be exposed to all those [modern-day] Ciceros who in China are in fact the books called siàoxuě [“vernacular novels”] (translation by Levi & Coblin, Varo 2000 [1703]: 5–7. cf. Coblin 2000: 549–550).

As we have seen, Rodrigues stated that the use of courtiers provided a norm of purity and elegance in the spoken language. He aimed to teach the language of the elite, while for the conversion and teaching of the Christian faith, knowledge of the principles of Confucian thought and the literary style of the Japanese was indispensable.11

Arabic

Arabs rarely write down their everyday Spoken Arabic. Their colloquial speech was, however, studied in the so-called laḥn al-ʿāmma literature,

10 Elio Antonio Martínez de Jarava (1444–1522), also known as Antonio de Nebrija, was a Spanish humanist, lexicographer and grammarian. He is the author of a Latin grammar (1481) and the fĳirst printed Castilian grammar (1492).

11 Unlike the Dominicans and the Franciscans, the Jesuits attempted to teach the lan-guage of high prestige, which in China was guānhuà and in Japan the language of the court, whereas the Dominicans also described other local languages, such as Southern Mĭn varieties (cf. Klöter 2011).



which was mainly written for the purpose of studying the errors in Clas-sical Arabic caused by interference between literary Arabic and collo-quial speech or the inclusion of foreign elements, which, according to its authors, should be banned from fuṣḥā (Zack 2009: 31). Arabic speak-ing communities are diglossic. The Spanish Hieronymite Pedro de Alcalá (fl. 1491–1505) describes the colloquial Arabic of Granada in his diction-ary and grammar. His purpose was to teach the language of the ‘ordinary people’ (“los populares”) and not that of the wise theologians (“sabios alfaquíes”). The objectives for compiling this dictionary were also slightly diffferent, compared to what was found in the New World, where mission-aries composed dictionaries for their own use and for the novices from the Old World. As we can read in the prologue to his dictionary, Pedro de Alcalá wrote his dictionary not only for the Old Christians who wanted to learn Arabic, but also for the converts, namely the new Christians.12 As has been demonstrated in recent research, mainly by Corriente (1988), the language described is predominantly colloquial,13 but at the same time it is also obvious that there is some interference between the colloquial and the classical registers.

As the title of the grammar by Caballero demonstrates, the language described is the spoken variety of Arabic (“la lengua vernacular o vulgar”). Caballero is only one of the missionaries whose grammar has survived, but we must be aware that not all Arabic studies were concentrated in Damascus. Bernardino González was taught by native Arabic speakers, mainly Maronite Christians, such as Giorgius Ebn Barbak (or Barhak) and Hanna Ebn Juseph Abu Habna [sic] (Lourido Díaz 2006: 205), although many Franciscans studied Arabic in Harisa, Aleppo, Ramlah or Jerusalem.14 In the prologue of the Epítome (Lourido Díaz 2005: I:152), Bernardino González describes the diglossic Arabic society as follows:

12 “Ca assi como los aljamiados (o cristianos viejos) pueden por esta obra saber el arauia, viniendo del romance al arauia: assi los arauigos (o nueuos cristianos), sabiendo leer la letra castellana: tomando primero el arauia, ligeramente pueden venir en conocimiento del aljamia).” (Pedro de Alcalá 1505: prologue: ii v.) See also Cowan (1981: 358). [As the ‘aljamiados’, or Old Christians can learn Arabic through this work, coming from Romance to Arabic, so the Arabs (or New Christians), having mastery of the Castilian alphabet, tak-ing fĳirst the Arabic, can easily have knowledge of the ‘aljamia’].

13 His purpose was “hazer vocabulista de la habla comun y usada de la gente deste.” (ibid.) [to compose a dictionary of the common speech and used by the people.]

14 It will be safer to label the linguistic variety as Syro-Lebanese-Palestinian, and it still has to be investigated if any conclusions can be drawn concerning varieties between them. Since Caballero’s manuscript was mainly produced in Damascus, we shall label the variety as ‘Damascene’, but we shall not exclude the possibility that other varieties may be pres-ent as well.



Aunque es tan dilatada como vastissima la lengua Arabica, que no ha faltado, quien a su Lexicon le diese el nombre de Kamus, que quiere decir Oceano. Con todo eso Los Maestros antiguos la pusieron reglas sacandolas de la Hebrea de quien se origina; y por eso la ay de dicha lengua Arabiga Gramatica, y la que asi es regulada se denomina gramatical o literal. Pero asi como en la Latina y Griega ay sus lenguas vulgares o vernaculas, que no estan reguladas, assi en la Araba ay su vulgar y vernacula, que padece el mismo defecto. Esta lengua vulgar Arabiga tiene alguna variacion según la variedad de Payses, como sucede en las Europeas, especialmente en la Española. Y si como es verdad pareçe cosa difĳicil por esto regular una lengua vulgar, con todo eso, Dios mediante, espero de propio intento dar reglas de la lengua vulgar Araba.

[The Arabic language is so vast and copious that the name of Kamus is given to its lexicon, which means ‘Ocean’. In doing so, the old Masters gave the rules of this language, which were taken from Hebrew, from which it is derived. Therefore there exists a grammar of this language, which is regu-lated and called ‘grammatical’ or ‘literary’. But as occurs in the Latin and Greek languages, there are also vulgar or vernacular languages in existence, which are not regulated by rules, and in the same manner, vulgar or ver-nacular Arabic also exists, which sufffers from the same shortcoming. This vulgar Arabic language has some varieties according to the countries where they are spoken, as occurs with European languages, particularly with Span-ish, and even if it seems difffĳicult to regulate a vulgar language, I hope, with the help of God, to provide the appropriate dedication rules of the vulgar Arabic language.]

3. Missionary Studies of Oriental Languages in Spain and in the Middle East

As we can read in the prologue of the grammar of Classical Greek by the Franciscan Helenist Pedro Antonio Fuentes, the Propaganda Fide, which was a decree from the year 1682, established that Oriental languages had to be taught in the Franciscan missionary-schools, particularly in Paris, Tou-louse, Salamanca and Alcalá de Henares (Fuentes 1776: iii). The ‘Colegio Trilingüe de San Francisco de Sevilla’ was founded in 1694 (Lourido Díaz 2006: 63), and was the college where the novices could study Hebrew, Greek and Arabic, ten months a year (except in July and August), six hours a day comprising three hours in the classroom and three hours of individual study (Lourido Díaz 2006: 82–83). The teaching of Arabic in Seville was heavily influenced by the teaching practices and methodology used at the San Pedro de Montorio College in Rome, but it seems that in Seville much more attention was paid to colloquial than to literary Arabic. The reason for teaching these three languages in Spain was that in the East, as a direct consequence of the plague, there were not enough teachers available with



sufffĳicient knowledge of the local languages, or, in some cases, such as in Cyprus, no Franciscans survived after the outbreak of the plague.15

4. The Manuscript

4.1. Intérprete Arábico

Caballero’s manuscript is derived from the work of his teacher, Ber-nardino González, and several other copies have survived, most of which were compiled by other pupils of the same teacher. The fĳirst printed work appeared at the end of the eighteenth century, in 1775, in the form of the grammar and dictionary by Francisco Cañes (1730–1795), who spent the years 1755–1771 in the Middle East (Damascus, Jerusalem, S. Juan de Judea, Rama, see Lourido Díaz 2006: 216). What follows is a list of the manu-scripts described by Lourido Díaz (2005 and 2006):

1. Juan Gallego. Biblioteca Islámica “Félix María Pareja”. Madrid, 1707–1708.2. Pedro Vahamonde. Convento Franciscano de San Salvador, Jerusalem, 1709.3. Anónimo. Biblioteca de los Franciscanos Santiago de Compostela, Before 1724.4. Francisco Cañes. Biblioteca Nacional. Madrid, 1760.5. Anónimo. Biblioteca Islámica “Félix María Pareja”, Madrid, 1874.6. Anónimo. Universidad Complutense. Madrid, (undated).7. Gonzalo Ruiz. Universidad de Zaragoza. Zaragoza, 1727 (lost).

4.2. Epítome de la Gramática Árabe

1. Blas de Francisco de Salamanca. Real Academia de la Historia, Madrid, 1704.2. Lucas Caballero & Juan de la Encarnación. Strängnäs, Sweden, 1709–1710.3. Bernardino González. Real Biblioteca del Monasterio El Escorial, 1719.

15 “Tierra-Santa tiene quatro Colegios para la enseñanza de las lenguas griega y árabe. Con todo eso quando vienen las pestes, suele quedar exhausta de Obreros, y algunas veces sin ninguno (“mortui sunt omnes Missionarii in Regno Ciprio . . .”) (Fuentes 1776: ii). [In Tierra Santa there are four Colleges where Greek and Arabic are taught. When the Black Death came to these lands, few workers remained, and sometimes, no-one (all of the mis-sionaries died in the Reign of Cyprus)].



4. Anonymous Universidad de Valencia. Valencia, 1719.5. Anonymous Real Academia de la Historia Madrid, (undated).6. Several anonymous authors/ scribes Real Academia de la Historia, Madrid, (undated).

Figure 1. Front page of the Strängnäs manuscript of Caballero16

The so-called Strängnäs manuscript by Caballero has the year 1709 on its front page, but in the colophon we see that Juan de la Encarnación fĳin-ished this work in 1710. Not much is known about the life of Caballero. He arrived in the Middle East in 1705 with Juan Gallego. He then spent several months in Jerusalem, but soon moved to Damascus where he started to study Arabic with his teacher, Bernardino González. Later, as a ‘Lector’,

16 The illustrations in this article are published with kind permission of the Roggebi-blioteket in Sweden.



he taught Arabic in the same college in Damascus (Lourido Díaz 2006: 240–241).

The Strängnäs manuscript has two parts, a grammar and a vocabulary that also includes some phrases. The former contains both colloquial and written Arabic, whereas the latter is comprised of lots of apparently collo-quial material. Both variants are mixed. So, on the one hand, there is a table with all of the declensions and conjugations of Classical Arabic, with their technical terms, such as raf ʿ, naṣb, and ǧarr (p. G. f.14r; cf. Zwartjes 2007c):

Figure 2. Table with declensions (f.14r)



On the other hand, the numbers are presented without declensions in—more or less—their colloquial forms, cf. ثنثني اثنني ‘two’ and the tense end-ing in -īn.17

Figure 3. The cardinal numbers (f.19r)

17 Cf. Lentin (2006: 550b): tnēn (masc.) and təntēn (fem.).



5. Colloquial Damascus Arabic According to Lucas Caballero

5.1. Introduction

Damascus Arabic is a Syro-Lebanese sedentary dialect, and historical information about it can be gathered from Middle Arabic texts, which are sometimes highly colloquial. According to Lentin (2006: 546a), “shadow theater plays, and many manuscripts of popular epic literature date back to at least the 19th century. It is nevertheless difffĳicult to draw a docu-mented history of the dialect, which seems to be, for the two last centuries anyway, remarkably stable”. We believe that the manuscripts by Ber-nardino González and his ‘school’ of Franciscan pupils must be included in any attempt to document the history of the dialect. Moreover, this material is of considerable interest, since it dates back from the beginning of the eighteenth century, i.e. more than a hundred years earlier than the sources mentioned by Lentin, loc. cit.

Although the Spanish Franciscans often provide the learner with the rules related to morphology and syntax, there is limited information about phonology. The reason for this seems to be the fact that, according to González, pronunciation has to be acquired ‘viva voce’, i.e. from the teacher, and not in the fĳirst place from the ‘speculation of rules’:

la recta pronunciacion mas depende de oirlas viua voce al Maestro, que dela especulacion de reglas, omitiré el poner muchas de ellos. (González 1719: f.5)

[The correct pronunciation depends more on listening to the living voice of the instructor than on the ‘speculation of rules’. I shall therefore omit many of them].

The Alphabet and the Phonological Classifĳication of Letters

In his classifĳication of Arabic letters, Caballero does not explicitly tell his readers that he is following the Arabic model, nor does he provide the Arabic technical terms for these classes, like other Franciscans did before him, but instead gives the Spanish terms:18

– gutturales (porque se pronuncian en la garganta) [because they are pro-nounced in the throat]

– lauiales (porque se pronuncian colos lauios) [because they are pro-nounced with the lips]

18 E.g. Martelottus (1620: 35): chalchiiton ( = ‘guttural’, ‘pharyngo-laryngeal’), scia-

giariiaton (

= ‘palatal’, ‘oral’), sciaphahiiaton (

= ‘labial’), etc.



– palatales (porque se pronuncian en el paladar) [because they are pro-nounced in the palate]

– dentales (los quales para pronunciarlos se pone la lengua serca de los dientes) [which are pronounced by moving the tongue towards the teeth]

– linguales (porque su fuerza en pronunciarse por la maior parte resta en la lengua)19 [because the force of pronunciation is mainly with the tongue]

Generally speaking, no special rules are provided in respect of distinguish-ing between the pronunciation of Classical Arabic and the Damascene colloquial. Nevertheless, when dealing with morphological questions, the authors sometimes explicitly point out diffferences between the classical and the colloquial language by referring to “El vulgar . . .” (see examples below in 5.3). In general, however, information must in the fĳirst instance be derived from the Arabic examples themselves, particularly from those available in the word lists.

The question that arises here relates to the type of colloquial we are concerned with. As we know, the varieties of Arabic spoken in Levantine towns such as Damascus and Aleppo difffer depending on religious afffĳilia-tions, presumably more so in the past than today.20 As Christian mission-aries, it is far from clear whether Caballero and González derived their linguistic data from Muslim informants; it is quite probable that they in fact used their fellow Christians as their teachers.21 We also know from Caballero that he came to Damascus after having spent several months in Jerusalem. Accordingly, we have to take into account the fact that some of the deviating features could be due to the impact of the other dialects that Caballero was confronted with.

What follows below is a selection of some of the more conspicuous features.

19 In other missionary sources, such as Fuentes’ grammars of Greek, we fĳind the West-ern classical classifĳication of letters as expected. Fuentes also gives the Greek grammati-cal meta-language in his text. Consonants are fĳirst divided into two classes: “mudas” and “semivocales”, while the semi-vowels are divided into three classes: “double” (‘dobles’) (ζ, ξ, and ψ); “inmutables” (λ, μ, ν, ρ), also called “líquidas”, and “singular” (σ). There are nine “mute consonants” (‘mudas’), which are also divided into three categories: “tenues” (κ, π, and τ), “medias” (γ, β, δ), and “aspiradas” (χ, φ, θ) (Fuentes 1775: 7 and 1776: 10). If he had studied the Arabic grammars thoroughly, he would have been able to make progress in Western approaches to phonology, but, apparently, Fuentes had not benefĳited from the knowledge acquired by other Franciscans-Arabists. As is well-known, the Western classi-cal system concentrates more on the manner of articulation than the place, whereas the Arabic system does the opposite.

20 Lentin (2006: 546a) observes only ‘minor diffferences, mainly lexical’ today. For Chris-tian Aleppo see Behnstedt (1989) for more literature.

21 Astonishingly enough, when staying in Cairo in 1764, Carsten Niebuhr (1733–1815) had a Maronite teacher from Aleppo; see Woidich-Zack (2009: 48).



5.2. Phonology and Orthography

The Arabic entries are vocalized, but not in a systematic manner. As one may conclude from the examples set out below, the author often tries to indicate both the classical and the colloquial pronounciation by writing

several vowel signs in one word, e.g.

buxl ~ buxul ‘avaricia’ (f.1r) [ava-

rice], the latter being the colloquial variant:

Figure 4.

buxl ~ buxul ‘avaricia’ [avarice] (f.1r)

Or

saxl ~ saxal ‘cabritillo’ [(billy-) kid] (f.3r):

Figure 5.

saxl ~ saxal ‘cabritillo’ [(billy-) kid] (f.3r)

Further examples will follow in 5.2.1.7. Due to this somewhat idiosyncratic orthography, it is not always easy to understand what is meant in the text. How should we interpret, for instance,

‘ganso’ [goose] (f.4r) with

both ḍamma and fatḥa? wazze corresponds to modern Damascene Arabic (Stowasser-Ani 1964: 106a), but wuzze is neither Standard Arabic (ʾiwazz) nor is it attested for the Levantine area; it sounds more like the Egyptian wizza (see another case discussed in 5.2.1.7).

Figure 6.

wazze ~ wuzze ‘ganso’ [goose] (f.4r)

Colloquial and classical forms may be adduced without any explanation, as in

‘par de bueyes iugado’ (f.9v) [a pair of yoked oxen]. The latter shows the classical sequence

{zwǧ} of the consonants, but apparently a monophthong ū/ō instead of the classical diphthong aw, while

{ǧwz} represents the colloquial form with metathesis.



5.2.1. Vowels

5.2.1.1. kasra Instead of the Expected fatḥa

This can be understood as a development of /a/ > /i/ and occurs in لب ك{kilb}22 ‘perro’ [dog] (f.3r). Modern Damascene would be kalb (see Sto-wasser-Ani 1964: 70a).23 However, it occurs more conspicuously in open unstressed syllables, e.g. in plurals:

{qināfĳid} ‘erizo’ pl. [hedgehogs] (f.2r)

{timāsīḥ} ‘cocodrillo’ pl. [crocodiles] (f.2r)

{minākīš} ‘vuril’ [‘buril,’ awls, chisels] pl. (f.22r)

{ǧināyin} ‘huerta’ pl. [gardens] (f.7r), ‘jardinillo’ pl. [little

gardens] (f.35r)

{biyādir} ‘parva’ pl. [threshing floors] (f.8r)

{dilāfīn} ‘delfĳin’ pl. [dolphins] (f.9r)

{bulābil} ‘rui señores’ pl. [nightingales] (f.3v); here with

ḍamma /u/, which may be by way of association with

the sg.

and, similar

{muqādīf } ‘remo’ pl. [oars] (f.10v), cf. sg.

with the root qdf, not ǧdf as in modern mǝždāf, mažadīf ‘oar’ Stowasser-Ani (1964: 160a). Barthélemy (1935: 643) reports mǝqdāf, mqādīf for Jerusalem, miqdāf in Elihay (2004: 348b), who considers miǧdāf as a

loan from Standard Arabic (op.cit. 346b).

{muqādīf} therefore might represent a more colloquial form than the modern mǝždāf.

In neither modern Damascene nor Classical Arabic is there such an /i/ in these plurals, but the /a/ is retained: qanāfed, bayāder, žanāyen etc. (see the corresponding items in Stowasser-Ani). The issue is whether this is indeed an older stage of Damascus Arabic or due to the influence of another dialect. We fĳind fatḥa, however, when the fĳirst radical is a back consonant:

{ḍafāḍiʿ} ‘rana’ pl. [frogs] (f.2r)

{xanāzīr} ‘marrano’ pl. [swines, pigs] (f.3r)

22 Transliterations are given between braces, while modern phonological notations are written in italics. The English translation between square brackets refers to the Arabic lexeme.

23 For comparison purposes, the Stowasser-Ani (1964) dictionary for Damascus, although ‘sometimes reflecting a classicysing layer’ (Lentin 2006: 546b), was used; further-more, Barthélemy (1935) for Aleppo, Elihay (2004) for Palestine, and Behnstedt (1997), the dialect atlas of Syria.



This also occurs in many other cases, cf.

،

،

،

(f.9v), which would correspond to modern usage.

5.2.1.2. ḍamma Instead of the Expected kasra or sukūn

Sometimes, ḍamma /u/ appears where, in view of the modern language, one would expect to see either kasra /i/ (for modern ǝ) in closed syllables, or sukūn, i.e. no vowel in open syllables:

{ḥumār} ‘borico’ [‘burrico,’ donkey] (f.3r)

{ḥuṣān} ‘cavallo’ [horse] (f.3r)

{ruṣāṣa} ‘bala’ [bullet] (f.26v)

{mā muqaddas} ‘agua bendita’ [holy water] (f.10r)

{dubbāne} ‘mosca’ [fly] (f.2v)

{dura} ‘trigo dela india’ [millet] (f.8r)

{mudriyye}? ‘vieldo’ [winnowing fork] (f.8r), modern mǝdrēye (Barthélemy 1935: 238)

{fuḍḍa} ‘plata’ [silver] (f.23b)

{ruzz} ‘aroz’ [rice] (f.8r)

{ġušš} ‘engaño’ [deceit] (f.23r)

{sukke} ‘reja’ [plough share] (f.9v)

{ǧummēze} ‘higo de faraon,’ ‘sicomoro’ (f.5r)

{xubbēze} ‘malva’ [mallow] (f.6r) [Egyptian fĳig tree] (f.5r)

{muqdāf } ‘remo’ [oar] (f.10v)

It should be noted that the corresponding modern items in Stowasser-Ani (1964) are ḥmār, ḥṣān, rṣāṣa or rǝzz, fǝḍḍa, dǝbbāne etc. For

{ġušš}

‘engaño’ [deceit], the modern Damascus equivalent would be ġašš, while Jerusalem has ġušš (see Löhr 1905: 136a, Elihay 2004: 148a). Other cases also have a u-vocalisation, as is common in Palestinian, such as foḍḍa (Eli-hay 2004: 132b), rozz (Elihay 2004: 456a), and dubbāna (Elihay 2004: 106b).

{sukke} ‘reja’ [plough share] is only attested in Syria with an i-vowel, i.e. sikke or something similar (cf. Behnstedt 1997: 953, map 476); while ḥumār only appears with an elided vowel ḥmār (see Behnstedt 1997: 857, map 428). Again we have to question whether this represents an older stage of Damascus Arabic or the impact of other dialects.

An alternative is given in

{su/immān} ‘tordo’ [song thrush] (f.4v).

Normally this lexeme would mean ‘quail’, not ‘thrush’. A u/i-variation shows up again in Löhr (1905: 139b) for Jerusalem, with summan or



simman ‘Wachtel’ [quail], but in Elihay (2004: 485a) there is only summan, both with short a. Cf. Egyptian simmān ‘quail’.

5.2.1.3. kasra Instead of ḍamma

In contrast, in the plurals CuCūC(a) there is often a kasra where the clas-sical language has a ḍamma and modern Damascene an initial consonant cluster.

{tiyūs} ‘cabron’ pl. [billy goats] (f.3r)

{nimūra} ‘tigre’ pl. [tigers] (f.3v)

{ǧisūr} ‘puente’ pl. [bridges] (f.9r)

{ṯilūǧ} ‘nieve’ pl. [snows] (f.12v)

{xiyūl} ‘cavallo’ pl. [horses] (f.3r)

{sibūʿa} ‘leon’ pl. [lions] (f.2r)

{nibūʿ} ‘manantial’ pl. [springs] (f.10r)

This can be seen as a dissimilation of the short /u/ before the long /ū/ in the following syllable. In other cases, however, a ḍamma appears:

{ʿuǧūl} ‘bezerro,’ ‘ternera’ [bull calfs, (cow) calfs] pl. (f.3r)

{ḏukūra} ‘macho’ pl. [males] (f.3v)

{qulūʿ} ‘vela’ pl. [sails] (f.10v)

{ʿuyūn} ‘fuente’ pl. [springs] (f.10r)

In modern Damascene, and generally in Levantine Arabic, these short front vowels are usually elided in open pre-tonic syllables, which results in an initial consonant cluster, cf. tyūs (Stowasser-Ani 1964: 22) and nmūra (Stowasser-Ani 1964: 242) etc. For further discussion of this issue, see 5.2.1.6 below.

5.2.1.4. Feminine Sufffĳix -e, -a

Modern Damascene Arabic has an allomorphic split of the fem. sufffĳix *-a(t) depending on the phonological nature of the fĳinal consonant: -a after back and pharyngealized consonants, -e elsewhere (Lentin 2006: 547a). This is clearly indicated in the manuscript by kasra and fatḥa. It should be noted that these signs are often not placed under the consonant they belong to according to the rules of Arabic orthography, but instead appear under the fĳinal :



-a -e

{baqara} ‘buei, baca’

[cow] (f.3r)

{nāmūse} ‘moskito’

[moscito] (f.1v)

{ʿalaqa} ‘san-guijuela’ [leech] (f.2r)

{qamle} ‘louse’

[louse] (f.2v)

{tufffāḥa} ‘mancana’

[‘manzana’, apple] (f.5r)

{dubbāne} ‘mosca’ [fly] (f.1v)

{fāra} ‘raton’ [mouse] (f.2v)

{miʿzāye} ‘cabros’ pl.

[goat] (f.3r)

{durra} ‘papagaio, parroquero’ pl. [parrot] (f.4r)

{ʿanze} ‘cabros’ pl. [goat] (f.3r)

{baṭṭa} ‘pato,

anade’ [duck] (f.4r)

{ġaname} ‘ganados

obegunos’ ['ovejunos', ewe] (f.3r)

{baqqa} ‘chinche’

[bug] (f.2v)

{ḥaǧale} ‘perdiz’ [par-tridge] (f.2v)

{sirqa} ‘hurto’

[theft] (f.23a)

{bārūde} ‘escopeta’

[shotgun] (f.23r)

{marǧūḥa} ‘columpio’ [swing] (f.1r)

{baṣale} ‘zebolla’

[onion] (f.7v)

{baṭṭīxa} ‘melon’

[water melon] (f.2r)

{wa/uzze} ‘ganso’

[goose] (f.4r)

{nisūra} ‘aguila’ pl. [eagles] (f.2v)

{samake} ‘pez’ [fĳish] (f.5r)

{xōxa} ‘ziruela’ [ciruela, plum] (f.5r)

{ǧinēne} ‘jardinillo’

[little gar-den] (f.3r)

{ruṣāṣa} ‘bala’ [bul-let] (f.26v)

{naḥle} ‘abeja’ [bee] (f.2v)

{ḥinṭa} ‘trigo’

[wheat] (f.4r)

{fĳiǧle} ‘rabanos’ pl.

[radish] (f.3r)



-a -e

{bukara} ‘mañana’

[tomorrow] (f.19r)

{sukke} ‘reja’ [plough-share] (f.5r)

{ḏukūra} ‘macho’ pl. [males] (f.2v)

{ǧōze} ‘nueces’ pl.

[nut] (f.3v)

{sibūʿa} ‘leon’ pl. [lions] (f.2r)

{ǧizīre} ‘isla’ [island]

(f.5r)

{xiyāra} ‘pepino’

[cucumber] (f.6r)

{nišābe} ‘flecha, saeta’ [arrow] (f.26v)

This notation of the distribution of the alternants -e/-a is astonishingly accurate, and corresponds more or less to what we know from contem-porary Damascus Arabic.

5.2.1.5. Diphthongs

Words containing diphthongs cause some interpretational problems due to the varying forms of notation. It is unclear whether we are concerned here with a notational problem, i.e. Caballero could not make his mind up about how to write /ō/ and /ē/ in Arabic script, or whether there are dialectal variations. Consider the following cases:

(1) ḍamma + sukūn = ō (?)

{xōxa} ‘ziruela’ [ciruela, plum] (f.5r), modern xōxa

{lōze} ‘almendra’ [almond] (f.6v), modern lōze

{ǧōz} ‘nuez’ [nuts] (f.6v),

modern ǧōz(2) kasra + sukūn = ē (?)

{tēs} ‘cabron’ [billy goat] (f.3r),

modern tēs (Barthélemy 1935: 98)

{mēs}? ‘oropel’ [gold foil] (f.16v),

modern mīs (Barthélemy 1935: 809)

{lēš} ‘porque’ [because] (f.20r),

modern lēš

{dēr} ‘convento’ [monastery]

(f.37v), modern dēr(3) fatḥa + sukūn = aw/ay

{mawza} ‘higos de Adam’ [banana] (f.5r), modern mōza

{xayl} ‘cavallo’ [horse] (f.3r), modern xēl

Table (cont.)



{ṣayd} ‘pesca’ [fĳishing] (f.9r), modern ṣēd

{bayt} ‘casa’ [house] (f.37v),

modern bēt

{ṯawr} ‘toro’ [bull] (f.3r) but as

in (1) الثور {it-tōr} (f.12r), modern tōr

The transliterations offfered here are tentative. While (1) and (2) seem to indicate a monophthong, (3) can only be read as a diphthong. At fĳirst glance, this would appear to suggest that diphthongs had only partly been replaced by monophthongs, which does not seem to be particularly plausible because of the variation as in

{ṯawr} and

{it-tōr}, as

well as the apparent lack of phonetic conditioning; the likelihood is that Caballero is mixing the classical and colloquial forms here.

On the other hand, there are unusual cases of (3), such as

qayqān, the pl. of

qāq ‘choia, graga, pega’ [crow, jackdaw, magpie] (f.4a), and

،

ḥayṭ, ḥayṭān ‘pared’ [wall] (f.36r). In these cases we expect a plural KīKān, not KayKān, see modern Damascene qāq, qīqān ‘crow’ (Stowasser-Ani 1964: 57b), and ḥēṭ, ḥīṭān (Stowasser-Ani 1964: 258a).

In other cases we only fĳind the vowel sign without the sukūn, and it remains open to interpretation whether this has to be read as ū/ī or ō/ē:

‘piñones’ [pine nut] (f.5r), modern ṣnōbar (Stowasser-Ani 1964:

173b) with /ṣ/;

‘sicomoro’ [sycamore tree] (f.5r), modern žǝmmēz

(Barthélemy 1935: 120); and

‘oy, hoy’ [today] (f.37v), modern lyōm

(Stowasser-Ani 1964: 244a). However, there is also:

،

‘ajo’ [garlic]

(f.7v), modern tūm (Stowasser-Ani 1964: 100a);

{yanbūʿ} ‘manantial’

[spring, fountain] (f.10r), modern yambūʿ (Barthélemy 1935: 918); and

{ʿanākabīt}24 ‘araña’ pl. [spiders] (f.2r).

5.2.1.6. Vowel Elision

Modern Damascene Arabic elides the short vowels /i/ and /u/ in open pre-tonic syllables, thus enabling there to be syllable-initial consonant clus-ters. Even the /i/ from */a/ is elided (Grotzfeld 1964: 32 §37c). Some words underlie further phonological reductions. In the manuscript, however, we fĳind that vowels are generally indicated here with the corresponding vowel signs, kasra and ḍamma:

24 A very strange plural formed from a root with fĳive radicals. We would expect some-thing like ʿanākeb, as in Elihay (2004: 14b).



{ǧināḥ} ‘ala’ [wing] (f.5v), modern ž(i)nāḥ (Stowasser-Ani

1964: 264b), žnāḥ (Barthélemy 1935: 123)

{ǧinēne} ‘jardinillo’ [little garden] (f.7r), modern žnēne

(Stowasser-Ani 1964: 100a)

{kidīš} ‘rocín, cavallo de carga’ [packhorse, nag] (f.3r),

modern gdīš (Stowasser-Ani 1964: 155a), kdīš (Barthélemy 1935: 738)

{ṭiḥīn} ‘harina’ [flour] (f.8v), modern ṭḥīn (Stowasser-Ani

1964: 93a) but cf.

daqīq ‘harina’ (f.8v), which is

not Damascene and sounds Egyptian (diʾīʾ)

{kibāš} ‘carnero’ pl. [rams] (f.3r), modern kbūše (Stowasser-Ani 1964: 186a), but kbāš (Barthélemy 1935: 702)

{ǧilīd} ‘ielo’ [‘hielo,’ ice] (f.12v), modern žalīd (Stowasser-Ani 1964: 121a), žlīd (Barthélemy 1935: 117)

{timīn} ‘precioso’ [precious] (f.23v), modern tamīn

(Stowasser-Ani 1964: 178)

{ǧizīre} ‘isla’ [island] (f.5r), modern žazīre (Stowasser-Ani

1964: 127b), ǧazīre, zīre (Barthélemy 1935: 111)

{diǧāǧe} ‘gallina’ [hen] (f.5v), modern žāže (Stowasser-Ani

1964: 115b)

Further examples can be found in 5.2.1.3 above. When the fĳirst conso-nant is a sibilant, initial consonant clusters seem to be possible (cf. 5.2.1.8 below).

In other cases, when modern Damascene Arabic elides vowels in open syllables (see Grotzfeld 1964: 32 §37), the manuscript provides full vow-els, for instance,

{ẓulquṭa} ‘avispa’ [wasp] (f.2v), compare this to the modern ẓǝlǝʾṭa (Stowasser-Ani 1964: 259a);

{mušmuše} ‘alberchigo’ [apricot] (f.6v), modern mǝšǝmše (Stowasser-Ani 1964: 11a).

An elision of a short /a/ in an open, unstressed syllable in medial posi-tion (CaCaCa > CaVVa), which is a feature that is not uncommon in the modern language (see Grotzfeld 1964: 24 §36), seems to be indicated in

،

،

{xašabe/xašbe} ‘madero, maderos’ [wood] (f.36v). Modern Damascene does not, however, elide the /a/ in this particular word: xašabe ‘piece of wood’ (Stowasser-Ani 1964: 265b). All other items of this type have only a fatḥa, e.g.

{samake} ‘pez’ [fĳish] (f.9r).

5.2.1.7. Word-Final Clusters -CC

The common anaptyctic vowel that is inserted in word-fĳinal consonant clusters25 is often indicated by a fatḥa, kasra or ḍamma on the fĳirst conso-

25 Well-known from Modern Damascus Arabic, cf. Cowell (1964: 29).



nant of the cluster. This anaptyctic vowel copies the quality of the previ-ous vowel:

{sabaʿ} ‘leon’ [lion] (f.2r)

{ḍabaʿ} ‘onza’ [hyena] (f.2r)

{ṣaqar} ‘ave de rapiña’ [bird of prey]26 (f.4r)

{baḥar} ‘mar’ [sea] (f.10r)

{baġal} ‘mulo’ [mule] (f.4v)

{nimir} ‘tigre’ [tiger] (f.3v)

{qabir} ‘entierro’ [tomb] (f.1r)

{tibin} ‘pallo’ [straw] (f.4r)

{libin} ‘adoves’ [‘adobes’, bricks] (f.36v)

{iẓẓuhur} ‘medio dia’ [noon] (f.37r)

Vowel insertion seems to be limited to the fĳinal liquidae /n/, /r/, /l/, and /ʿ/ in contrast to the unconditioned insertion in the modern dialects of the region. Note the following cases where the fĳirst consonant of these fĳinal clusters carries the sukūn:

{kabš} ‘carnero’ [ram] (f.2r)

{naḥl} ‘abeja’ [bees] (f.2v)

{nims} ‘garduño’ [marten] (f.2r)

{faḥl} ‘macho’ [male animal] (f.3v)

In other cases both possibilities are indicated (see 5.2. above):

{ḥaql ~ ḥaqal} ‘campo’ [fĳield] (f.5r)

{dafn ~ dafan} ‘entierro’ [tomb] (f.1r)

{nahr ~ nahar} ‘rio’ [river] (f.10r)

{nisr ~ nisir} ‘aquila’ [eagle] (f.2v)

{ǧisr ~ ǧisir} ‘viga’ [beam] (f.36v), ‘puente’ [bridge] (f.9r)

{fĳiǧl ~ fĳiǧil} ‘rabanos’ [radish] (f.4r)

26 The Arabic ṣaqar actually means ‘falcon’.



{buxl ~ buxul} ‘avaricia’ [avarice] (f.1r)

{ġuṣn ~ ġuṣun} ‘ramo’ [branch] (f.6v)

{sufn ~ sufun} ‘nave’ [ship] pl. (f.10r)

{huǧn ~ huǧun} ‘dromedario’ pl. (f.4v)

Here, it seems, Caballero wanted to indicate both the classical pronuncia-tion without the insertion and the dialectal pronunciation with an inser-tion. He incorporated the correct pl.

{sufun} ‘ships’ in this group by

putting a šadda on the medial letter, as in

, cf. hǝǧǝn (Barthélemy 1935: 864). Apparently, this reflects colloquial usage.

5.2.1.8. Word-Initial Cluster CC-

Often, a word-initial short vowel is indicated with a kasra under an alif, while in other cases a fatḥa is used, as is common in standard plural forms. This kasra certainly stands for an initial vowel that corresponds to standard usage, e.g.

{inṯāye} ‘hembra’ [female] (f.3v), modern ʾǝntāye

(Stowasser-Ani 1964: 88a)

{iǧniḥa} ‘ala’ pl. [wings] (f.5v), modern ʾažniḥa

(Stowasser-Ani 1964: 264b)

{iqfāl} ‘camdado’ pl. [‘candado’ padlocks] (f.36r),

modern ʾfāl (Stowasser-Ani 1964: 167a)

{iṯnēn} ‘dos’ [two] (f.10v), modern tnēn (Stowasser-Ani

1964: 251b)

{inǧāṣa} ‘pera’ [pear] (f.5r), modern nžāṣa (Stowasser-

Ani 1964: 264b)

{iṣṭād} ‘pescar’ [to fĳish] (f.9r), modern ṣṭād (Stowasser-

Ani 1964: 91b)

{inkalīz} ‘anguilas’ [eel] (f.9r), modern Damascus ḥanklīs

(Stowasser-Ani 1964: 264b), but Aleppo ʾǝnglēzi (Barthélemy 1935: 18)

{ihwiye, ihūye} ‘viento’ pl. [winds] (f.12r), modern ʾǝhǝwye

(Stowasser-Ani 1964: 264b), corresponds neatly to the modern forms ʾǝhuye, ʾǝhwǝye as given in Barthélemy (1935: 877)

{anyāṣ} ‘puercoespin’ pl. [porcupines] (f.3v.), modern nyāṣ (Stowasser-Ani 1964: 176b)

{aryāḥ} ‘viento’ pl. [winds] (f.12r), modern ryāḥ(Stowasser-Ani 1964: 264b, Barthélemy 1935: 303)

Caballero here more or less follows the classical orthography, sometimes putting a kasra to indicate an i-vowel where Classical Arabic would have



an /a/; in other cases he uses the fatḥa. In most cases, the modern dialect would have initial consonant clusters here.

Particularly interesting are the spellings we fĳind in the following exam-ples: a word-initial sibilant carries both a kasra and a sukūn.

Figure 7.

snōbar, sinōbar ‘piñones’ [pine nut] (f.5r)

Figure 8.

sbānix, sibānix ‘espinaca’ [spinach] (f.8v)

Figure 9.

zbībe, zibībe ‘pasa’ [raisin] (f.6v)

Figure 10.

sfīne, sifīne ‘nave’ [ship] (f.10r)

Figure 11.

ṣṭūḥ, ṣiṭūḥ ‘terrazo, techo’ [terraces, roofs] (f.36v)

Figure 12.

sfĳirǧil, sifĳirǧil ‘membrillo’ [quince] (f.5r)



At fĳirst glance, spellings like these suggest that Caballero tried to note a variation, i.e. an optional choice between a short vowel inserted between the two consonants and a cluster with a vowelless fĳirst consonant. Look-ing closer at the original writing, we can see that in many cases the kasra slightly precedes the sukūn.27 Could this be an infelicitous attempt to write an anaptyctic initial vowel, something like isnōbar, isbānix,28 izbīb etc.? According to the rules of Arabic orthography, this could only be writ-ten by means of an initial alif, since vowel signs need a carrying letter, which must be an alif word-initially. Starting these words with an alif would change their consonantal spelling drastically, and Caballero may have seen this as too strong an interference and divergence from the tra-ditional writing habits and thus avoided it. Accepting this speculation, which might fĳind a corroborating argument in the fact that these cases are limited to sibilant-initial words, would mean that we interpret the kasra as the anaptyctic ǝ that is so common in modern language. As long as this cannot be corroborated by further research on the manuscript and others of its kind, these considerations will continue to be speculative. See the following examples:

{zbībe} ‘pasa’ [raisin] (f.6v), modern zbībe (Stowasser-Ani 1964: 186ab)

{stētīye} ‘tortola’ [turtle dove] (f.4r), modern stētīye (Barthélemy 1935: 333)

{sbānix, sibānix}

‘espinaca’ [spinach] (f. 8v), modern sabānex (Stowasser-Ani 1964: 220a, Barthélemy 1935: 328), but sbānix in ʿAbd ar-Raḥīm II (2003: 727)

{sfīne, sif īne}

‘nave’ [ship] (f.10r), modern saf īne (Stowasser-Ani 1964: 264b), sf īne (Barthélemy 1935: 346) for Aleppo

{snōbar,

sinōbar}‘piñones’ [pine nut] (f.5r), modern ṣnōbar (Stowasser-Ani 1964: 173b), ṣanōbar, ṣnawbar (Barthélemy 1935: 446)

{sfĳirǧil, sifĳirǧil}

‘membrillo’ [quince] (f.5r), modern safarǧal (Barthélemy 1935: 344)

27 It is important here to go back to the original spelling of the manuscript. Looking only at the Arabic transliterations conducted by the software is insufffĳicient, as the com-puter only permits pre-fĳixed positions of the vowel signs.

28 In modern dictionaries we fĳind sabānex with an unelided /a/ in the fĳirst syllable, see Stowasser-Ani (1964: 220a), and Barthélemy (1935: 328). This reflects the influence of Stan-dard Arabic in the modern language, see Lentin (2006: 546b) quoted above in footnote 22.



{ṣnūnu, ṣinūnu}

‘golondrina’ [swallow] (f.4v), modern snūnu (Stowasser-Ani 1964: 264b), ṣnūnu (Barthélemy 1935: 447) for Aleppo

{ṣṭūḥ,

ṣiṭūḥ}pl. ‘terrazo, techo’ [terraces, roofs] (f.36v), modern ṣṭēḥa ‘terrace’ (Stowasser-Ani 1964: 237a), ʾǝṣṭūḥ ‘roof ’ (Stowasser-Ani 1964: 195a)

The pl. variants

{aryāḥ} and

{ryāḥ} of

‘viento’ [wind] (f.12r)

also seem to suggest this variation between an anaptyctic vowel and ini-tial cluster, but

could also be an unvoweled notation of

. Only a

sukūn would make clear what is meant here.The fact that

‘ala’ [wing] (f.5v) is incorporated in this group with

initial sibilants suggests that

was pronounced as a sibilant ž, not as an afffricate ǧ.

5.2.2. Consonants

5.2.2.1. The Interdental Fricatives /θ/ and /ð/

.

The interdental fricative /θ/ is rare in urban Syrian Arabic (θawra ~ sawra = ‘revolution’). The sound is used in classicisms and generally replaced by /s/ in a ‘less elegant style’ (Cowell 1964: 3). Its voiced interdental coun-terpart /ð/, corresponding to the Classical

, is not used in urban Syrian Arabic, but only in certain rural dialects. In the urban dialects, its reflex is /d/ (as in háda = ‘this’) (Lentin 2006: 549a) or /z/ (íza = ‘if ’ Lentin 2006: 554b). Caballero generally writes historical interdentals as such:

{ḏakar} ‘macho’ [male] (f.2v)

{ṯawr} ‘toro’ [bull]

(f.3r)

{ḏahab} ‘oro’ [gold] (f.16v)

{inṯāye} ‘hembra’

[female] (f.3r)

{qaḏaf } ‘remar’ [to row] (f.10v)

{ṯalǧ} ‘nieve’ [snow]

(f.12v)

Nevertheless, in a certain number of cases they appear as stops:

{barġūt} ‘pulga’ [flea]

(f.2v)

{dubbābe} ‘mosca’ [fly] (f.2v)

{timīn} ‘precioso’

[precious] (f.23v)

{dura} ‘mijo’ [millet] (f.8r)

{mitmin} ‘precioso’

[precious] (f.23v)

{muqdāf} ‘remo’ [oar] (f.10v)



{kurrāt} ‘puerros’ [leek] (f.6r)

{qunfud} ‘erizo’ [hedgehog] (f.2r)

{daqan} [beard] (f.1r)

in =

‘inciento

berde’ [‘verde’ absinth]

It should be noted that the same root may be presented diffferently, e.g.

f.10v gives

،

{qaḏaf, yiqḏif} ‘remar’ [to row] with the interden-

tal, the corresponding nouns

{qaddāfīn} (sic!)29 ‘remador’ [rowers],

،

{muqdāf, muqādīf} and ‘remo’ [oar], however, show the

plosive .

5.2.2.2. /m/ ~ /l/

Figure 13.

،

ilbāriḥ ~ imbāriḥ ‘aier tarde’ [yesterday evening]

(f.37v)30

The item ‘yesterday evening’ appears with the variants

،

ilbāriḥ ~ imbāriḥ ‘aier tarde’ (f. 37v), whereas in modern Damascene Ara-bic only mbāreḥ, mbārḥa ‘hier soir’ with an assimilated /l/ and as fem. is attested (Stowasser-Ani 1964: 269a). The unassimilated masc. form ilbāriḥ is more common in the Eastern parts of Syria (cf. Behnstedt 1997: 611 map 305). However, until we know more about Caballero’s sources, it will be difffĳicult to say whether this does indeed reflect Damascene usage around 1700.

5.2.2.3. bukaṛa—Syndrome

An /a/ is inserted in a cluster, the second consonant of which is /r/, which is a common feature of Middle Egyptian dialects, although it is not

29

is a plural, the translation is sg.30 Cf. González; Intérprete arábico f. 25: “El vulgo pronuncia ayer tarde

.”



present in modern Damascene Arabic. There are examples of this in the

manuscript:

{bukara} ‘mañana’ [tomorrow] (f.37v),

{mūye

ʿaka/ire} ‘aguaturbia’ [troubled water] (f.10r), and

،

{ḏuhuri,

ḏuhuriyya} ‘meridiano’ [noonish] (f.37r):

Figure 14.

bukara ‘mañana’ [tomorrow] (f.37v)

5.2.2.4. Loss of hamza

As is common in all modern dialects, we fĳind /y/ instead of hamza in, for example, the broken pl. forms:

{kināyin} ‘nueras’ pl. [daughter-in-law] (f.48r)

{qarāyib} ‘parientes’ [kin] (f. 49v)

From spellings such as

{lūluwe} ‘perla’ [pearl] (f.16v), pl.

, it may be concluded that hamza was no longer pronounced.

5.3. Morphology

5.3.1. Independent Personal Pronouns

Caballero divides the ‘indistinct noun’ (‘nombre indistinto’) or ‘pronoun’ (pronombre) into three categories: personal, demonstratives and relatives. Personal pronouns can be divided into ‘disjunct’ or ‘separate’ (‘disiunto, o separado’) and afffĳix/sufffĳix pronouns (‘pronombre afĳixo’). According to Caballero, separate pronouns can only have the function of an ‘agent’ or nominative: “El separado tiene solamente signifĳicacion por modo de agente, esto es por modo de nominatiuo y es:”31 (f. 25v)

{hun}

{hum}

{hī} {hū}

ipsi ipsi ipsa ipse[themselves] [themselves] [herself] [himself]

{niḥn/niḥin} {ana}

{intu}

{inta}

{inti}

nos ego vos (com.) tu (masc.) tu (fem.)[we] [I] [you (pl. c.)] [you (masc.)] [you (fem.)]

31 Same order as in the manuscript.



Caballero notes that in literary Arabic, Arabic grammarians distinguish a form for the second person masculine pl. and another for the feminine pl.

i.e.

{antum} and

{antunna}, as well as other forms for the dual. This

is diffferent from the colloquial Arabic of Damascus, where no gender dis-tinction is made in the second and third person plurals of pronouns (and verbs), and a dual does not exist in the verbal and pronominal systems (see Lentin 2006: 548). According to Lentin (loc.cit), the paradigm of the pronouns of Damascus Arabic appears as follows:32

Singular Plural

1st person ʾana nəḥna2nd person masc.

fem.

ʾənte

ʾəntiʾəntu

3rd person masc.

fem.

huwe

hiyyehənne(n)

Caballero, however, observes that this form

for the masculine is only

used in colloquial speech in some regions: “El vulgar aun esta diccion

en algunos Paises la suelen incluir en la masculina” (par. 4, f. 25v).33 Hon is in fact the third person plural masculine and feminine of the bound personal pronoun of modern Damascene Arabic. It should also be noted that for the fĳirst person pl. the forms given by Caballero difffer partly from the modern ones:

{niḥn/niḥin} [we] has a fĳinal consonant cluster, or a variant with an inserted vowel (cf. 5.2.1.7 above). This is in contrast to modern nəḥna; similar forms are found today in rural areas to the north of Damascus and Aleppo and in Antakia (see Behnstedt 1997: 511 map 255), but Cowell (1964: 539) also uses nǝḥǝn apparently for modern Damascene.

5.3.2. Demonstratives

Caballero gives two paradigms of demonstratives, although he does not use González’s term ‘demonstratiuo propinquo’ for ‘hic, haec, hoc,’ but only ‘demonstratiuo remoto’ for the form ‘ille, illa, illud’. (f.152). Caballero sets out the following demonstrative pronouns:

32 For more variant forms see also Driver (1925: 25–26).33 Cf. González: “El vulgar suele equivocar a

con

” (f.143).



DemostratibosHaec

Hic

Hi et hae

Estos demostrativos si se juntan con nonbres, el vulgo los abreuia, principal-

mente en la pronunciación se pone esta abreuiatura

.34 Vg. Nunc modo

Hi libri

I se pone dichas particulas sin distinción de genero y numero y se las pone para singular y plural, para masculino y femeninoLos pronombres demostratiuos remotos son estos v[erbi] g[rati]a.

Ille, is

Illa, ea

Illi et illae

(f. 21v).

[DemonstrativesHaec

Hic

Hi et hae

The [ordinary] people abbreviate these demonstratives if they are combi-ned with nouns, in particular they use these shortened forms

in their

pronunciation, e.g. Nunc modo (“this moment”)

Hi libri

(“these books”). And when these particles are used, gender and number are not distinguished and they are used for the singular and plural, masculine and feminine.

The remote demonstrative pronouns are as follows, e.g.

Ille, is (“this”, etc.)

Illa, ea

Illi et illae

(f. 21v).]

Lentin (p. 548) gives the form hal- when assimilated to sun-letters; hāda (masc.), hādi or hayy (fem.), and hadōl (plural); remote: hadāk, hadīk(e), pl. hadolīk or hadənk(e); all except the latter are also documented by Caballe-ro.35 What is striking here is

{ḏeh} and ذا {ḏā} without the prefĳixed hā-. Similar forms are not mentioned in modern grammars and appear only in

34 According to Grotzfeld (1965: 21) the form hā + article in halbēt (‘this house’) in Syro-Palestinian and particularly in Damascene Arabic is not the result of the apocope of -da in hāda but its origins can be traced back to the interjection hā + article. Cf. Driver (1925: 35).

35 For more variant forms, see Driver (1925: 34).



the village ʿĒn ǝtTīne, north of Damascus, and in the oasis of Soukhne (see Behnstedt 1997: 551,553, maps 275 and 276).

5.3.3. Relative Pronouns

Caballero fĳirst sets out the classical forms of the relative pronoun, fol-lowed by the forms used in ‘vulgar speech’: “El vulgo en lugar destos rela-tiuos, suelen poner sin distinction de genero y numero este vga.36 e

este

El siervo que

. . .”, (f. 21r–22v). This corresponds to Lentin

(p. 549) and Grotzfeld (1965: 24), where we read that the relative pronoun is invariable, although both authors give diffferent forms, əlli (lli after a vowel), yəlli and halli/yalli, which are not documented by Caballero or González.

5.3.4. The Nominal System: Case

As Driver (1925: 154) observes, “there is no trace of the old case-endings left in modern Arabic”, which is corroborated by Caballero:

Los Arabos en la lengua vernacular o vulgar no tienen terminacion de cas-sos en el nonbre assi como los Castellanos, de suerte, que como nosotros al hombre vga. Siempre le terminamos de una misma suerte y solo hace-mos cassos por preposiciones vg. El hombre, del hombre & assi tanbien los

Arabos dicen El hombre

o Varon

(Caballero f. 15v)

[The Arabs do not distinguish nominal case-endings in their vernacular or vulgar speech, like we Castilians do, e.g. the word ‘el hombre’ (the man) always ends in the same way, and we only make cases with prepositions,

e.g. The man, of the man, and the Arabs say also The man

, ar-raǧul,

or Male,

, min ar-raǧul of the man.]

5.3.5. The Verbal System

5.3.5.1. bi-Prefĳix

Generally, it is the paradigm of Classical Arabic that is set out, but there are often also observations about vernacular forms. In Caballero/Encar-nación, we fĳind a description of the use of the proclitic b- with its allo-

36 González (f. 154): “En el modo mas vulgar de hablar a estos relatiuos los suele sinco-par y ponen en lugar de

este

”.



morph m- for the fĳirst person plural.37 This is a vernacular form that is used in ‘some countries’, such as Damascus, according to the author(s):

Nota que en algunos Paises como Damasco al presente de indicativo le añaden a su primera letra seruil un

y en la primera persona del plural un

. De suerte que en el Vulgar modo de hablar dicen ‘No sé’

en lugar

de

‘yo no lo se’

‘el lo sabe’

‘nos vamos’. (Caballero

f. 42r).

[Note that in some regions, such as in Damascus, they add a

to the fĳirst servile letter in the present of the indicative and in the fĳirst person plural

[they add] a

, so that in the vulgar way of speaking, they say:

‘I do

not know’ instead of

, ‘I do not know’

‘he knows’

‘we are going’.]

Figure 15. bi-prefĳix (f.42r.)

In González’s grammar (f.103) there is a similar description of the proclitic b-imperfect:

Nota asimesmo para lo que sucede en algunos payses en el vulgar modo de hablar, que al presente de indicativo al íe servil le añaden en algunas

37 “The present tense is formed by prefĳixing b to the imperfect in all persons except the fĳirst person plural, to which m- is prefĳixed, although b is sometimes heard” (Driver 1925: 50).



personas el

y en la primera de plural el

. Y asi dicen

en lugar

de

El lo sabe. Ya lo sabe. . . . (González, Epítome 1719: f. 103)

[Note also that it occurs in some countries in vulgar speech that in some persons b is added to ie in the present of the indicative, and in the fĳirst

person plural the m; they say

instead of

He knows [it],

he knows [it] yet. . . .]

González points out here the allomorph m- which is an alternate form for the prefĳix b- used with the fĳirst person plural prefĳix. This description corresponds quite neatly to the modern situation, because the prefĳix b- has an alternate form m- which is used with the fĳirst person plural prefĳix: me-nə-ktob ‘we write’, mə-n-šūf ‘we see’ mə-m-biʿ ‘we sell’ (cf. Cowell 1964: 180; see also Grotzfeld 1965: 81–82).

5.3.5.2. Vowels of the Personal Prefĳixes of the Imperfect

The personal prefĳixes of the imperfect display two diffferent vowels, indi-cated by the kasra /i/ and the ḍamma /u/. Their distribution is rather sys-tematic and corresponds to some extent to the base vowel. If this is the ḍamma /u/, then the prefĳix has /u/ as well. If the base vowel is the fatḥa /a/ or kasra /i/, the vowel of the prefĳix is /i/ in both cases:

{yuḥruṯ} ‘arar’ [to plough] (f.9v)

{yuḥfur} ‘cabar’ [to dig] (f.8v)

{yizraʿ} ‘sembrar’ [to sow] (f.9v)

{yiṯliǧ} ‘nevar’ [to snow] (f.12v)

6. Conclusion

The standardization of the Arabic languages began in the age of the study of Qurʾānic exegese. European scholars, such as Thomas Erpenius and Jacob Golius, wrote grammars and compiled dictionaries for academic purposes, while the study of Arabic was mainly a tool for Hebrew studies. Missionaries of the Propaganda Fide composed grammars and dictionaries in Latin and concentrated on Classical Arabic. As we have demonstrated in this paper, Spanish Franciscans initially described colloquial registers, and it is only at the end of their grammar that the rules of Classical Arabic are provided. The manuscripts which were developed in the Middle East are undoubtedly important for: (1) those working in the fĳield of the history of linguistics (as we have demonstrated in Zwartjes 2007a and b), since



the original Arabic linguistic terminology is maintained in an adapted Hispanicised form, extending in this way the Greco-Latin framework; and (2) for the scholars working in the fĳield of the history of the Arabic language and its varieties, in particular the colloquial Arabic spoken in Damascus. A good example of this type of grammar is the manuscript by Lucas Caballero, which contains much colloquial material.

In some respects, the data given in this manuscript correspond to mod-ern Damascus Arabic. As we have shown in 5.2.1.4, for instance, Cabal-lero’s data very nicely reflect the allomorphic variation of the fem. sufffĳix -a/-e in modern Damascus Arabic. In other respects, in particular when it comes to the insertion and elision of vowels (see the discussion above in 5.2.1.6 and 5.2.1.8), the data deviate from modern Damascus Arabic. Further thorough study, in particular with respect to scribal habits, will certainly reveal more details and lead to a better understanding and the correct interpretation. For the time being, however, we cannot tell with reasonable certainty whether we have to assume here the influence of the standard variety or another Arabic dialect on Caballero’s language, pos-sibly that of his non-Damascene teachers and informants (see 5.1 above). Alternatively, it may be that this description represents an older stage of linguistic development, namely a kind of pre-modern Damascus Arabic. The questions are: how reliable is the data from the beginning of the eigh-teenth century that is presented here? Can we trust in Caballero’s actual knowledge of the Damascus colloquial of his time?38

To fĳind an answer to these questions, and to obtain a more complete picture of the problems at hand, it is extremely important to carefully investigate this and similar works on Damascus Arabic by the Spanish Franciscans. This is a desideratum for the future. The Arabic material col-lected by these authors from native speakers could prove to be extremely useful in our attempts to reconstruct the colloquial variety as it was spo-ken in Damascus around the year 1700.

38 There are obvious mistakes such as

{kam sinne ʿumrak?} ‘how old are

you?’ Somehow, the words sane ‘year’ and sinn ‘age’ appear to be mixed up here. The šadda on the nūn seems to be superfluous, since it is either kam sane ʿumrak? or kam sane

sinnak? ‘how old are you?’—A diffferent case represents the item

،

trans-

lated as ‘lagarto’ [lizard] (f.2r). It shows clearly

{ǧ} in both the sg. and pl., but ‘lizard’ is

common in the Levant as

with

{ḥ}.

would be ‘rat’, as is correctly quoted

in f.2v. This seems to be a copyist’s error, which gives rise to the question of whether Caballero noted his entries ‘viva voce’ or took over lists of items prepared for him by, for instance, native speakers.



References

A. Primary Sources

Alcalá, Pedro de. [Before 5 feb. 1505a]. Arte para ligeramente saber la lengua arauiga. Sala-manca: Juan Varela.

——. [Before 5 feb. 1505b]. Vocabulista arauigo en letra castellana. Salamanca: Juan Varela.——. 1971/1883 [c.1506a].39 Arte para ligera mente saber la lengua arauiga emendada y

añadida y Segunda mente imprimida. Salamanca: Juan Varela. Reimpresiones [1506a y b]: Paul de Lagarde: Petri Hispani de lingua arabica libri duo. Gottingae: In aedibus Dieterichianis Arnoldi Hoyer. Reprint: Osnabrück: Otto Zeller, 1971[1883]. [Biblioteca Nacional, R 31638.]

——. 1971/1883 [c.1506b]. Vocabulista arauigo en letra castellana. Salamanca: Juan Varela. [Biblioteca Nacional, R 31638.]

Reeditions [1506a y b]: Paul de Lagarde: Petri Hispani de lingua arabica libri duo. Gottingae: In aedibus Dieterichianis Arnoldi Hoyer. Reprint: Osnabrück: Otto Zeller, 1971[1883].

——. 1928 [c.1506b]. Facsimilar edition: New York: Hispanic Society of America.Cañes, Francisco. 1775. Gramatica arabigo-española, vulgar, y literal. Con un diccionario

arabigo-español, en que se ponen las voces mas usuales para una conversacion familiar, con el Texto de la Doctrina Cristiana en el idioma arabigo. Madrid: En la Imprenta de Don Antonio Perez de Soto. [Biblioteca Nacional, 3/ 53522.]

Cauallero (= Caballero), Lucas. 1709.40 Compendio de los Rudimentos y Gramatica Araba en que se da sufĳiciente notizia de la lengua Vernacula o Vulgar y algunas Reglas de la lit-eral Iustamente P.M.R.F. Bernardino Gonzalez hijo de la Proâ de la Concepzion en España Lector Jubilado en Arabo y Misionero Apostolico del Oriente y recoplada por el Re.do P. Fr. —— Mo Apostolico hijo de la Proa de los Angeles Lector actual Arabo en el colegio de Damasco. Ms [Roggebiblioteket (Kungliga biblioteket—Sveriges nationalbibliotek), Strängnäs, Handskriftssamlingen, Sweden; J. Tingstadii Gåfva 4:0, 108.]

Cauallero, Lucas. 1710. Manera o modo de introducirse hablar en que se ponen las mas fre-quentes salutaciones que se hacen vnos a otros los que vsan la lengua Araba con algunas otras palabras communes para los principiantes. Comenzelo dia dieziseis de henero de 1710 dia en que nuestra sagrada Relijion dio el primer lustre a la Iglesia por los Bienabentura y sus Compañeros. Ms [Roggebiblioteket (Kungliga biblioteket—Sveriges nationalbib-liotek), Strängnäs, Handskriftssamlingen, Sweden; J. Tingstadii Gåfva 4:0, 108.]

Fuentes, Pedro Antonio. 1775. Gramatica vulgar griego-española. Compuesta por el P. Fr. —— de la Regular Observancia de N.P. San Francisco de la Santa, y Apostolica Provincia de Santiago, Predicador Apostolico, Ex-Guardian de Belen, Ex-Presidente Parroco, y Lector de lengua Griega en el Colegio de Misiones de Santa Cruz de Leufcosia, Capital del Reyno de Chipre. Madrid: Joachin Ibarra. [Biblioteca Nacional de Madrid Sign. R-38693].

——. 1776. Gramatica griego-literal para el uso de los estudios de España y seminario de Tierra Santa por el P. Fr. —— de la Regular Observancia de nuestro P.S. Francisco, Guar-dian del Convento de Belen, Presidente, lector y Párroco que ha sido de lengua griega en los Conventos de Santa Cruz de Nicosía y Santa María de Lárnica en el Reyno é Isla de Chipre. Madrid: Joaquin Ibarra. http://adrastea.ugr.es/search~S9*spi?/.b1109120/.b1109120/1,1,1,B/l962~b1109120&FF=&1,0,,0,-1

González, Bernardino. 2005 [c. 1705]. Intérprete Arábico: epítome de la gramática arábiga. Edición y estudio preliminar por Ramón Lourido Díaz. 2 vols. Madrid: Real Academia de la Historia / Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores y de Cooperación.

39 Works without date, place or editor. Only the Vocabulista has a date (1505). The works have been printed probably between 1504 and 1508 (cf. Anssens-Lestienne 1983 and Norton 1978: 124–126).

40 In the colophon we read that the work was fĳinished in 1710.



——. 2005 [1719]. Epitome de la gramatica Arabiga en que se explica la lengua Araba en la Castellana, que es la mas unibersal en España. Convento de N.P.S. Francisco de Segovia. Ed. Ramón Lourido Díaz. Madrid: Real Academia de la Historia / Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores y de Cooperación.

Henriques, Henrique. [Anrrique Anrriquez]. 1982 [1549]. Arte malauar. Ed. Hans J. Ver-meer: The First European Tamil Grammar. A critical edition by ——. English version by Angelika Morath. Heidelberg: Julius Groos Verlag. [Edition based on cod. 3141, Biblioteca Nacional, Lisboa].

Martelottus (= Martelotti), Franciscus. 1620. Institutiones Linguae Arabicae tribus libris distributae. In quibus uberrime quaecumque ad litteras, dictiones & orationem attinent, explicantur. Authore P. Francisco Martelotto Martinensi, Sacerdote, Theologo, Clericorum Regularium Minorum. Romae: Excudebat Stephanus Paulinus.

Rodriguez, Ioão. 1604–1608. Arte da lingoa de Iapam composta pello Padre —— Portugues da Cõpanhia de IESV diuidida em tres livros. Nangasaqui: no Collegio de Iapão da Com-panhia de IESV. Facsimile edition: Tadao Doi, ed. 1976 [1604–1608]. Tokyo: Bensheisha.

Rodrigvez, Ioam. 1620. Arte Breve da Lingoa Iapoa tirada da Arte Grande da mesma lingoa, pera os que começam a aprender os primeiros principios della. Pello Padre —— da Com-panhia de Iesv Portugues do Bispado de Lamego. Diuidida em tres Livros. Amacao: no Collegio da Madre de Deos da Companhia de Iesv.

Ruggieri, Michele & Matteo Ricci. 2001 [1583–1588]. Dicionário Português-Chinês = Pu Han ci dian. Ed. John W. Witek. San Francisco: Ricci Institute for Chinese-Western Cultural History, University of San Francisco.

Varo, Francisco. 2000 [1703]. Arte de la lengua mandarina compuesto por el M.Ro. Pe —— de la sagrada Orden de N.P.S. Domingo, acrecentado, y reducido a mejor forma, por No H. fr. Pedro de la Piñuela P[redicad]or y Comisario Prov[incial] de la Mission Serafĳica de China. Añadiose un Confessionario muy vtil, y provechoso para alivio de los nuevos Ministros. Canton: [publisher unknown].

____. 2000 [1703]. Arte de la lengua mandarina. Ed. W. South Coblin and Joseph Abraham Levi: Francisco Varo’s Grammar of the Mandarin Language (1703). An English translation of ‘Arte de la lengua mandarina’. With an Introduction by Sandra Breitenbach. Amster-dam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins (Studies in the History of the Language Sciences 93). [Facsimile of Ms 1682, Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana R. G. Oriente III, 246 int. 7.].

——. 2006 [between 1677–1687]. Vocabulario de la lengua Mandarina con el estilo y vocab-los con que se habla sin elegancia. Compuesto por el Padre fray —— ord. Pred. Ministro de China consumado en esta lengua escrivese guardando el orden del A.B. c.d. Ed. W. South Coblin: Francisco Varo’s Glossary of the Mandarin Language. Vol. I: An English and Chi-nese Annotation of the Vocabulario de la Lengua Mandarina. Vol. II: Pinyin and English Index of the Vocabulario de la Lengua Mandarina. Nettetal: Sankt Augustin (Monumenta Serica Monograph Series LIII/1 and LIII/2).

B. Secondary Sources

ʿAbd ar-Raḥīm, Yāsīn. 2003. Mawsūʿat al-ʿāmmīya al-sūrīya. al-Ǧuzʾ al-ṯānī. Dimašq: Manšūrāt Wizārat al-ṯaqāfa.

Anssens-Lestienne, Yannick. 1983. ‘L’arabe andalou. Sources et Bibliographie’. Matériaux arabes et sudarabiques (MAS ): Recherches en cours 1983. Paris: Paul Geuthner. 11–60.

Auroux, Sylvain. 1992. Histoire des idées linguistiques. Vol. 2. Le développement de la gram-maire occidentale. Liège: Pierre Mardaga.

Barthélemy, A. 1935. Dictionnaire Arabe-Français. Dialectes de Syrie: Alep, Damas, Liban, Jérusalem. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner.

Behnstedt, Peter. 1989. ‘Christlich Aleppinische Texte’. Zeitschrift für Arabische Linguistik 20. 43–96.

——. 1997. Sprachatlas von Syrien. Kartenband. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz (Semitica viva 17).



Bossong, Georg. 1992. ‘Reflections on the History of the Study of Universals: The example of the partes orationis’. Kefer, Michel and Auwera, Johan van der (eds.), Meaning and Grammar: Cross-linguistic perspectives. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 3–16.

Corriente, Federico. 1988. El léxico árabe andalusí según P. de Alcalá. (Ordenado por raíces, corregido, anotado y fonémicamente interpretado). Madrid: Universidad Complutense de Madrid (Departamento de Estudios Arabes e Islámicos, Universidad Complutense de Madrid 1).

Cowan, William. 1981. ‘Arabic Grammatical Terminology in Pedro de Alcalá’. Historio-graphia Linguistica 8.2/3. 357–363.

Cowell, Mark W. 1964. A Reference Grammar of Syrian Arabic (based on the dialect of Damascus). Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press (Arabic series 7).

Diderichsen, Paul. 1974. ‘The Foundation of Comparative Linguistics: Revolution or contin-uation?’ Hymes, Dell (ed.), Studies in the History of Linguistics: Traditions and paradigms. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 277–306.

Driver, G.R. 1925. A Grammar of the Colloquial Arabic of Syria and Palestine. London: Prob-sthain & Co.

Elihay, J. 2004. The Olive tree dictionary: a transliterated dictionary of conversational Eastern Arabic (Palestinian). Washington, DC: Kidron Publishing.

Ermers, Rob. 1999. Arabic Grammars of Turkic: The Arabic Linguistic Model Applied to For-eign Languages and Translation of ʾAbū Ḥayyān Al-ʾAndalusī’s Kitāb al-ʾIdrāk li-Lisān al-ʾAtrāk. Leiden, etc.: Brill (Studies in Semitic languages and linguistics 28).

Flores Farfán, José Antonio. 2007. ‘La variación lingüística vista a través de las artes mexi-canas (con especial énfasis en el nahuatl)’. Zwartjes, Otto, James, Gregory and Ridruejo, Emilio (eds.), Missionary Linguistics III/ Lingüística Misionera III. Morphology and Syn-tax. Selected papers from the Third and Fourth International Conferences on Missionary Linguistics, Hong Kong/ Macau, 12–15 March 2005, Valladolid, 8–11 March 2006. Amster-dam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins (Studies in the History of the Language Sciences 111). 59–74.

Grotzfeld, Heinz. 1964. Laut- und Formenlehre des Damaszenisch-Arabischen. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner GmbH (Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes XXXV,3).

——. 1965. Syrisch-arabische Grammatik (Dialekt von Damaskus). Wiesbaden: Otto Harras-sowitz (Porta Linguarum Orientalium, neue Serie 7).

Hovdhaugen, Even. 1996. ‘Missionary Grammars: An attempt at defĳining a fĳield of research’. Hovdhaugen, Even (ed.), . . . and the Word was God. Missionary Linguistics and Mission-ary Grammar. Münster: Nodus Publikationen (Studium Sprachwissenschaft Beiheft 25). 9–22.

Klöter, Henning. 2011. The Language of the Sangleys. A Chinese Vernacular in Missionary Sources of the Seventeenth Century. Leiden & Boston: Brill. (Sinica Leidensia 98)

Law, Vivien. 2003. The History of Linguistics in Europe: From Plato to 1600. Cambridge: Cam-bridge University Press.

Lentin, Jerôme. 2006. ‘Damascus Arabic’. Versteegh, Kees (ed.), Encyclopedia of Arabic Lan-guage and Linguistics. Vol. I, A-Ed. Leiden: E.J. Brill. 546–555.

Lepschy, Giulio (ed). 1998. History of Linguistics. Vol. 3. Renaissance and Early Modern Lin-guistics. London and New York: Longman (Longman linguistics library).

Löhr, Max. 1905. Der vulgärarabische Dialekt von Jerusalem nebst Text und Wörterverzeich-nis. Giessen: Alfred Töpelmann.

Lourido Díaz, Ramón. 2005. ‘Estudio preliminar’. In: Fr. Bernardino González, OFM (c. 1665–c. 1735). Intérprete arábico, epítome de la gramática arábiga [obras manu-scritas]. Madrid: Real Academia de la Historia/ Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores y de Cooperación.

——. 2006. El estudio del árabe entre los Franciscanos españoles en Tierra Santa (Siglos XVII–XIX). Madrid: Editorial Cisneros.

Norman, Jerry 1988. Chinese. Cambridge, etc.: Cambridge University Press (Cambridge lan-guage surveys).



Norton, F.J. 1978. A Descriptive Catalogue of Printing in Spain and Portugal 1501–1520. Cam-bridge, New York, Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.

Padley, G.A. 1988. Grammatical Theory in Western Europe 1500–1700. Trends in vernacular grammar. Vol. 2. Cambridge, etc.: Cambridge University Press.

Piemontese, Angelo M. 1996. ‘Grammatica e lessicografĳia araba in Italia dal XVI al XVII secolo’. Tavoni, Mirko (ed.), Italia ed Europa nella linguistica del Rinascimento: confronti e relazioni / Italy and Europe in Renaissance Linguistics: Comparisons and relations. Atti del Convegno Internazionale, Ferrara, Palazzo Paradiso, 20–24 marzo 1991. Vol. 2: L’Italia e l’Europa non romanza. Le lingue orientali. Modena: Franco Cosimo Panini. 519–532.

Schreyer, Rüdiger. 1992. The European Discovery of Chinese (1550–1615) or the Mistery of Chi-nese unveiled. Amsterdam: Stichting Neerlandistiek (Cahiers voor Taalkunde 5).

South Coblin, W. 2000. ‘A Brief History of Mandarin’. Journal of the American Oriental Soci-ety 120: 4. 537–552.

Stowasser, Karl and Moukhtar Ani. 1964. A Dictionary of Syrian Arabic (dialect of Damas-cus): English–Arabic. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press (Arabic series 5).

Woidich, Manfred and Liesbeth Zack. ‘The g/ǧ-question in Egyptian Arabic revisited.’ Enam Al-Wer and Rudolf de Jong (eds.), Arabic Dialectology. In Honour of Clive Holes on the Occasion of his Sixtieth Birthday. Leiden, Boston: Brill (Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics 53). 41–60.

Zack, Liesbeth. 2009. Egyptian Arabic in the Seventeenth Century: a study and edition of Yūsuf al-Maġribi’s Dafʿ al-iṣr ʿan kalām ahl Miṣr. Utrecht: LOT (LOT 199).

Zwartjes, Otto. 2007a. ‘Inflection and Government in Arabic according to Spanish Mission-ary Grammarians from Damascus (XVIIIth century): Grammars at the crossroads of two systems?’ Ditters, Everhard and Motzki, Harald (eds.), Approaches to Arabic Linguistics. Presented to Kees Versteegh on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday. Leiden & Boston: Brill (Studies in Semitic languages and linguistics 49). 209–244.

——. 2007b. ‘Agreement Asymmetry in Arabic according to Spanish Missionary Gram-marians from Damascus (18th century)’. Zwartjes, Otto, James, Gregory and Ridruejo, Emilio (eds.), Missionary Linguistics III/ Lingüística Misionera III. Morphology and Syn-tax. Selected papers from the Third and Fourth International Conferences on Missionary Linguistics, Hong Kong/ Macau, 12–15 March 2005, Valladolid, 8–11 March 2006. Amster-dam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. (Studies in the History of the Language Sciences 111). 273–303.

——. 2007c. ‘Review’. Lourido Díaz (2005 and 2006). Aljamía 19. 451–471.——. 2011. Portuguese Missionary Grammars in Asia, Africa and Brazil, 1550–1800. Amster-

dam & Phildelphia: John Benjamins. (Studies in the History of the Language Sciences 117).

damascus arabic according to the compendio of lucas caballero (1709)

Documents