Towards a Typology of Possessors and Experiencers in Neo-Aramaic: Non-Canonical Subjects as Relics of a Former Dative Case

Paul M. Noorlander

Introduction1

Predicative possessors and impersonal experiencer constructions are encoded by the dative preposition l- across Semitic languages, in addition to Aramaic, Hebrew (e.g. Berman 1982) and Syrian Arabic (e.g. Cowell 1964; Al-Zahre and Boneh 2010, 250). Like most non-European languages, Semitic languages do not have a designated possession verb. Predicative possessors equivalent to English have are based on locational expressions of prepositional possessor (Stassen 2009), as illustrated for Hebrew in (1a-b) below.

Predicative possessors are originally intransitive constructions where the existential element agrees or used to agree with the possessee. It is a common phenomenon, sometimes termed ‘have-drift’ (Stassen 2009), that predicative possession undergoes transitivisation by assimilation of its morphosyntax to that of more typical and frequent agent-patient verb constructions because of their matching semantic-pragmatic properties (Stassen 2009, 208–43). While the agent-like possessor is still prepositional, the possessee has grammaticalised to a full-fledged object in colloquial Israeli Hebrew. It can be marked differentially by the object marker et, for example:

Similarly, the preposition l- expresses the experiencer in impersonal experiencer verb constructions, as illustrated for Israeli Hebrew in (1e-f). The adjective or verb denoting the mental state is non-referential ms., while the subject-like experiencer is introduced by l-.

The same preposition can also mark so-called external possessors. The possessor is not dependent on the nominal possessee itself but is expressed as an affectee part of the verbal predicate, for example:

Such prepositional arguments can also be optionally added to co-refer to the subject with various semantic nuances such as (1i) below. Such subject-coreferential datives are also known as ethic or ethical datives (dativus ethicus) in Semitic linguistics2.

All of these constructions are, of course, semantically and formally related to the expression of the recipient of ditransitive constructions in denoting often highly animate, typically human affectees (e.g. Berman 1989, 49; Næss 2007, 185–208).

Such subject-like prepositional affectees have been argued to be a common trait of Northwest Semitic (e.g. Pat-El 2018). Both full nominals and pronouns are marked prepositionally in all of the constructions illustrated above. Most Semitic languages lost case inflection presumably through phonetic erosion and other forces of change such as increasing fixation of word order. Thus instead of case declensions Neo-Semitic languages use zero-marked nouns and independent pronouns as the default citation form. They developed differential marking strategies of definite nominals, including cross-referencing through pronominal affixes.3

Typically, the predicative possessor and the experiencer of impersonal experiencer verb constructions are marked by the same preposition l- and its allomorphs in Late Antique Aramaic languages such as Syriac. A key difference in Syriac is the optional use of additional ‘pronominal copies’. That is, prepositional person markers that cross-reference a co-nominal. In (2a) below, for example, the prepositional possessor (l-ḡaḇrå ḥaḏ) is referred back to by a prepositional person marker (l-eh). The same holds for the experiencer in (2b).

The possessor is stripped of its prepositional marking and becomes a zero-marked noun or pronoun, when it undergoes topicalisation. Its grammatical function as possessor or experiencer has to be resumed by the prepositional person marker such as l-eh in the following examples.

Such agreement markers emerge out of topicalisation constructions through increasing obligatorisation (e.g. Givón 1976; Lehmann 1988, 62; cf. Diem 2012; Mor and Pat-El 2016) and accordingly transitivisation (see above). That is, the clause-initial position without prepositional marking is favoured for discourse topics. This position grammaticalises for ‘non-canonical’ subjects on the model of the ‘canonical’ subject in other clauses (i.e. transitivitisation) where sentence-initial position of the subject has become the default position. The remaining cross-referencing prepositional pronoun becomes effectively an inflectional cross-index like verbal affixes.

Neo-Aramaic languages have a set of person markers generally known as the L-suffixes that historically go back to such dative person markers based on the preposition l-. In a similar fashion as (2c-d) above, these L-suffixes are used to express the predicative possessor and impersonal experiencer, for example in the dialects of Ṭur ʿAbdin, i.e. Ṭuroyo (3a-b), and Christian dialect of Urmia, i.e. C. Urmi, (4a-b):

This article is a comparative survey of the morphological properties of such possessors and experiencers in Neo-Aramaic, concentrating on North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic (NENA) and Central Neo-Aramaic (i.e. Ṭuroyo and Mlaḥsó). Some comparative remarks concerning Western Neo-Aramaic will also be made. The data are mostly from NENA and Ṭuroyo grammatical descriptions4 and fieldwork I conducted personally in the diaspora or in collaboration with G. Khan and/or D. Molin in Iraq5 and with D. Molin in Jerusalem. There are notable differences and resemblances across Neo-Aramaic dialects, some of which go back to pre-modern Aramaic.

As the term used for these person markers already suggests, the L-suffixes are no longer prepositional in nature but have become inflectional suffixes. While their use in these constructions is still reminiscent of a formerly dative case, synchronically, they are no longer prepositional but serve to cross-index arguments in the clause. Obligatorisation of such cross-indexing is a well-known feature of the ‘canonical’ subject relation (e.g. Keenan 1976; Onishi 2001) contrary to objects, the marking of which remains conditioned by discourse-referential properties (e.g. Haig 2018a). Do these L-suffixes express a ‘non-canonical’ subject? To what extent have these L-suffixes become obligatory? And to what extent do they still interact with prepositional arguments? As we shall see, dialects have different strategies and not all of them operate on the same level as (2c-d) above.

First, we shall briefly review verbal inflection and how the recipient is expressed in ditransitive constructions. These findings are compared with the morphosyntax of predicative possessors and (impersonal) experiencer verb constructions in both subgroups of Neo-Aramaic.

1. A Synopsis of Argument Marking in NENA and Ṭuroyo

1.1. Role Reference Inversion

Verbal person marking in NENA and Ṭuroyo is considerably complex and cannot be treated in full detail here.6 Historically, verbal inflection goes back to participial constructions that combined with clitic person markers. Two sets of person markers are used. They will be referred to as the E-suffixes and L-suffixes, which are respectively diachronically enclitic pronouns and participial agreement (E-suffixes) and prepositional pronouns based on l (L-suffixes). These are attached to the following inflectional bases. The imperfective base is derived from the active participle and the perfective base is derived from a verbal adjective that expressed result states. I will refer to themas qaṭəl- (< *qāṭel-) and qṭil- respectively after the inflection of stem I strong verbs. The NENA qaṭəl-base corresponds to Ṭuroyo qoṭəl-, where *ā has shifted to /o/ in open syllables. A so-called neuter class of mainly intransitive verbs in Ṭuroyo follows the pattern C1aC2iC3 in the perfective, such as damixo ‘she slept’ for dmx. Historically, this goes back to a verbal adjective with a geminate second consonant, e.g. *dammīḵ ‘asleep’, which should not be confused with NENA qaṭəl-.

Transitive clauses show a type of role reference inversion7 conditioned by these inflectional bases (Noorlander forthcoming). The roles that the E-suffixes and L-suffixes refer to are different depending whether they attach to the imperfective or perfective base. This can be seen, for instance, in the following examples from Amidya (NW Iraq). While the L-suffixes mark the object in the qaṭəl-base for the verb šmʾ ‘hear’, they mark the agent in the qṭil-base, and vice versa for the E-series.

Prominent objects are marked differentially via cross-indexing and/or prepositional marking. The definite object in (7) below, for instance, is marked consistently by the preposition (ʾəl)l- and triggers agreement throughout the constructional qaṭəl-/qṭil-split. In (7a), however, the L-suffix attached to qaṭəl- cross-indexes the object, whereas the E-suffix attached to qṭil- does so in in (7b).

In addition, agent focus can be expressed optionally by means of the preposition (e)l- combined with the agreement through L-suffixes in Ṭuroyo. The prepositional marking of the object and the agent are both optional. Additional cross-indexing of a prominent object is also optional in Ṭuroyo.8 Contrast (8a) with (8b) below. Type (8b) is peculiar to the dialect of Raite (Waltisberg 2016, 186f.). Both can also be lacking altogether, as illustrated in (8c). The L-suffix that expresses the agent, however, is obligatory, cf. (8d) and (8e) below. Hence optional ergative prepositional marking is always accompanied by an agent L-suffix as illustrated in (8c).

Thus both the nominal and verbal marking of objects is conditioned by the discourse salience of the argument. The verbal agreement with the agent, however, is obligatory. The prepositional marking of the agent is optional only in the preterite in Ṭuroyo.

1.3. Semi-Clitic L-Suffixes and Ditransitive Verbs

The L-suffixes show lingering features of their enclitic origin (Doron and Khan 2012, 231). First of all, they allow tense morphemes like -wa- to intervene, e.g.

Secondly, verbs generally only take one object affix. There are a number of dialects, however, that allow a verb to take more than one L-suffix, i.e. to stack L-suffixes. This occurs across the constructional split illustrated above. Thus, the first L-suffix always marks the (T)heme, i.e. the entity transferred to somebody, and the second marks the (R)recipient role in the qaṭəl-base inflection. Example (10) illustrates this where the first L-suffix -nay (i.e. maxzən-+ -lay → maxzən-nay) expresses the T and the second L-suffix -lux expresses the R. This is generally only allowed when the T is third person.9

In a number of dialects, a second L-suffix is added to the perfective to express the R. Thus we find perfective forms in dialects like C. Marga such as (11) below where the first L-suffix -li (i.e. mər- + -li → mər-ri) marks the A, but the second one, -lux, marks the R.

Moreover, stacking of L-suffixes may occur even when the T is marked by the E-suffixes such as -a in (12) below.

This is also attested for rural dialects in Ṭuroyo (cf. Ritter 1990, 75), for example:

Ṭuroyo, however, prefers an unmarked set of bound person markers10 to express third person Ts11 when both the T and R are bound pronouns, as exemplified in (13b) below.

In addition, a prepositional indirect object construction is available to all persons as well as all types of full nominals. Various dialect-dependent prepositions are used to mark the R independently of the verb. The respective preposition will vary significantly across as well as within dialects. Variants of the preposition (ʾəl)l- still occur, such as:

The prepositional recipient NP can trigger additional agreement by L-suffixes on the verb, to illustrate:

Several NENA dialects, however, make use of other (novel) prepositions such as ṭ(l)a-, ta-, ba(q)-, qa- etc., for example:

Prepositional marking of the R is preferred when the T is a first or second person pronominal affix attached to the verb and when the R is a full nominal.12

Thus, full nominal recipients are generally prepositional. An extra L-suffix can express pronominal recipients in both NENA and Ṭuroyo for both the qaṭəl- and qṭil-based person marking. When the verb selects an additional L-suffix, it is confined to recipients found throughout the verbal system in Ṭuroyo and several NENA dialects. Third person themes can be marked through a different, unmarked set of bound person markers.

When such additional L-suffixes of the first and second person are added to qṭil- in Ṭuroyo, they also express the object of monotransitive verbs, e.g. grə́š-le-li ‘He pulled me’. One cannot say **grə́š-li-le for ‘I pulled him’ (e.g. Noorlander 2018b, 340). Generally, NENA dialects do not add such object L-suffixes to qṭil-forms. Jewish dialects in Iranian Azerbaijan, however, such as Urmi and Salamas and several Christian dialects in SE Turkey such as Bohtan (Ruma; Fox 2009), Haṣṣan (Jastrow 1997; Damsma forthcoming), Umṛa and Jənnet (Noorlander field notes) use the L-suffixes for objects throughout the qaṭəl-/qṭil-split, i.e. grə́š-li-le ‘I pulled him’, cf. garš-ax-le ‘We pull him’.13

The preterite illustrated in (6) above is known as the šmīʿ l- or qṭīl l-construction in Aramaic studies. Historically, it goes back to the resultative participle and an agent-like argument marked by l- . It developed from a stative-resultative to a preterite via a perfect. Views diverge as to its exact interpretation. It has been connected with possessors, experiencers and subject co-referential datives.14 It lies beyond the scope of this article to address this issue here. It should be noted, however, that, while a connection between these ‘non-canonical’ subject construction types and the šmiʿ l-constructions developing into the preterite seems plausible to me in itself, we shall see that there are important distinctions. Forms like grəš-li ‘I pulled’ consist of L-suffixes that are marked for tense-aspect. They serve as inflectional agent suffixes of the preterite based on qṭil-. This is a notable distinction from the use of L-suffixes to express affectees, since they are found across different inflections and not just the qṭil-based forms. This difference is observed above for the recipient role but also extensions thereof that are the relics of a formerly dative argument.

2. Beneficiaries and Subject Co-referential L-suffixes

2.1. Beneficiaries

Apart from recipients of ditransitive verbs, L-suffixes can be added to any monotransitive verb to express an additional R-like affectee, as if it were an additional argument of the verb. The Ṭuroyo L-suffix -lən in (16), for example, expresses a beneficiary in a construction that is clearly derived from ditransitive constructions. The same holds for -li in (17) below to illustrate this for lišana deni dialects of NENA like J. Dohok:

The T-like argument can be pronominalised through the same unmarked set as in ditransitive constructions added to the L-suffix expressing the beneficiary in Ṭuroyo, e.g.

Indeed, both the A and the R-like affectee can be l-marked and cross-referenced by L-suffixes.15 The l-marking of the A is pragmatically conditioned (agent/narrow focus), for example:

2.2. Subject Co-referential L-suffixes

An additional R-like argument expressed by the L-suffix can also denote an interested party, indirect affectee or benefactor that is co-referential with the subject. This is found across the verbal system for many telic dynamic verbs, including

Subject co-referential L-suffixes are not uncommon for verbs of position and motion in Ṭuroyo, e.g.

Indeed, co-referential L-suffixes have become special (stressed) inflectional endings in the high frequency motion verb ʾzl ‘go’ as well as the imperative forms of ʾθy ‘come’ in Ṭuroyo, replacing the original subject encoding. Because of this, the verb ʾzl has an irregular and unique inflection that is identical to the L-suffixes except for the 2pl. and 3pl., which take special endings, as shown in (22) below.

Presumably the final /l/ of the original root ʾzl played a role, yielding special endings because of the complete assimilation with the preceding /z/. The 3s forms can be enhanced with -yo, which mimics its use in ditransitive constructions and creates a penultimate stress as in the first person -no in forms like k-əzz-i-no ‘I’m going’ and k-əzz-an-o ‘We’re going’. Subject co-referential L-suffixes can even be added instead, e.g.

Importantly, no such conjugations are attested for ʾzl in the closely related Central Neo-Aramaic dialect Mlaḥsó. The imperfective and imperative do not take L-suffixes, e.g. ∅-oz-ina ‘Let’s go’ and iz-ewun ‘GoPL!’. The L-suffixes function as subject markers for the preterite, e.g. preterite azi-le ‘He went’, against the perfect azi-∅ ‘He has gone’ (Jastrow 1994, 156). Only the pl. imperative of ʾsy ‘come’ in Mlaḥsó, e.g. toxun ‘ComePL!’ does seem to parallel Ṭuroyo toxu.

Subject co-referential datives also occur in NENA dialects. This is, for instance, common in the imperative of motion verbs17, e.g. C. Urmi ta-lux ‘ComeMS!, si-lux ‘GoMS!’ (Khan 2016II:151–52). It can also combine with other verbs and verbal forms expressing a beneficiary, e.g. šqul-lux xa-dana ʾərba ‘Take a sheep for yourself’ (ibid. 152), zon-i-lay mexulta ‘They buy themselves food’, zvun-nux xaql-i ‘BuyMS (yourselfMS) my field!’ (Polotsky 1996, 37, transcription modified).

The verb ʾzl is also highly irregular in Christian NENA dialects in SE Turkay and northern Iraq, especially on the Mosul plain. Both the qaṭəl-base and qṭil-base take L-suffixes as subject coding, as shown in (25) below, including after the ‘past convertor’ -wa, e.g. k-zá-wa-la ‘She used to go’. Khan (2002, 120) assumes the base za- is a reduced form of the infinitive ʾəzála. Note also that the imperative of ʾθy ‘come’ has similarly irregular forms inflected with L-suffixes. (The imperative of ʾzl does not take L-suffixes in this dialect.)

In Western Neo-Aramaic, subject co-referential L-suffixes are readily found in the imperative, e.g. zubnu-llxun ‘BuyMPL yourselves (sth.)!’, and are common with the verbs of motion ʾty ‘come’ and zyl ‘go’, and with the change-of-state verbs qʿy ‘sit’ and ðmx ‘sleep, fall asleep’ (Arnold 1990b, 238, cf. Spitaler 1938, 222, §196o-p):

The imperative forms of ʾθy ‘come’ is thus regularly fused with L-suffixes in Western Neo-Aramaic (Arnold 1990b, 173) similarly to Ṭuroyo and NENA dialects on the Mosul Plain:

Subject co-referential datives (or ethical datives) were already common with such intransitive verbs in pre-Modern Aramaic and can be considered an archaic feature in Neo-Aramaic, e.g. qum leḵ! ‘AriseFS!’ qåm-∅ l-eh ‘He has risen’ (see Fassberg 2018; cf. Joosten 1989). Fassberg (2018), following Ullendorff, argues the so-called ethical dative reflects the colloquial language. Several scholars claim the ethical dative influenced the emergence of intransitive verbal forms inflected with L-suffixes like qəm-li ‘I rose’ in NENA and Mlaḥsó (Mengozzi 2002b, 44; Halevy 2008; Fassberg 2018, 115). While this is conceivable, one should note that this dative endured as additional L-suffixes in the spoken varieties and did not disappear as a result (pace Fassberg 2018, 116). Moreover, where the original dative pronominal is conventionalized as inflectional morphemes of the verb, it is attested across the inflectional system, and thus not an inflectional property of qṭil- as verbal form per se.

2.3. Trans-Zab Jewish Dialects: əll-series

A different strategy comparable with subject co-referential L-suffixes exists in the so-called Trans-Zab Jewish dialects of NENA (Mutzafi 2008b). Certain intransitive verbs can take bound person markers derived from the independent set based on the preposition ʾəll-, constituting a secondary LL-series. They are impersonal, dummy pronouns belonging to the 3ms. or 3fs. in intransitive predicates functioning like a middle voice marker (Mengozzi 2006). They are not co-referential with the subject but seem to express the telic endpoint, for example:

3. Morphosyntax of Possessors in Neo-Aramaic

Possession can be expressed in various ways in Neo-Aramaic languages (Noorlander 2018b, 154–58).18 The focus here will be on the possessor marking strategies that are related to the original dative preposition l-. I should note briefly, however, that possession can be expressed adnominally by means of nominal suffixes, e.g. bab-i ‘my father’, bab-ax ‘yourFS father’. There also reflexes of a historical adnominal linker *ḏ that are used to denote possession through nominal annexation,19 e.g.

Nouns that are marked by such a linker can also occur independently, for example as the nominal element of the predicate:

There are independent possessive/genitive pronouns derived from this particle with augmentation, for example:

3.1. Possessor Marked by L-suffixes Only

Predicative possession is based in existential clauses introduced by the dialectal reflexes of the existential marker *ʾiθ- ‘there is/are’. This uninflectable particle is negated by the negator la (in NENA and Ṭuroyo) in a form going back to *la-yθ- ‘there is/are not’, and for past tense by the suffix -wa, e.g. *ʾiθ-wa ‘there was/were’ (in NENA and Ṭuroyo), similarly to verbs. The preverbal TAM-marker k- typical for the indicative-durative present is always combined with it in Ṭuroyo, e.g. k-ito ‘There is’. Together with L-suffixes they express predicative possession, e.g. kət-li ‘I have’. In Western Neo-Aramaic, the existential particle is reduced to ī- or ū- before L-suffixes, e.g. ī-le ‘He has’ (Arnold 1990a, 185). The negator is čū and the past particle is wa preceding the predicate, e.g. čū-le ‘He has not’, wa ī-le ‘He had’. The L-suffix in Neo-Aramaic marks the possessor which is reminiscent of their use as markers of the recipient (i.e. ‘T belongs to R’).

The co-referential nominal, however, is usually not prepositional. Thus, (30a) below presents a simple existential predicate in Ṭuroyo. (30b) illustrates the additional L-suffix expressing the R-like possessor without a co-nominal referent. In (30b), the possessor NP ú-malk-ano ‘this king’ is zero-marked but the L-suffix cross-references it, indexing its role as the possessor. The unmarked set of independent pronouns is similarly used to express the possessor, as illustrated in (30c).

The same holds for NENA, as illustrated below for the Christian dialect of Urmi.

Possessors are generally also expressed by an L-suffix in Western Neo-Aramaic such as ī-le ‘He has’ and ī-l ‘I have’ in the following examples. The possessor co-nominal itself is zero-marked.

3.2. (External) Possessors Marked on Verbs

3.2.1. The Verb hwy ‘be’, ‘become’, ‘beget’

The predicative possessor constructions are marked for particular tense, aspect and mood (TAM) values like verbs. The verb hwy stands in a suppletive relation to the existential markers to express other TAM categories such as the future tense and subjunctive. The verb remains impersonal like the existential marker. Its inflection is identical with the 3ms. -∅ E-suffix. The L-suffix is added to the verb, for example

When L-suffixes are attached to the verb hwy, the construction can semantically entail a process, i.e. ‘become’, rather than a state, i.e. ‘be’. The verb can be used to convey ‘be born’. The L-suffix denotes an R-like affectee, i.e. the one who begot the child, for example:

In C. Urmi, the verb takes a 3fs. L-suffix in the qṭil-based preterite (Khan 2016II, 396) such as vi-la-lə bruna ‘He begot a son’, lit. ‘ItF (impersonal) was born to him a son’, below:

Pronominal objects are otherwise not marked through L-suffixes on the qṭil-based preterite verb in such dialects. Forms like **grəš-la-li for intended ‘She pulled me’ do not occur. The secondary L-suffix is clearly reminiscent of the stacking of L-suffixes in ditransitive constructions in dialects like C. Marga and lišana deni Jewish dialects, cf. (37) below. This indicates how the L-suffix is considered an R-like argument in the system and expressed by an L-suffix regardless of the inflectional base, cf. (37a) below taken from the Jewish dialect of Dohok.

Apart from (37), examples (33)–(36) above are impersonal like the predicative possessor constructions. The verb hwy can also agree with the possessee in an external possessor construction. The possessor is expressed as an affectee part of the verbal predicate independently of the nominal possesee. For instance, the verb agrees with the possessee yalunke ‘children’ in (37b) below but takes an additional L-suffix to denote the possessor. The possessor is expressed as an argument of the verb.

The verb hwy can also be inflected for person and combine with the L-suffix not to convey a strict sense of belonging but a broader sense of relation, i.e. ‘X is/becomes Y with respect to somebody’. The construction parallels ditransitive verbs. Only in this sense can the pronominal possessee be expressed in the same way as the theme in ditransitives such as -yo , for example in (36b):

The same combination can also be modal. This is recorded in Ritter’s corpus of Ṭuroyo. It is accompanied by negation denoting inability, for example:

The expression of ability through predicative possessors is also recorded in Trans-Zab Jewish varieties (e.g. Khan 2004, 311, 364), ma ʾit-wa-lu hol-i-wa ‘What could they do?’, ʾana kwe-li ‘I will be able’.

3.2.2. External Possessors

Sporadically, L-suffixes can express a possessor-like affectee of verbal predicates akin to example (1g) from Hebrew. At least one such instance where the secondary L-suffix marks an external possessor is attested in Mlaḥsó:

Such external possessors are also attested in NENA dialects where the second L-suffix marks the R in qṭil-. The possessor is added as an R-like affectee in both the qaṭəl- and qṭil-based inflection such as the construction in J. Dohok given in (40). Its usage in J. Dohok does not seem to have a clear distribution. Coghill (2019, 368) notes that apart from pyš ‘remain’, it is confined to telic intransitives in C. Telkepe (NW Iraq), such as myθ ‘die’, ʔθy ‘come’ and bry ‘happen’.

An L-suffix denoting an R-like argument can be added to intransitive verbs in Ṭuroyo. It can be combined with the verbs fyš ‘remain’, qyθ ‘hit, touch, meet’, ʾθy ‘come’ and mṭy ‘arrive’. Since these motion verbs denote movement towards an endpoint, these constructions typically convey a sense of reception, e.g.

The additional L-suffix and -yo on the intransitive verb parallels ditransitive constructions. Compare aθí-∅-li-yo ‘I received it’ and mšadál-le-li-yo ‘He sent me it’ in (42) below.

3.2.3. Trans-Zab Jewish Dialects: əll- and -la-l-series

Occasionally, one also finds prepositional external possessors in NENA attached to the verbal base. An LL-series of person markers based on the preposition (ʾəl)l- is used to express the external possessor as illustrated for J. Arbel below.

Western Iranian dialects such as J. Saqqiz and J. Sanandaj use the morpheme -la-20 as base for the L-suffixes to express predicative possession together with the verb ‘become’ (Khan 2009, 88–90, 301–02). This la- is possibly a relic of a former impersonal L-suffix -la ‘itF’, i.e. xír-la-li ‘ItF became to me’ → ‘I have’. Full possessor NPs are zero-marked and can occupy pre-verbal position as illustrated in (44) below. The verbal base xir is invariable like the existential marker and does not agree with, for instance, indefinite plural nouns such as puḷe ‘money’ in J. Sanandaj ʾaná hămešá puḷé xír-la-li ‘I have always had money’ (Khan 2009, 302). This lal-series, therefore, serves as a special set of person markers, identifying their role as the most salient affectee.

3.3. Prepositional Marking of Possessors

3.3.1. Possessor Marked by l- Only

The independent possessor argument is generally zero-marked in NENA. Alternative expressions do exist where the possessor is prepositional in some varieties of NENA such as J. Sulemaniyya combined with a 3ms. copula in (33b) below.

Similarly, sporadically, a predicative possessor can be expressed independently by means of the preposition (e)l- in Ṭuroyo, e.g.

Unlike the rest of Neo-Aramaic, however, the predicative possessor is always independent in Mlaḥsó. The possessor is expressed as an independent dative (pro)noun such as eli ‘to me’ in (47). The possessee controls the agreement of the verb hwy ‘be’. Jastrow (1994) does not appear to provide examples of full nominal possessors in Mlaḥsó.

Sporadically, a full nominal possessor can also be prepositional in Western Neo-Aramaic, for example:

Note that, in these cases, the possessor is marked only by a preposition just like the examples from Hebrew in (1).

3.3.2. Possessor Marked by l- and L-suffixes

The possessor can be optionally marked through the preposition l- in addition to the L-suffix in Ṭuroyo.21 This includes predicative possessors such as (49a) and R-like affectees such as (49b-c).

The optionality of the prepositional marking of the possessor alongside the L-suffix is reminiscent of the morphosyntax of agents in the Ṭuroyo qṭil-based preterite (cf. Diem 2012). This strategy to combine the preposition l- and L-suffixes does not occur in NENA.

3.4. Transitivisation of Possessive Constructions

Predicative possessive constructions have undergone transitivisation in NENA and Ṭuroyo in that the L-suffixes are obligatory person markers like verbal inflection. Apart from the L-suffixes, the construction remains impersonal. The possessee does not control agreement and does not trigger differential object marking. Generally speaking, even when a possessee could still be contextualised through anaphora such as where English would use a pronominal object for ‘to have’, it will tend to remain implicit in Neo-Aramaic. Forms like ʾət-li or kət-li could also mean ‘I have itF/itM’ or ‘I have them’. This raises the question of how transitivised the predicative possessive construction are in being compatible with pronominal objects like transitive clauses in general.

There are indeed cases where the transitivisation seems to be more advanced and pronominal objects are overtly expressed. This, for instance, applies when the possessee is first or second person. First and second person pronominal objects differ across dialects. The possessee can be expressed as a pronominal object either through the unmarked set of independent pronouns, e.g.

This parallels the use of independent personal pronouns in transitive clauses to express focal objects, for example:

If available, the possessee can also be expressed through a dedicated set of prepositional pronominal objects, e.g.

In the latter, the marking of the possessee clearly patterns like that of objects of qṭil-based preterite verbal forms where the agent is expressed by the L-suffixes, e.g.

A few NENA dialects in SE Turkey such as Artun (Hertevin), Umṛa and Jənnet mark the object on the transitive qṭil-based perfective by means of additional L-suffixes, e.g. grə́š-le-la ‘He pulled itF’. The marking of the possessee is the same as the object in the predicative possessor construction, e.g. ʾə́t-le-la ‘He has itF’. It has taken over the full agent and object marking morphology of the perfective (see the examples below). When object L-suffixes like -la ‘itF’ are added to grəš-lax ‘YouFS pulled’, first and second person agents are marked by a special set one could call the L-E-series yielding grə́š-lət-ta ‘YouFS pulled it’.23 The same transitive verbal coding occurs in the predicative possessor construction, e.g. ʾət-lət-ta ‘YouFS have itF’. Moreover, these transitive constructions are used when full nominal possessees trigger differential marking. Thus the indefinite possessee in (52a) functions like an indefinite object in (52c)but the definite possessee in (52b) triggers cross-indexing like a definite object in (52d).

It should be noted, however, that this is not acceptable in the majority of dialects. Speakers of J. Dohok, for example, do not readily accept pronominalisation of the possessee in predicative possessor constructions. They disfavour expressions like **ʾətli ʾahat ‘I have youFS’ and circumvent this by choosing constructions involving independent possessive pronouns akin to English ‘YouFS are mine’.

3.5. Verboid bas- ‘enough’

A related verboid construction in NENA based on the particle bas- ‘enough’ is generally inflected with suffixes going back to possessor-like L-suffixes that have assimilated to the preceding /s/. The possessee-like complement of the quantifier bas, i.e. that which is possessed in a satisfactory amount such as xaye ‘life’ below, is prepositional (m-), e.g.

The original L-suffix can still be observed in the past equivalent, e.g. bas-wa-li ‘I had had enough’. Depending on the dialect, the copula can also be added to this to express the referent of the quantifier bass-, e.g.

The same particle is fully inflectable for L-suffixes in Ṭuroyo, as illustrated below. Unlike (53) above, the possessee is not prepositional but zero-marked or expressed by a copula:

The structure is at least superficially similar to ditransitives in that the T-like person markers are identical with the copula.

4. Morphosyntax of Experiencers in Neo-Aramaic

There are numerous ways in which experiencers are encoded in Neo-Aramaic. One should note that some of the constructions discussed in what follows also have equivalent expressions in other dialects involving a different structure. In impersonal experiencer constructions, for instance, experiencers can also be expressed adnominally through agreeing possessive suffixes, e.g.

Adnominal possession is the regular expression of the experiencer of the physiological sates of ‘heat’ and ‘cold’ in Western Iranian Jewish varieties of NENA. An adnominal possessor encodes the agreement with the experiencer on the NP denoting the sensation:

This is an areal phenomenon found across languages in West Asia, including the Neo-Aramaic speaking area.24 It regularly features in neighbouring Iranian varieties where the experiencer is marked in the so-called ‘oblique’ case or through pronominal clitics that also denote the possessor and the agent in the past (Haig 2018b, 132–33, 2018c, 286–87), for example:

There are cases where the experiencer is expressed as the object. For example, the verb ʿjb ‘please, like’, borrowed from Arabic, takes object suffixes in Western Neo-Aramaic just like the corresponding verb in Arabic, e.g.

It will become clear, however, that experiencers are construed as R-like affectees similarly to possessors in the previous discussion.

4.1. Experiencer Marked by L-suffixes Only

4.1.1. Transitive Verbs

Apart from beneficiaries and predicative possessors, L-suffixes can denote experiencers. In several (Christian) NENA dialects (and Ṭuroyo), verbs like I bsm, II/III ʿjb and I hny (variants include nny and nhy) are impersonal experiencer predicates conveying more or less the equivalent to English ‘like’, ‘please’ or ‘enjoy’, as illustrated for Ṭuroyo and C. Barwar below.