Jewish Neo-Aramaic - Zakho
Description by Akito Miura, Cole Schindler, and Connor Storey compiled for a class assignment
Brief Historical Overview
Zakho Jewish Neo-Aramaic was primarily spoken in Iraq and today is only really spoken in Israel after the Jews of Zakho moved in two different stages, one wave during the early 1920s and a different wave in the 1950s (Sabar 1975c: 489). Some of them moved in the 1920s before the establishment of the state of Israel (when the country was still Palestine), but most of them moved during the years 1950-52 after Israel was established (Sabar 1975c: 489).
These two migrations were the biggest events in the language history of Zakho Jewish Neo-Aramaic, as they caused almost all of its speakers to leave their original land of Zakho and move to present-day Israel. This caused the decline and endangerment of Jewish Neo-Aramaic, as the speakers of this language started to speak more Israeli Hebrew than their original language. This trend is especially prominent in the younger generations of this community, who speak very little Aramaic today (Sabar 1975c: 489).
Zakho Jewish Neo-Aramaic belongs to the North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic (NENA) group of Neo-Aramaic languages. The NENA group can be further divided into two subgroups: Lišana Deni subgroup and Trans-Zab subgroup. The former, to which the Zakho dialect belongs, contains NENA dialects that were mainly spoken in the northwest of Iraq and west of the Great Zab river (Khan 2018: 6). The Trans-Zab dialects, on the other hand, were mainly spoken east of the Great Zab river (Mutzafi 2008b).
Regarding documentary evidence, there is only a limited number of written documents of the Jewish Neo-Aramaic group as a whole. There are some written records, mainly manuscripts of homilies and Bible translations, but the dialects were mainly transmitted orally (Khan 2018: 12).
Quick facts
Names of language:
Jewish Neo-Aramaic dialect of Zakho, Zakho Jewish Neo-Aramaic, Lišan Hozaye (which means "the language of the Jews"), Zakho dialect, Jewish Neo-Aramaic, Aramaic
Territories where it was/is spoken:
Originated: Zakho, Iraq
Today: Israel
Estimated # speakers:
1900: unknown
Today: ~50,000? (majority of speakers are over 55 years old)
Vitality:
Endangered
Writing systems:
Hebrew alphabet, but spelling is not standardized and variable
Literature:
Mostly manuscripts of homilies and Bible translations
Language family/branch:
Afro-Asiatic → Semitic → Central Semitic → Northwest Semitic → Aramaic → Eastern Aramaic → North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic → Lišana Deni
There has been some research on the Zakho dialect of Jewish Neo-Aramaic. Serious documentation of the North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic dialects like the Zakho dialect only started in the second half of the 19th century, with systematic work only beginning in the late 20th century (Khan 2018: 12).
Where did the Zakho dialect originate?
Map 1: Jewish Neo-Aramaic area (Khan 2018: 11)
The root of Zakho Jewish Neo-Aramaic lies in Zakho, which is located in today's northern part of Iraq (Khan 2018: 2). Today, however, it is believed that there is no speaker of Jewish Neo-Aramaic in this area (Sabar 1975c: 489).
So what happened to the Zakho dialect speakers? The answer is in the next section!
Talking to a speaker of the Zakho dialect and a descendant of the speaker
During our research, we had an opportunity to interview a speaker of Zakho Jewish Neo-Aramaic, Moti Gabay. Moti’s family moved to Israel from Zakho in 1951. As a first-generation immigrant born in Israel, Hebrew was the first language he learned, and it remains his strongest language. He did not speak Jewish Neo-Aramaic until he decided to learn the language himself. Today, he speaks five languages: Hebrew, Neo-Aramaic, Spanish, Arabic, and English.
Through our conversation with Moti, we learned about the low status of Jewish Neo-Aramaic in Israel. Hebrew, the most prestigious language in Israel, superseded Jewish Neo-Aramaic and most other Diaspora Jewish languages, leading to their endangerment. The biggest factors causing this endangerment are migration (remoteness from their original land is weakening their connection to the language) and the desire for assimilation into Israeli society, whose primary language is Hebrew. The prestige of Hebrew has led to the stigma of old languages, causing the older generation to stop passing on their original language to their children. Even Moti, who is a first-generation immigrant with parents who are native Neo-Aramaic speakers, was not taught the Zakho dialect until he asked them to, showing the low value given to the dialect within the community.
This trend continues and becomes more prominent in the younger generations, as revealed by our interaction with a descendant of a native speaker of Aramaic, Ariel Sabar. Ariel is a son of a Kurdistani Jewish father who migrated from Zakho to Israel to the U.S., where Ariel grew up (Los Angeles). Excluding his father, who has dedicated his life to researching and preserving Jewish Neo-Aramaic, Ariel told us how most of his family possesses a feeling of stigma towards the language, as it reminds them of the horrible place that they came from. Most of his family members think it is a waste of time to do anything with the language (studying, learning, or working to preserve it), encouraging the younger generations learn more practical majority languages like Hebrew and English. Ariel is not an exception, as he never learned Jewish Neo-Aramaic as his family thought it was better for him to just learn other major languages like Hebrew (he did not recognize any of the Zakho Jewish Neo-Aramaic words/phrases in the Elicitation Table; he only knew words/phrases from Hebrew).
As a result, there are almost no young Zakho Jewish Neo-Aramaic speakers, as most of the speakers are over 50 years old. However, he did share a few Aramaic words he learned from his father, such as bimbe (stomach), bisho (bath), and chopchapiske (butterfly). He also remembers the phrase "Lacho chimindi" which means 'you haven’t eaten anything,' something his grandmother would say in a joking manner every time when he said he was full from eating (Note: The spelling of these words might be inaccurate). Although he does not speak the language itself, these are important words that are deeply connected to his childhood memory. Today, he only uses these words when he is joking with his father, and he never uses them in interactions with non-native speakers, unless people ask him to pronounce certain words in interviews or at events.
Both Moti and Ariel think that there is no chance of revitalization of the Zakho dialect, as all of the language’s speakers are scattered in the U.S. or Israel and are not teaching their kids the language. Despite this, they both think it is important to try to preserve the language as much as possible because it represents the culture and history of the Jews of Zakho. Ariel's book My Father's Paradise: A Son's Search For His Family's Past and Moti's YouTube videos on Aramaic are just some examples of their contributions to preserving the language. In addition to preserving the language, Moti is working hard to make sure the Zakho dialect is recognized as “Jewish Neo-Aramaic,” as some Israelis mistakenly think that the language is Kurdish, a language that belongs to the Iranian family. This confusion is most likely due to the Jews of Zakho being called “Kurdish” in Israel, causing Israelis to think the language they speak is Kurdish.
Non-Jewish Correlate
The coterritorial non-Jewish language variety of Zakho Jewish Neo-Aramaic is Christian Neo-Aramaic, which belongs to the same language family as the Zakho dialect: North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic (NENA) subgroup of Neo-Aramaic (Khan 2018: 10). How similar are Zakho Jewish Neo-Aramaic and Christian Neo-Aramaic?
Below are the translations of the sentence “I understand your language” in both dialects:
-
“Ana fahmen lishana didokh'' (Zakho Jewish Neo-Aramaic)
-
“Ana farmen lishanokh'' (Christian Neo-Aramaic)
Despite the small differences like how each dialect refers to the word language (Zakho Neo-Aramaic uses the word “lishana” which means “language,” while the Christian Neo-Aramaic uses the word “lishanokh,” which means “your language”), the two dialects are similar. This example was provided to us by Moti, a speaker of Zakho Neo-Aramaic, who confirmed that the two dialects are mutually intelligible to a reasonable extent, saying that he could understand 90-95% of Christian Neo-Aramaic.
Diving deeper into the similarities between the two dialects, there are many features that show that they belong to the same North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic. Below are some examples of the shared features.
-
Replacement of the finite verbal forms of earlier Aramaic such as yiqtul (prefix-conjugation) and qtal (suffix-conjugation) (Khan 2018: 17)
-
Shared lexical innovations such as baxta (woman) (Khan 2018: 17)
There are, however, some differences between two dialects, as seen in the following examples.
-
All Jewish North-East Neo-Aramaic dialects, including the Zakho dialect, use ruwwa for the adjective ‘big,’ while Christian dialects use ruwwe (Khan 2018: 18) .
-
Jewish dialects have the distinctive feature of an independent genitive pronominal form that does not exist in Christian dialects. Pronominal suffixes are added to the base did- (e.g., did-e) in the singular form and to the base d- in the plural form (e.g., d-ohun) (Khan 2018: 19).
Overall, however, the two dialects are very similar to each other, making them mutually intelligible to a reasonably high extent.
Hebrew Component
Hebrew influences are prominent in all Jewish Neo-Aramaic dialects, including in Zakho. This Hebrew component existed before the speakers’ migration to Israel (Sabar 1975a, 1975b, 2013a, 2013b), due to Jews' continued engagement with Hebrew texts for prayer and study.
A sound shift that occurred earlier in history caused the pharyngeals *ḥ and *ʿ to shift to /x/ and /’/ respectively in the Zakho dialect, but this sound shift did not apply to Hebrew-origin words (Khan 2018: 25). As a result, words coming from Hebrew have retained the *ḥ and *ʿ sounds, as seen in the examples below.
-
Aramaic *ḥamša 'five' is pronounced xamša (Khan 2018: 25)
-
Hebrew-origin ḥámmaš 'Pentateuch' (from חֻמָּשׁ) retains the *ḥ sound (Khan 2018: 25)
There is another example of sounds unique to Hebrew-origin words in Zakho Jewish Neo-Aramaic and that is the fricative sound. In the Zakho dialect, frictive *g has been lost and shifted to /’/ in the course of history except for Hebrew words of the Hebrew component (Khan 2018: 25). This can be seen in the following example.
-
Aramaic: historical fricative *ḡ has been lost, as seen in šrāʾa 'lamp' (< *šrāḡā) (Khan 2018: 25)
-
Hebrew word: gimel rafeh is pronounced as a frictive, like in ʿaġala 'purification of utensils for Passover' (from הַגְעָלָה) (Khan 2018: 25)
As seen in the examples above, there are many Hebrew loanwords in Zakho Jewish Neo-Aramaic with different pronunciations from Christian Neo-Aramaic pronunciation. In Jewish communities, Hebrew is considered a symbolic, sacred language, representing authenticity. It is possible that this language ideology caused Jews to maintain the “authentic” sounds for the Hebrew loanwords, preventing them from phonologically integrating fully into Neo-Aramaic.
In addition to phonological influences of Hebrew components in Zakho Jewish Neo-Aramaic, we also see morphosyntactic influence. For example, some nouns coming from Hebrew have retained their original Hebrew plural form and accent, while others use the Neo-Aramaic plural suffix (Khan 2018: 27). Below are two examples of Hebrew plural form and Neo-Aramaic plural form:
-
məṣwṓṯ / məṣwye 'precepts' (Khan 2018: 27)
-
malʾāxm / malʾáxe 'angels' (Khan 2018: 27)
Additionally, some Hebrew words (nouns and adjectives) are combined with light verbs, like p-y-š nifṭar 'to die' (literally 'to become deceased'), being integrated into periphrastic verbal expressions (Khan 2004: 14).
As seen, Hebrew loanwords have been prominent in Zakho Jewish Neo-Aramaic. They are integrated phonologically and morphologically to a certain extent, with many Hebrew loanwords still maintaining their original sound and forms.
Influences from other contact languages
As mentioned earlier, Zakho Jewish Neo-Aramaic belongs to the North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic branch, whose languages have been influenced by contact languages such as Kurdish and Azeri Turkish (Khan 2018: 28). Out of the two subgroups of the North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic branch, Trans-Zab shows a greater influence from these contact languages (Khan 2018: 28). We were not able to find examples of influences of contact languages in Lišana Deni, but we were able to find examples found in the Trans-Zab dialects like Jewish Sanandaj and Jewish Urmi. These dialects contain many loanwords from their contact languages such as Kurdish, Azeri Turkish, and Persian.
For example, in Jewish Urmi, there is an Azeri Turkish loanword kəprəg ('eyelash') and a Kurdish loanword daa ('mother') (Khan 2018: 28). Similarly, in Jewish Sanandaj, there are loanwords from Kurdish like tarzăka ('hail') and loanwords from Persian such as təf ('spit') (Khan 2018: 28).
The influence of contact languages in Trans-Zab dialects is even greater outside of the core vocabulary, as a study has calculated that 69% of the total lexicon of nouns and loanwords are from contact languages in the Jewish Urmi dialect (Garbell 1965); other Trans-Zab dialects are thought to have a similar proportion of loanwords from contact languages. This is a natural result of language contact.
Archaic Features
For the archaic features, we will again use an example from the Trans-Zab group. The Trans-Zab group can be divided into the Iraq subgroup (whose original heartland is in Iraq) and the Iran subgroup, which is further divided into the northwestern Iran subgroup and the western Iran subgroup (Khan 2018: 19-20). The Iraq subgroup is structurally more diverse and exhibits more conservative (archaic) features than the dialects in the Iran subgroup (Khan 2018: 20).
One example of the conservative features found in the Iraq subgroup is its retention of the archaic form of the infinitive of the simplex form (historically peʿal), while the dialects in the Iran subgroup levels with the infinitive of the derived causative form (historically ‘apʿel) (Khan 2018: 22).
-
Iraq (Jewish Arbel):
-
Simplex: CCaCa
-
Causative: maCCoCe
-
-
Northwestern Iran (Jewish Urmi)
-
Simplex: CaCoCe
-
Causative: maCCoCe
-
-
Western Iran (Jewish Sanandaj)
-
Simplex: CaCoCe
-
Causative: maCCoCe
-
Another archaic feature found in the Iraq subgroup is the occurrence of oblique marking of the subject of past perfective verbs in both transitive and intransitive clauses (Khan 2018: 22). On the other hand, in western Iran subgroup dialects, transitive verbs are marked by oblique ergative suffix, while interansitive verbs are marked by direct nominative suffixes, showing a more canonical alignment profile (Khan 2018: 23).
-
Iraq (Jewish Arbel)
-
griš-li 'I pulled' (transitive)
-
qim-li 'I rose' (intransitive)
-
-
Western Iran (Jewish Sanandaj)
-
grəš-li 'I pulled' (transitive)
-
qim-na 'I rose' (intransitive)
-
Migrated Regionalism
The fact that Jewish Neo-Aramaic dialects across the Kurdish region are more similar to each other than the local variety of Christian Neo-Aramaic represents migrated regionalism. For example, the Jewish dialect of Betanure exhibits more similarities with two other Lišana Deni dialects (the Jewish dialects of Amedia and Nerwa) than its neighboring Christan Barwar dialect (Khan 2018: 17-18). Below are two examples (Khan 2018: 18).
-
'Last year' is šetət wirra in the Christan Barwar dialect (Khan 2008) while it is šətqel in Jewish dialects of Betanure (Mutzafi 2008a), Amedia (Greenblatt 2011), and Nerwa (Greenblatt 2011).
-
Christian Barwar has maintained balota ('throat') (Khan 2008) while the Jewish dialects of Betanure (Mutzafi 2008a), Amedia (Greenblatt 2011), and Nerwa (Greenblatt 2011) have shifted to balo’ta.
Orthography
There is no official writing system for Jewish Neo-Aramaic, so speakers of the language that wish to write in it must phonetically spell out the words using the Hebrew alphabet. Because of this, many words are spelled differently by different people, as they sound out the word differently. One speaker states that “there are no rules” to the writing of Zakho Jewish Neo-Aramaic. Despite slight variations in spelling, a speaker will easily be able to read and understand the writing of another speaker.
Sociolinguistic Variation
Inter-speaker Variation
The way speakers of the Zakho dialect use the language, like other Neo-Aramaic dialects, varies depending on the gender of the speaker. It can be observed that older women’s speech patterns differ from those of men’s in regards to the phonological feature of suprasegmental emphasis (Kahn 2018: 15). Whereas the women extend this feature of suprasegmental emphasis to all words in the language, men tend to differentiate between emphatic and plain speech formulae (Kahn 2018: 15).
Usage of the language also varies depending on the immigration history of the speaker. Elderly Aramaic-speaking Israeli citizens (age 75 and up), who are mostly immigrants to Israel from Iran and Iraq, use Aramaic mostly with their own peers, primarily in intimate and personal relations, such as with a spouse when at home, at parties, with relatives, friends, ethnic celebrations, etc. (Sabar 1975c: 491). Middle-aged speakers, who are mostly the children of immigrants (55-75), tend to have passive understanding of Aramaic but use it less. When they do use it, they use far more Hebrew loanwords than their parents used (Sabar 1975c: 489-491).
As mentioned above, the two main immigration groups in the 1920s and 1950-52 resulted in two unique groups of Aramaic-speaking immigrants. The newer immigrants, who came after the establishment of Israel, benefited from improved economic and educational conditions in the country, and thus become better educated, in turn becoming better off financially and more integrated into Israeli society (Sabar 1975c: 490). While descendants of the older immigrants may still use Palestinian Arabic loanwords (extremely sparingly), for example, ma'leš, ('it does not matter'), descendants of newer immigrants use more Hebrew loanwords in their speech (Sabar 1975c: 490).
Intra-speaker Variation
Users of the Zakho dialect of Jewish Neo-Aramaic would sometimes speak in a secret language in order to prevent non-Jews from understanding them. For example, merchants that wished to communicate with each other at work while in the presence of Aramaic-speaking Christians would add more Hebrew influences in order to throw off anyone that they did not want to understand them (Kahn 2018: 27). One way they did this is through morphology: adding the Hebrew suffix -ím to specify plurality and replacing the final vowel of Neo-Aramaic infinitive forms with it (e.g., šaqolé ['to buy'] would become šaqolím! ['Buy it!']). This trend of replacing Aramaic words that would be mutually intelligible across Aramaic languages with Hebrew and Rabbinic Aramaic expressions extends beyond just merchants to all Jews.
Contemporary Status
While the exact number of speakers is unknown, upon being asked, a speaker of Zakho Jewish Neo-Aramaic estimated that there are no more than 50,000 left. Nearly all are above the age of 55. All speakers of the language live in Israel today. The vast majority of immigrants moved to and still live in Jerusalem, often sticking together in communities (Sabar 1975c: 489). Many of the descendants of immigrants that came in the 1920s live near Mahane-Yehuda, and the majority of the descendants of the newer immigrants live in the Katamonim neighborhood (Sabar 1975c: 489).
Today, vernacular engagement with Zakho Jewish Neo-Aramaic is mostly limited to interactions between old speakers in Israel (those who immigrated from Zakho to Israel; aged 75 years old and up). Some middle-aged adults (55-75 years old) speak it only when they are communicating with the old speakers, and the younger generation speaks very little but might understand it to some extent (Sabar 1975c: 489).
There is post-vernacular engagement with the language through preservation efforts by native and non-native speakers alike. One example of this is the existence of a WhatsApp group full of Jewish Neo-Aramaic enthusiasts - including both speakers and descendants of speakers who do not speak fluently - that hope to preserve and promote the language.
Elicitation Table
How do you say these words in the Zakho dialect?
We asked a speaker of Zakho Jewish Neo-Aramaic to translate English words into the Zakho dialect. Check the table below to see if you recognize any words! Hebrew loanwords are underlined.
Check out a funny joke!
“Ku min reshi did la marchinokh”
→ Translation: “Get [lift] me up, if not, I will smash you”
In this joke, there is the weak and the strong. The weak is on the ground while the strong is sitting above him, at a higher level. The weak demands that the strong one lift him up to his level, threatening that he will hurt the strong one if the demand is not met. However, when you think about it, the weak one is not even able to “smash” the strong one because he is at the lower level and unable to reach the higher level by himself. The weak one is foolishly acting like he is the more powerful one, which makes it funny. The joke is mainly used to mock individuals in a lower position that are foolishly acting as if they are in a higher position.
Passover Haggadah in Neo-Aramaic
Selected Bibliography
-
As if we ourselves were taken out of Mitzrayim... Sefaria. (n.d.). Retrieved April 17, 2022, from https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/9166.2?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en
-
Benor, Sarah Bunin, ed. 2002-present. Jewish Language Website. Los Angeles: Jewish Language Project. Jewishlanguages.org.
-
Discourse 48: “in each and every ... - chabad lubavitch. Chabad.org. (n.d.). Retrieved April 17, 2022, from https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/82260/jewish/Discourse-48.htm
-
Garbell, Irene. 1965. The impact of Kurdish and Turkish on the Jewish Neo-Aramaic dialect of Persian Azerbaijan and the adjoining regions. Journal of the American Oriental Society 85(2). 159–177.
-
Greenblatt, Jared R. 2011. The Jewish Neo-Aramaic dialect of Amadiya (Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics). Leiden: Brill.
-
Khan, Geoffrey. 2004. The Jewish Neo-Aramaic dialect of Sulemaniyya and Ḥalabja. (Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics). Leiden: Brill.
-
Khan, Geoffrey. 2008. The Neo-Aramaic dialect of Barwar. Leiden: Brill
-
Khan, Geoffrey. 2018. Jewish Neo-Aramaic in Kurdistan and Iran. In Languages in Jewish Communities, Past and Present, ed. Benjamin Hary and Sarah Bunin Benor, 9–34. Berlin: De Gruyter.
-
Mutzafi, Hezy. 2008a. The Jewish Neo-Aramaic dialect of Betanure (province of Dihok). (Semitica Viva). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.
-
Mutzafi, Hezy. 2008b. Trans-Zab Jewish Neo-Aramaic. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 71(3). 409–431.
-
Sabar, Ariel. 2009. My Father's Paradise: A Son's Search for His Family's Past. Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill.
-
Sabar, Yona. 1975a. The Hebrew elements in the Aramaic dialect of the Jews of Kurdistan. Lĕšonénu 38. 206–219. [Hebrew].
-
Sabar, Yona. 1975b. The Hebrew elements in the Neo-Aramaic dialect of the Jews of Azerbaijan. Lĕšonénu 39. 272–294. [Hebrew].
-
Sabar, Yona. 1975c. “The Impact of Israeli Hebrew on the Neo-Aramaic Dialect of the Kurdish Jews of Zakho: A Case of Language Shift.” Hebrew Union College Annual 46: 489–508.
-
Sabar, Yona. 2013a. Modern Jewish Aramaic, Hebrew component in. In Geoffrey Khan, Shmuel Bolozky, Steven E. Fassberg, Gary A. Rendsburg, Aaron D. Rubin, Ora R. Schwartzwald, and Tamar Zewi (eds.), Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics. Leiden & Boston: Brill.
-
Sabar, Yona. 2013b. Kurdistan, pronunciation tradition. In Geoffrey Khan, Shmuel Bolozky, Steven E. Fassberg, Gary A. Rendsburg, Aaron D. Rubin, Ora R. Schwartzwald, and Tamar Zewi (eds.), Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Linguistics. Leiden & Boston: Brill.