A Historical Morphology of Western Karaim: the -a-d- Continuative Present

Michał Németh

In this paper the author presents the hitherto undescribed Western Karaim -a-d- ~ -a-dy- ~ -a-dyr- verbal forms. The description of these forms is based on philological data collected from 18th- and 19th-century manuscripts and the final conclusion is that it was primarily used to express continuative present. The author also argues in favour of treating the first half of the 19th century as the terminus ante quem for its final disappearance in colloquial Karaim. This paper is the second in a series of articles introducing previously undocumented Karaim grammatical categories.

International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 268–308 JEAL brill.com/jeal A Historical Morphology of Western Karaim: the -a-d- Continuative Present Michał Németh Jagiellonian University in Kraków, Poland michal.nemeth@uj.edu.pl Abstract In this paper the author presents the hitherto undescribed Western Karaim -a-d- ~ -a-dy- ~ -a-dyr- verbal forms. The description of these forms is based on philological data collected from 18th- and 19th-century manuscripts and the final conclusion is that it was primarily used to express continuative present. The author also argues in favour of treating the first half of the 19th century as the terminus ante quem for its final disappearance in colloquial Karaim. This paper is the second in a series of articles introducing previously undocumented Karaim grammatical categories. Keywords Western Karaim – historical morphology of Western Karaim – the -a + tur- verbal forms in Turkic – continuative present in Turkic – continuative verbs in Turkic – durative verbs in Turkic – iterative verbs in Turkic 1 Preliminary Remarks What hinders the creation of a comprehensive historical grammar of Western Karaim is the scarce number of linguistic sources dating from before the 19th century. At the present time, altogether six short religious texts are known to originate from the 17th century (see Németh 2018: 86). However, up to date only three of these have been made available to readers, and only quite recently, thanks to Jankowski (2014), and Németh (2018). We are aware of considerably more 18th-century texts today, but almost none of them have so far been edited. Only Jankowski (2014), and Németh (2014 and 2015b) have © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2020 | doi:10.1163/25898833-12340017 A Historical Morphology of Western Karaim … 269 presented Western Karaim texts from this period. The corollary of the above is that existing grammatical descriptions of Western Karaim were based mostly on 19th- and 20th-century linguistic data and every discovery of sources older than the 19th century creates an opportunity to identify grammatical constructions that have not yet been documented.1 At the same time, although a historical grammar of Karaim remains a desideratum today, there are a number of other works which provide us with insights into the past of Karaim morphology. First of all, several existing descriptive grammars have been complemented with historical and historicalcomparative remarks. In this respect we ought to mention Kowalski’s (1929) Karaimische Texte, Zajączkowski’s (1931) concise grammar of South-Western Karaim and his comprehensive description of Western Karaim word-formation (1932), Pritsak’s (1959a) article published in the first volume of Philologiae Turcicae Fundamenta, Musaev’s grammar of 1964 and its shortened version published in 1977, Prik’s grammar of Eastern Karaim (1976) supplemented with plenty of Western Karaim comparative data, Berta’s (1998) concise description of Western Kipchak languages, Németh’s (2011b) comparative grammar of Western Karaim dialects, and, finally, Gülsevin’s (2016) grammar (which is, to put it mildly, not quite reliable). Second, there is Németh’s (2011a: 21–76) concise grammar of South-Western Karaim as spoken in the second half of the 19thcentury, which is the only grammar published to date that is based entirely on a critical edition of colloquial texts. Finally, there is a handful of works in which either all kinds of historical linguistic remarks lie scattered in the margins or which are devoted to specific grammatical categories. This group undoubtedly includes the works of Grzegorzewski (1903, 1916–1918, 1917), Dubiński’s (1992) article on Karaim adverbs, Csató’s (1998) article on finite verb forms, Olach’s works on South-Western Karaim syntax and morphology based on 19th-century handwritten sources (2012, 2013, 2014), Ananiasz Zajączkowski’s unpublished study on Karaim participial suffixes edited and commented on by Németh (2013a), Jankowski’s encyclopaedia article on Karaim and Krymchak (2015), and, finally, Németh’s (2015) analysis of the Western Karaim plusquamperfectum II. The final article in this list was intended to be the first in a series of publications introducing Karaim grammatical categories not documented in the works listed above. In turn, the present paper is another contribution to this 1 The situation will somewhat improve with the forthcoming publication of Németh (2020), which constitutes a critical edition of a total of 149 copies of South- and North-Western Karaim religious poems—including 1 text from the 17th century, 8 works from the 18th century and 23 texts copied ca. 1800. International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 268–308 270 Németh series of papers and is devoted to the -a-d- ~ -a-dy- ~ -a-dyr- forms attested in several Western Karaim manuscripts. Below, it will be argued that continuative present verbal forms were primarily built on their basis. 2 The Available Western Karaim Data The oldest linguistic data is excerpted from ms. ADub.III.73, which contains a translation of the Torah copied in Hebrew script by Simcha of Kukizów ben Chananel of Derażne between 25 March and 31 May 1720 (342 ro–342 vo). One rather fortuitous fact known to us is that the copyist died on 27 March 1723 and that he officiated as the hazzan of Kukizów most probably from 1709 until his death.2 This allows us to locate the material quite precisely in time and space and to declare that the copyist was well-educated. The first 14 examples enumerated below were collected after a careful reading of all 342 folios of the Torah. To gain a better understanding of the grammatical nature of these forms, we have presented the interlinear morpheme-by-morpheme glosses of the Karaim translation along with the Biblical context of the respective verses.3 The following explanatory notes are due here: Suffixes with a clearly derivational function as well as petrified morphemes (in compound suffixes) have not been taken into account in the morphemeby-morpheme representation below. If a grammatical category is attached to an allomorph of the root morpheme the backslash is used to separate the category label and the root. For the sake of convenience, in the glosses below I have decided to use Eng. arch. thou and Eng. you to distinguish between the two modern meanings of you. The -dyr (> -d) component of the analysed construction is, at this point tentatively, labelled with the abbreviation cont. (1) čejpajdyr biz (Genesis 19.13) Ki č e j p a j d y r b i z ošol ol orunnu ošpunu ki ullu boldu firjatlary alarnyn alnynda Adonajnyn da ijdi bizni Adonaj čejpama any. (ADub.III.73: 26 ro) 2 The date of his death is recorded in JSul.II.02 (52 ro), a prayer book in Hebrew copied at the turn of the 18th century by an unknown person. For more information regarding manuscript ADub.III.73 and its copyist we redirect the reader to Németh (2014, 2015b, and 2020); the critical edition of the Torah from this manuscript is submitted for publishing by the present author, see Németh [forthcoming]. 3 The context is checked against several commentaries on the Bible: primarily against Benson (1857) and Peake (1920). International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 268–308 271 A Historical Morphology of Western Karaim … Ki čejpa-j-dyr=biz ošol=ol orun-nu ošpu-nu because destroy-cvb-cont=1pl art=art place-acc this-acc ki ullu bol-du-Ø firjat-lary alar-nyn because big be-pst-3sg cry-3sg.poss they-gen aln-yn-da before\3sg.poss\loc Adonaj-nyn Lord-gen da and ij-di-Ø send-pst-3sg biz-ni Adonaj-Ø čejpa-ma a-ny. we-acc Lord-nom destroy-inf it\acc ‘Because we are destroying this place, because their cry has become big before the Lord, and the Lord has sent us to destroy it.’ Context (Genesis 18.20–21, Genesis 19.1–5, Genesis 19.12–13) 18.20And YHWH said, “The cry of Sodom and Gomorrah: how great it is. And their sin: how very heavy it is. 21Let me go down, and I’ll see if they’ve done, all told, like the cry that has come to me. And if not, let me know.” 22And the people turned from there and went to Sodom. […] 1And the two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting at Sodom’s gate, and Lot saw and got up toward them, and he bowed, nose to the ground. 2And he said, “Here, my lords, turn to your servant’s house and spend the night and wash your feet, and you’ll get up early and go your way.” And they said, “No, we’ll spend the night in the square.” 3And he pressed them very much, and they turned to him and came to his house, and he made a feast and baked unleavened bread for them, and they ate. 4They had not yet lain down, and the people of the city, the people of Sodom, surrounded the house, from youth to old man, all the people, from the farthest reaches. 5And they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the people who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, and let’s know them!” […] 12And the people said to Lot, “Who else do you have here—son-in-law and your sons and your daughters and all that you have in the city—take them out from the place, 13because we’re destroying this place, because its cry has grown big before YHWH’s face, and YHWH has sent us to destroy it.” Friedman 2003: 59–60 International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 268–308 272 Németh (2) qajtarmajdesej (Genesis 20.7) Da haligińa qajtarġyn qatynyn ol kišinin ki navidi ol da tefila etsin seninüčün da tiri bolursen da eger q a j t a r m a j d e s e j bilgin ki ölḿa ölersen sen da barča neki senin. (ADub.III.73: 28 ro) Da haligińa qajtar-ġyn qatyn-y-n ol and now give.back-2sg.imp wife-3sg.poss-poss.acc art kiši-nin ki navi-di ol-Ø da tefila.et-sin man-gen because prophet-3sg.cop he-nom and pray-3sg.imp senin=üčün thou\gen=for da tiri.bol-ur-sen and live-fut-2sg da and qajtar-ma-j-d=e-se-j give.back-neg-cvb-cont=be-cond-2sg eger if bil-gin ki know-2sg.imp that öl-ḿa öl-er-sen sen da barča-Ø ne=ki senin. die-inf die-fut-2sg thou and all-nom what=which thou\gen ‘Now, give the man’s wife back, because he is a prophet, and he shall pray for you, and you will live. But if you do not give back, know that you will surely die, you and all who are yours.’ Context (Genesis 20.1–8) 1And Abraham traveled from there to the Negeb country, and he lived between Kadesh and Shur and resided in Gerar. 2And Abraham said of Sarah, his wife, “She’s my sister.” And Abimelek, king of Gerar, sent and took Sarah. 3And God came to Abimelek in a night dream and said to him, “Here, you’re dead over the woman whom you took, for she’s a man’s wife!” 4And Abimelek had not come close to her, and he said, “My Lord, will you kill a virtuous nation as well? 5Didn’t he say to me, ‘She’s my sister’? And she— she, too—said, ‘He’s my brother.’ I did this in my heart’s innocence and in my hands’ cleanness.” 6And God said to him in the dream, “I, too, knew that you did this in your heart’s innocence; and I, too, held you back from sinning against me. On account of this, I didn’t let you touch her. 7And now, give the man’s wife back, because he’s a prophet, and he’ll pray for you. And live! And if you don’t give back, know that you will die, you and all that you have.” 8And Abimelek got up in the morning and called to all his servants and spoke all these things in their ears, and the people were very afraid. Friedman 2003: 61–62 International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 268–308 273 A Historical Morphology of Western Karaim … (3) aladese (Genesis 27.46) Da ajtty Riveqa Jicḥaqqa jadadym tirliklerimd́ an alnyndan qyzlarynyn Ḥetnin eger a l a d e s e Jaʿaqov qatyn qyzlaryndan Ḥetnin bularny kibik qyzlaryndan ol jernin negedi maja tirlik. (ADub.III.73: 43 ro) Da ajt-ty-Ø Riveqa-Ø Jicḥaq-qa jada-dy-m and say-pst-3sg Rebekah-nom Isaac-dat be.weary-pst-1sg tirlik-ler-im-d́ an life-pl-1sg.poss-abl aln-yn-dan before\3sg.poss\abl qyz-lar-y-nyn daughter-pl-3sg.poss-gen Ḥet-nin Heth-gen eger if al-a-d=e-se-Ø take-cvb-cont=be-cond-3sg Jaʿaqov-Ø Jacob-nom qyz-lar-yn-dan daughter-pl-3sg.poss\abl Ḥet-nin bu-lar-ny kibik Heth-gen this-pl-acc like qyz-lar-yn-dan daughter-pl-3sg.poss\abl ol jer-nin ne-ge-di art land-gen what-dat-3sg.cop qatyn-Ø wife-nom maja tirlik-Ø. I\dat life-nom ‘And Rebekah said to Isaac, “I am weary of my life before the face of the daughters of Heth. If Jacob takes a wife from the daughters of Heth like these daughters of the land, what for is a life to me?”’ Context: Genesis 26.34–35, Genesis 27.46–Genesis 28.2 26.34And Esau was forty years old, and he took a wife: Judith, daughter of Beeri, the Hittite, and Basemath, daughter of Elon, the Hittite. 35And they were a bitterness of spirit to Isaac and to Rebekah. […] 27.46And Rebekah said to Isaac, “I’m disgusted with my life because of the daughters of Heth! If Jacob takes a wife from the daughters of Heth like these daughters of the land, why do I have a life!” 28.1And Isaac called Jacob, and he blessed him and commanded him, and he said to him, “You shall not take a wife from the daughters of Canaan. 2Get up. Go to Paddan Aram, to the International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 268–308 274 Németh house of Bethuel, your mother’s father, and take a wife from there, from the daughters of Laban, your mother’s brother. Friedman 2003: 764 (4) ijedesej (Genesis 43.4) Eger i j e d e s e j ošol qaryndašymyzny birgemizǵa enerbiz da satyn alyrbiz saja bürtük. (ADub.III.73: 72 vo) Eger ij-e-d=ese-j ošol qaryndaš-ymyz-ny if send-cvb-cont=be-cond-2sg art brother-1pl.poss-acc birge-miz-ǵa en-er-biz da satyn.al-yr-biz together-1pl.poss-dat go.down-fut-1pl and buy-fut-1pl saja bürtük-Ø. thou\dat grain-nom ‘If you are sending our brother with us, we will go down and buy grain for you.’ Context: Genesis 42.36–Genesis 43.7 (covers also example 5) 42.36And their father, Jacob, said to them, “You’ve bereaved me! Joseph is gone, and Simeon’s gone, and you’ll take Benjamin. All these have happened to me!” 37And Reuben said to his father, saying, “Kill my two sons if I don’t bring him back to you. Put him in my hand, and I’ll bring him back to you.” 38And he [i.e., Israel—M.N.] said, “My son will not go down with you. Because his brother’s dead, and he’s left by himself, and if some harm would happen to him on the way in which you’re going then you’ll bring down my gray hair in anguish to Sheol.” 43.1And the famine was heavy in the land. 2And it was when they had finished eating the grain that they had brought from Egypt: and their father said to them, “Go back. Buy us a little food.” 3And Judah said to him, saying, “The man certified to us, saying, ‘You won’t see my face unless your brother is with you.’ 4If you’re sending our brother with us, we’ll go down and buy food for you, 5and if you’re not sending, we won’t go down, because the man said to us, ‘You won’t see my face unless your brother is with you.’” 6And Israel said, “Why have you done me wrong, to tell the man that you have another brother?” 7And they said, “The man asked about us and about our birthplace, saying, ‘Is your father still alive? Do you have a brother?’ And we told him about these things. Could we have known that he would say, ‘Bring your brother down’?” Friedman 2003: 103–104 4 In the Hebrew Bible, Hittites are considered descendants of Heth. International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 268–308 275 A Historical Morphology of Western Karaim … (5) ijmejdesej (Genesis 43.5) Da eger i j m e j d e s e j enmesbiz ki ol kiši ajtty bizǵa körmejiz jüzlerimni bolmasa qaryndašyjyz birgejizǵa. (ADub.III.73: 72 vo) Da eger ij-me-j-d=e-se-j en-mes-biz and if send-neg-cvb-cont=be-cond-2sg go.down-neg.fut-1pl ki ol kiši-Ø ajt-ty-Ø biz-ǵa kör-me-jiz because art man-nom say-pst-3sg we-dat see-neg-2pl.imp jüz-ler-im-ni face-pl-1sg.poss-acc bol-ma-sa-Ø be-neg-cond-3sg qaryndaš-yjyz brother-2pl.poss birge-jiz-ǵa. together-2pl.poss-dat ‘And if you are not sending, we will not go down, because the man said to us, “You shall not see my face, if your brother is not with you.”’ Context: See example (4). (6) biledesej (Genesis 47.6) Jeri Micrinin alnyjdady ol jaḥšyraq ornunda ol jernin olturġuzġun ošol atajny da ošol qaryndašlaryjny oltursunlar jerind́ a Gošennin da b i l e d e s e j da bar eśa alar arasyna tuvušlu el da qojġun alarny aġalyq[lar]yn5 tuvarnyn anyn üstüńa ne ki menim. (ADub.III.73: 80 ro) Jer-i Micri-nin aln-yj-da-dy ol land-3sg.poss Egypt-gen before\2sg.poss-loc-3sg.cop art jaḥšy-raq good-comp orn-un-da place\3sg.poss\loc oltur-ġuz-ġun settle-caus-2sg.imp ošol art qaryndaš-lar-yj-ny brother-pl-2sg.poss-acc Gošen-nin da Goshen-gen and ol art jer-nin land-gen ata-j-ny father-2sg.poss-acc oltur-sunlar dwell-3pl.imp da and ošol art jer-in-d́ a land-3sg.poss\loc bil-e-d=e-se-j know-cvb-cont=be-cond-2sg da or 5 The text is corrupted here, the plural -lar is reconstructed on the basis of other manuscripts (TKow.01, JSul.III.01 and BSMS 288). International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 268–308 276 Németh bar=e-śa-Ø alar-Ø ara-syn-a existence=be-cond-3sg they-nom among-3sg.poss\poss.dat tuvušlu able el men da qoj-ġun and place-2sg.imp aġalyq-lar-y-n superior-pl-2sg.poss-poss.acc alar-ny they-acc tuvar-nyn livestock-gen a-nyn that\gen üst-üń-a ne=ki menim. top-3sg.poss\poss.dat what=which I\gen ‘The land of Egypt is before you. Settle your father and your brothers in the better place of the land. They shall dwell in the land of Goshen. And if you know—or if there is—any able men among them, then you shall make them superiors of livestock over that which is mine.’ Context: Genesis 47.5–10 5And Pharaoh said to Joseph, saying, “Your father and your brothers have come to you. 6The land of Egypt is before you. Settle your father and your brothers in the best of the land. Let them live in the land of Goshen. And if you know—and if there are among them—worthy men, then you shall make them livestock officers over those that I have.” Friedman 2003: 110 (7) klemejdesej (Exodus 4.23) Da ajttym saja ijgin ošol uvlumnu da qulluq etsin maja da k l e m e j d e s e j ijme any muna men öltürürmen ošol tunġuč uvlujnu. (ADub.III.73: 92 ro) Da ajt-ty-m saja ij-gin ošol uvl-um-nu and say-pst-1sg thou\dat send-2sg.imp art son\1sg.poss-acc da qulluq.et-sin maja da kle-me-j-d=e-se-j and serve-3sg.imp I\dat and want-neg-cvb-cont=be-cond-2sg ij-me send-inf a-ny it\acc muna men-Ø lo I-nom öltür-ür-men kill-fut-1sg ošol art tunġuč-Ø uvl-uj-nu. firstborn-nom son\2sg.poss-acc ‘And I said to you, “Let my son go, and he may serve me.” And if you are not willing to let him go, lo, I will kill your firstborn son.’ International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 268–308 A Historical Morphology of Western Karaim … 277 Context: Exodus 4.19–23 19And YHWH said to Moses in Midian, “Go. Go back to Egypt, because all the people who sought your life have died.” 20And Moses took his wife and his sons and rode them on an ass, and he went back to the land of Egypt. And Moses took the staff of God in his hand. 21And YHWH said to Moses, “When you’re going to go back to Egypt, see all the wonders that I’ve set in your hand, and you shall do them in front of Pharaoh. And I: I’ll strengthen his heart, and he won’t let the people go. 22And you shall say to Pharaoh, ‘YHWH said this: My child, my firstborn, is Israel. 23And I’ve said to you: Let my child go and serve me. And should you refuse to let it go, here: I’m killing your child, your firstborn!’” Friedman 2003: 125 (8) klemejdesej (Exodus 7.27) Da eger k l e m e j d e s e j s e n ijme muna men qyrarmen ošol bar čegijni baġalar byla. (ADub.III.73: 97 ro) Da eger kle-me-j-d=e-se-j sen-Ø ij-me and if want-neg-cvb-cont=be-cond-2sg thou-nom send-inf muna men-Ø qyr-ar-men ošol bar čeg-ij-ni lo I-nom smite-fut-1sg art all border-2sg.poss-acc baġa-lar byla. frog-pl with ‘And if you are not willing to let go, lo, I will smite all your borders with frogs.’ Context: Exodus 7.26–29 26And YHWH said to Moses, “Come to Pharaoh, and you’ll say to him, ‘YHWH said this: Let my people go, so they may serve me. 27And if you refuse to let go, here, I’m plaguing all your border with frogs, 28and the Nile will teem with frogs, and they’ll go up and come in your house and in your bedroom and on your bed and in your servants’ house and among your people and in your ovens and in your bowls, 29and the frogs will go up on you and on your people and on all your servants.’” Friedman 2003: 131 (9) ijmejdesej (Exodus 8.17) Ki eger i j m e j d e s e j ošol ulusumnu muna men ijermen send́ a da qullaryjda da ulusujda da üvlerijd́ a ošol ol qatyš kijikni da tolarlar üvleri Micrinin International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 268–308 278 Németh ol qatyš kijikten da daġyn ol jerd́ a ki alar anyn üstüne. (ADub.III.73: 98 ro–98 vo) Ki eger ij-me-j-d=e-se-j ošol because if send-neg-cvb-cont=be-cond-2sg art ulus-um-nu people-1sg.poss-acc da and muna men-Ø lo I-nom qul-lar-yj-da servant-pl-2sg.poss-loc da and üv-ler-ij-d́ a ošol=ol house-pl-2sg.poss-loc art=art tol-ar-lar be.filled-fut-3pl kijik-Ø-ten beast-coll-abl ij-er-men send-fut-1sg ulus-uj-da people-2sg.poss-loc qatyš wild üv-ler-i house-pl-3sg.poss da and daġyn also ol art sen-d́ a thou-loc kijik-Ø-ni beast-coll-acc Micri-nin Egypt-gen jer=d́ a ground=too ol art da and da and qatyš wild ki which alar-Ø a-nyn üst-ün-e. they-nom it\gen top-3sg.poss\poss.dat ‘Because if you are not letting my people go, lo, I will send wild beasts on you and on your servants and on your people and on your houses. And the houses of the Egyptians will be filled with wild beasts, and also the ground, too, on which they are.’ Context: Exodus 8:16–17 16And YHWH said to Moses, “Get up early in the morning and stand up in front of Pharaoh. Here, he’s going out to the water. And you’ll say to him, ‘YHWH said this: Let my .people go so they may serve me. 17Because if you’re not letting my people go, here, I’m causing an insect swarm to be let go on you and on your servants and on your people and on your houses. And the houses of Egypt will be filled with the insect swarm, and also the ground that they’re on. Friedman 2003: 132–133 (10) klemejdesej (Exodus 9.2) Ki eger k l e m e j d e s e j s e n ijme da hanuzda sen kip tutasen alarny: (ADub.III.73: 99 ro) International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 268–308 279 A Historical Morphology of Western Karaim … Ki eger kle-me-j-d=e-se-j sen-Ø ij-me because if want-neg-cvb-cont=be-cond-2sg thou-nom send-inf da hanuz=da sen kip tut-a-sen alar-ny. and still=too thou strongly hold-prs-2sg they-acc ‘Because if you are not willing to let go, and you still hold them strongly:’ Context: Exodus 9.1–3 1And YHWH said to Moses, “Come to Pharaoh and speak to him: ‘YHWH, God of the Hebrews, said this: Let my people go, so they may serve me. 2Because if you refuse to let go and you are still holding on to them, 3here, YHWH’s hand is on your livestock that are in the field, on the horses, on the asses, on the camels, on the oxen, and on the flock—a very heavy epidemic. Friedman 2003: 133–134 (11) klemejdesej (Exodus 10.4) Ki eger k l e m e j d e s e j sen ijme ošol ulusumnu muna men keltirirmen tanbyla čegirtke čegijde. (ADub.III.73: 101 vo) Ki eger kle-me-j-d=e-se-j sen-Ø ij-me because if want-neg-cvb-cont=be-cond-2sg thou-nom send-inf ošol art ulus-um-nu muna people-1sg.poss-acc lo men-Ø I-nom keltir-ir-men bring-fut-1sg tan=byla čegirtke-Ø čeg-ij-de. daybreak=with6 locust-coll.nom border-2sg.poss-loc ‘Because if you are not willing to let my people go, lo, at daybreak I will bring locust into your border.’ Context: Exodus 10.3–5 3And Moses and Aaron came to Pharaoh and said to him, “YHWH, God of the Hebrews, said this: ‘How long do you refuse to be humbled in front of me? Let my people go, so they may serve me. 4Because if you refuse to let my people go, here, I’m bringing a locust swarm in your border tomorrow, 5and it will cover the eye of the land, and one won’t be able to see the land! 6 For a morphological analysis of NWKar. tanbyla ‘1. daybreak; 2. at daybreak’ and its Turkic background, see Majtczak (2008: 108). International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 268–308 280 Németh And it will eat the remains of what has survived that is left to you from the hail, and it will eat every tree that is growing for you from the field. Friedman 2003: 135–136 (12) bošatmajdesej (Exodus 32.32) Da haligine eger bošatsaj jazyqlaryn alarnyn jaḥšy da eger b o š a t m a j d e s e j 7 sürtkün meni endi bitigijden ki jazdyj. (ADub.III.73: 142 ro) Da haligine eger bošat-sa-j jazyq-lary-n and now if forgive-cond-2sg sin-2pl.poss-poss.acc alar-nyn jaḥšy da eger bošat-ma-j-d=e-se-j they-gen good and if forgive-neg-cvb-cont=be-cond-2sg sürt-kün meni endi bitig-ij-den ki jaz-dy-j. blot-2sg.imp I\acc now book-2sg.poss-abl which write-pst-2sg ‘And now, if you will forgive their sin—good. But if you will not forgive, blot me out now of your book that you have written.’ Context: Exodus 32:7–10, 30–35 7And YHWH spoke to Moses: “Go. Go down. Because your people, whom you brought up from the land of Egypt, has corrupted. 8They’ve turned quickly from the way that I commanded them. They’ve made themselves a molten calf, and they’ve bowed to it and sacrificed to it and said, ‘These are your gods, Israel, who brought you up from the land of Egypt! 9And YHWH said to Moses, “I’ve seen this people; and, here, it’s a hard-necked people. 10And now, leave off from me, and my anger will flare at them, and I’ll finish them, and I’ll make you into a big nation!” […] 30And it was on the next day, and Moses said to the people, “You’ve committed a big sin. And now I’ll go up to YHWH. Perhaps I may make atonement for your sin.” 31And Moses went back to YHWH and said, “Please, this people has committed a big sin and made gods of gold for themselves. 32And now, if you will bear their sin—and if not, wipe me out from your scroll that you’ve written.” 33And YHWH said to Moses, “The one who has sinned against me, I’ll wipe him out from my scroll. 34And now, go. Lead the people to where I spoke to you. Here, my angel will go ahead of you. And, in the day that I take account, I’ll account their sin on them.” 35And YHWH struck the people because they had made the calf, which Aaron had made. Friedman 2003: 175 7 This word is an interpretative addition to the standard text. International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 268–308 A Historical Morphology of Western Karaim … 281 (13) qyladeśaj (Numbers 11.15) Da eger bulaj q y l a d e ś a j sen maja öltürgün meni endi8 öltürḿa eger taptym eśa širinlik ʿenajetlaryjda da körḿajim jamanymny. (ADub.III.73: 230 vo) Da eger bulaj qyl-a-d=e-śa-j sen-Ø and if thus do-cvb-cont=be-cond-2sg thou-nom maja I\dat eger if öltür-gün meni kill-2sg.imp I\acc endi now öltür-ḿa kill-inf tap-ty-m=e-śa-Ø širinlik-Ø find-pst-1sg=be-cond-3sg favour-nom ʿenajet-lar-yj-da eye.of.God-pl-2sg.poss-loc da and kör-ḿa-jim see-neg-1sg.opt jaman-Ø-ym-ny. wrong-coll-1sg.poss-acc ‘And if you deal thus with me, kill me now, to kill, if I have found favour in your eyes, and let me not see my wretchedness.’ Context: Numbers 11.10–15 10And Moses heard the people crying by their families, each at his tent entrance, and YHWH’s anger flared very much, and it was bad in Moses’ eyes. 11And Moses said to YHWH, “Why have you done bad to your servant, and why have I not found favor in your eyes, to set the burden of this entire people on me? 12Did I conceive this entire people? Did I give birth to it, that you should say to me, ‘Carry it in your bosom,’ the way a nurse carries a suckling, to the land that you swore to its fathers? 13From where do I have meat to give to this entire people, that they cry at me, saying, ‘Give us meat, and let’s eat’? 14I’m not able, I, by myself, to carry this entire people, because it’s too heavy for me. 15And if this is how you treat me, kill me, if I’ve found favor in your eyes, and let me not see my suffering.” Friedman 2003: 259 8 The word endi ‘now’ was added in the outer margin by another hand. International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 268–308 282 Németh (14) arttyradeśak (Deuteronomy 5.25) Da haligińa nek öĺajik ki örtá r bizni ol ullu ot ošpu eger a r t t y r a d e ś a k ešitḿa ošol ünün Adonajnyn Tenrimiznin daġy[n]9 da öĺarbiz. (ADub. III.73: 290 vo) Da haligińa nek öĺ-ajik ki ört-́ ar-Ø and now why die-1pl.opt because consume-fut-3sg biz-ni we-acc ol art ullu great ot-Ø ošpu fire-nom this arttyr-a-d=e-śa-k continue-cvb-cont=be-cond-1pl ün-ü-n voice-3sg.poss-poss.acc eger if ešit-ḿa hear-inf Adonaj-nyn Lord-gen ošol art Tenri-miz-nin daġyn God-1pl.poss-gen more da öĺ-ar-biz. then die-fut-1pl ‘And now why should we die? Because this great fire will consume us. If we go on hearing the voice of the Lord our God any more, then we will die.’ Context: Deuteronomy (5.23–27)10 23“And it was when you heard the voice from inside the darkness, as the mountain was burning in fire, that you came forward to me, all the heads of your tribes and your elders, 24and you said, ‘Here, YHWH, our God, has shown us His glory and His greatness, and we’ve heard His voice from inside the fire. This day we’ve seen that God may speak to a human and he lives. 25So now why should we die? Because this big fire will consume us. If we go on hearing the voice of YHWH, our God, anymore, then we’ll die. 26Because who, of all flesh, is there who has heard the voice of the living God speaking from inside fire as we have and lived? 27You go forward and listen to everything that YHWH, our God, will say, and you’ll speak to us everything that YHWH, our God, will speak to you, and we’ll listen, and we’ll do it.’ Friedman 2003: 320 9 10 The text is damaged here. In Friedman (2003: 320), actually: Deuteronomy 5.20–24, given that Deuteronomy 5:17–20 has been merged by him into one verse. International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 268–308 A Historical Morphology of Western Karaim … 283 A comparison between the above 14 text samples and the respective Biblical verses in two other Western Karaim translations, namely in ms. JSul.III.0111 and in Mickiewicz & Rojecki (1889),12 resulted in further examples being found: Ad (2): Genesis 20.7 Da haligine qajtarġyn qatynyn ol kisinin ki navidi ol da tefile etsin senin ücün da tiri bolusen da eger qajtarmajdy esen bilgin ki ölme ölersen sen da barca ne ki sana. (JSul.III.01: 19 vo) Da haligine qajtar-ġyn qatyn-y-n ol kisi-nin and now give.back-2sg.imp wife-3sg.poss-poss.acc art man-gen ki navi-di ol-Ø da tefile.et-sin senin=ücün because prophet-3sg.cop he-nom and pray-3sg.imp thou\gen=for da tiri.bol-u-sen da eger qajtar-ma-j-dy e-se-n and live-fut-2sg and if give.back-neg-cvb-cont be-cond-2sg bil-gin know-2sg.imp ki that öl-me die-inf öl-er-sen sen die-fut-2sg thou da barca-Ø ne ki sana. and all-nom what which thou\dat ‘And now, give the man’s wife back, because he is a prophet, and he shall pray for you, and you will live. But if you are not giving back, know that you will surely die, you and all who [belong] to you.’ Ad (3): Genesis 27.46 a) Da ajtty Riveqa Jicḥaqqa jadadym tirliklerimden alnyndan qyzlarynyn Ḥetnin eger alady ese Jaʿaqov qatyn qyzlaryndan Ḥetnin bular kibik qyzlaryndan ol jernin negedi bu mana tirlikler. (JSul.III.01: 29 vo) Da ajt-ty-Ø Riveqa-Ø Jicḥaq-qa jada-dy-m and say-pst-3sg Rebekah-nom Isaac-dat be.weary-pst-1sg 11 A South-Western Karaim manuscript copied in Halych in the 19th century by Jeshua Josef Mordkowicz (1802–1884). A North-Western Karaim printed edition (in Hebrew script) of the Book of Genesis. 12 International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 268–308 284 Németh tirlik-ler-im-den life-pl-1sg.poss-abl aln-yn-dan before\3sg.poss\abl qyz-lar-y-nyn daughter-pl-3sg.poss-gen Ḥet-nin Heth-gen eger al-a-dy e-se-Ø Jaʿaqov-Ø qatyn-Ø if take-cvb-cont be-cond-3sg Jacob-nom wife-nom qyz-lar-yn-dan daughter-pl-3sg.poss\abl Ḥet-nin Heth-gen qyz-lar-yn-dan daughter-pl-3sg.poss\abl bu-lar this-pl kibik like ol jer-nin ne-ge-di art land-gen what-dat-3sg.cop mana tirlik-ler-Ø. I\dat life-pl-nom ‘And Rebekah said to Isaac, “I am weary of my life before the face of the daughters of Heth. If Jacob takes a wife of the daughters of Heth like these daughters of the land, what for is this life to me?”’ b) Da ajtty Riveqa Jicḥaqqa bezdim tirlikĺarimd́ an alnyndan qyzlarynyn Ḥetnin eger aladeśa Jaʿaqov qatyn qyzlaryndan Ḥetnin bular kibik qyzlaryndan ol jernin neǵa bu maja tirlik. (Mickiewicz & Rojecki 1889: 34) Da ajt-ty-Ø Riveqa-Ø Jicḥaq-qa bez-di-m and say-pst-3sg Rebekah-nom Isaac-dat abhor-pst-1sg tirlik-ĺar-im-d́ an life-pl-1sg.poss-abl aln-yn-dan before\3sg.poss\abl qyz-lar-y-nyn daughter-pl-3sg.poss-gen Ḥet-nin Heth-gen al-a-d=e-śa-Ø take-cvb-cont=be-cond-3sg qyz-lar-yn-dan daughter-pl-3sg.poss\abl eger if Jaʿaqov-Ø Jacob-nom Ḥet-nin Heth-gen qatyn-Ø wife-nom bu-lar this-pl kibik like International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 268–308 285 A Historical Morphology of Western Karaim … qyz-lar-yn-dan daughter-pl-3sg.poss\abl ol jer-nin ne-ǵa-Ø art land-gen what-dat-3sg.cop bu-Ø maja tirlik-Ø. this-nom I\dat life-pl-nom ‘And Rebekah said to Isaac, “I abhor my life before the face of the daughters of Heth. If Jacob takes a wife of the daughters of Heth like these daughters of the land, what for is this life to me?”’ Ad (4): Genesis 43.4 a) Eger ijedesen osol qaryndasymyzny birgemizge biznin enerbiz da satynalybiz sana birtik. (Genesis 43.4; JSul.III.01: 49 ro) Eger ij-e-d=ese-n osol qaryndas-ymyz-ny if send-cvb-cont=be-cond-2sg art brother-1pl.poss-acc birge-miz-ge together-1pl.poss-dat biz-nin we-gen en-er-biz go.down-fut-1pl da and satyn.al-y-biz sana birtik-Ø. buy-fut-1pl thou\dat grain-indef.acc ‘If you are sending our brother with us, we will go down and buy grain for you.’ b) Eger ijadeśaj qaryndašymyzny birǵamizǵa eńarbiz da satyn alyrbiz saja b́ urtú k. (Mickiewicz & Rojecki 1889: 55) Eger ij-a-d=eśa-j qaryndaš-ymyz-ny if send-cvb-cont=be-cond-2sg brother-1pl.poss-acc birǵa-miz-ǵa together-1pl.poss-dat eń-ar-biz go.down-fut-1pl da satyn.al-yr-biz and buy-fut-1pl saja b́ urtú k-Ø. thou\dat grain-indef.acc ‘If you are sending our brother with us, we will go down and buy grain for you.’ International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 268–308 286 Németh Ad (5): Genesis 43.5 Da eger ijmejdeśaj enḿazbiz ki ol kiši ajtty bizǵa körḿassiz juzĺarimni bolmasa qaryndašyjyz birǵajizǵa. (Mickiewicz & Rojecki 1889: 55) Da eger ij-me-j-d=e-śa-j en-ḿaz-biz and if send-neg-cvb-cont=be-cond-2sg go.down-neg.fut-1pl ki ol kiši-Ø ajt-ty-Ø biz-ǵa kör-ḿas-siz because art man-nom say-pst-3sg we-dat see-neg.fut-2pl juz-ĺar-im-ni face-pl-1sg.poss-acc bol-ma-sa-Ø be-neg-cond-3sg qaryndaš-yjyz brother-2pl.poss birǵa-jiz-ǵa. together-2pl.poss-dat ‘And if you are not sending, we will not go down, because the man said to us, “You will not see my face, if your brother is not with you.”’ Ad (6): Genesis 47.6 Jeri Micrinin alnyjda ol jaḥšy ornunda ol jernin olturġuzġun atajny da qaryndašlaryjny oltursunlar jerind́ a Gošennin da eger biĺadesej da bareśa alarda tuvušlu el da qojġun alarny ahalyḥlaryn tuvarnyn anyn üstüńa ki menim. (Mickiewicz & Rojecki 1889: 60) Jer-i Micri-nin aln-yj-da-Ø ol jaḥšy land-3sg.poss Egypt-gen before\2sg.poss-loc-3sg.cop art good orn-un-da place\3sg.poss\loc ol jer-nin oltur-ġuz-ġun art land-gen settle-caus-2sg.imp ata-j-ny da qaryndaš-lar-yj-ny oltur-sunlar father-2sg.poss-acc and brother-pl-2sg.poss-acc dwell-3pl.imp jer-in-d́ a land-3sg.poss\loc Gošen-nin Goshen-gen da and biĺ-a-d=e-se-j da know-cvb-cont=be-cond-2sg or International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 268–308 287 A Historical Morphology of Western Karaim … bar=e-śa-Ø alar-da existence=be-cond-3sg they-loc da and qoj-ġun place-2sg.imp alar-ny they-acc tuvušlu able el men aġalyq-lar-y-n superior-pl-2sg.poss-poss.acc tuvar-nyn a-nyn üst-üń-a ki menim. livestock-gen that\gen top-3sg.poss\poss.dat which I\gen ‘The land of Egypt is before you. Settle your father and your brothers in a good place of the land. They shall dwell in the land of Goshen. And if you know—or if there is—any able men among them, then you shall make them superiors of livestock over which is mine.’ Ad (13): Numbers 11.15 Da eger bulaj sen qylady esen mana eltirgin meni endi eltirme eger taptym ese sirinlik ʿenajatlarynda senin da körmejim jamanymny. (JSul. III.01: 156 r0) Da eger bulaj qyl-a-d e-se-n and if thus do-cvb-cont be-cond-2sg mana I\dat eltir-gin kill-2sg.imp meni I\acc endi now eltir-me kill-inf eger if tap-ty-m e-se-Ø sirinlik-Ø ʿenajet-lar-yn-da find-pst-1sg be-cond-3sg favour-nom eye.of.God-pl-2sg.poss-loc da kör-me-jim jaman-Ø-ym-ny. and see-neg-1sg.opt wrong-coll-1sg.poss-acc ‘And if you deal thus with me, kill me now, to kill, if I have found favour in your eyes, and let me not see my wretchedness.’ After the submission of this paper for publication, the present author gained access to manuscript TKow.01—another Karaim manuscript of the Torah copied by Simcha ben Chananel in 1722. Given that the relevant Biblical verses were translated almost entirely in the same way in TKow.01, we adduce here only those verbal forms which are morphologically different to those presented above: International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 268–308 288 Németh Table 1 Differences between ms. ADub.III.73 and ms. TKow.01 Biblical verse ms. ADub.III.73 ms. TKow.01 Gen 19.13 čejpa-j-dyr=biz destroy-cvb-cont=1pl al-a-d=e-se-Ø take-cvb-cont=be-cond-3sg kle-me-j-d=e-se-j want-neg-cvb-cont=be-cond-2sg bošat-ma-j-d=e-se-j forgive-neg-cvb-cont=be-cond-2sg qyl-a-d=e-śa-j do-cvb-cont=be-cond-2sg čejpa-r-biz biz-Ø destroy-fut-1pl we-nom al-a-dy=e-se-Ø take-cvb-cont=be-cond-3sg Deest; a large part of this verse is missing due to scribal error. Deest; the translation follows slavishly the original. Spelled ‫קילדידסיי‬, i.e. qyladydesej or qyladydeśaj; probably a scribal error. Gen 27.46 Exo 10.4 Exo 32.32 Num 11.15 We can add to our list two further examples from the turn of the 19th century which have been identified in mss. JSul.I.19 (86 ro) and RAbk.IV.15 (18 vo). I found them in a religious poem (zemer) with the incipit Tenrim keldi taspolmaq translated from Polish by Zarach ben Natan of Troki (?1578–1657/1658).13 Based on a palaeographical analysis of the two manuscripts, it can be safely argued that the relevant portions of texts must have been copied in (perhaps the second half of) the 18th century. Since both verbs appear in one sentence, they are presented together: (15) qabul etedirmen (16) šükür etedirmen a) E Tenrim ne sen bersen qabul etedirmen || šatyr ǯan byla saja14 šükür etedirmen. (JSul.I.19: 86 ro) E Tenri-m ne-Ø sen-Ø ber-se-n o! God-1sg.poss what-nom you-nom give-cond-2sg 13 For more information about Zarach ben Natan, visit Mann (1931: 676–678), and Tuori (2013: 62–63). A North-Western Karaim form in a (Middle) South-Western Karaim text. The copyist, a native speaker of South-Western Karaim, did not feel the need to transpose into his own dialectal form sana the NWKar. saja he saw in the text he used as a pattern (note that Zarach ben Natan, the translator, was a native-speaker of North-Western Karaim, so the text was originally created in that dialect). This phenomenon was already described in Németh (2018: 87). 14 International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 268–308 289 A Historical Morphology of Western Karaim … qabul.et-e-dir-men accept-cvb-cont-1sg šatyr joyful ǯan-Ø heart-nom byla with saja thou\dat šükür.et-e-dir-men. thank-cvb-cont-1sg ‘O, my God, what you give: I accept. With a joyful heart I thank you.’ b) E Tenrim ne sen berdij qabul etá dir men || šatyr ǯan byla saja šükür etá dir men. (RAbk.IV.15: 18 ro) E Tenri-m ne-Ø sen-Ø ber-di-j o! God-1sg.poss what-nom you-nom give-pst-2sg ́ qabul.et-a-dir-men accept-cvb-cont-1sg šatyr joyful ǯan-Ø heart-nom byla with saja thou\dat ́ šükür.et-a-dir-men. thank-cvb-cont-1sg ‘O, my God, what you have given: I accept. With a joyful heart I thank you.’ Context Tenrim keldi taspolmaq || qoruġun sen meni. Eger sen alaj etsen || tanyrmen men seni. E Tenrim ne sen bersen || qabul etedirmen šatyr ǯan byla saja || šükür etedirmen. 3 My God! The destruction has come || protect me. If you do so || I will learn you. O, my God, what you give: || I accept. With a joyful heart || I thank you. Morphological Analysis It goes without saying that the basis of these constructions is the -a ~ -e ~ -j converb, which is well known throughout the entire Turkic linguistic world, including, of course, in Karaim (see, for instance, Musaev 1964: 299–300).15 It is also quite transparent that the examples 2–14 consist also of the -sa ~ -se conditional form of the auxiliary verb e- ‘to be’ and that the latter takes the finite form endings. The only morpheme that requires explanation here is -d. We know that Western Karaim is, as it were, famous for its abbreviated verbal forms in which both the tense markers and the personal endings, as well as the auxiliary verbs often undergo irregular shortening, see, e.g., Pritsak (1959a: 15 For the sake of clarity: -a, -e stand after consonants, -j follows consonants. International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 268–308 290 Németh 334), or Németh (2011a: 33–34, 91–94; 2013b: 270–272). In these forms, the 3rd person ending -d very commonly appears as the abbreviated form of the -dy < -dyr personal ending—including in its plural counterparts, i.e., in -dlar < -dylar < -dyrlar—both in the finite verbal forms, as well as in the -dyr 3rd person copula suffix (see, e.g. Németh 2011a: 52; Németh 2013c: 270, 272).16 As exemplary data documenting the abbreviated variants of the 3rd person ending -dyr let us adduce forms taken from critical editions in which the material can be easily checked against the context and facsimile: NWKar. ‫ יַ זָ ִדי‬jazady ‘he writes’ (Németh 2013b: 240) ← jazadyr, ‫ קילד‬qylad ‘he does’ (Németh 2013b: 242) ← qyladyr, ‫ ִב ַיל ְד ַלר‬biĺadĺar ‘they know’ (Németh 2013b: 246) ← biĺadirĺar, ‫יַ זַ ְד ָלר‬ jazadlar ‘they write’ (Németh 2013b: 246) ← jazadyrlar, SWKar. ‫ בולאד‬bolad ‘is’ (Németh 2011a: 190) and ‫ בולדי‬bolady ‘is’ (Németh 2011a: 196) ← boladyr, ‫ַײזָ ד‬ jazad (Németh 2011a: 2019) and ‫ יזאדי‬jazady (Németh 2011a: 190) ← jazadyr, ‫ ַא ְײ ַט ְד ָלר‬ajtadlar ‘they say’ (Németh 2011a: 220) ← ajtadyrlar, ‫ כלימידליר‬klemejdler (Németh 2011a: 212) ← klemejdirler. It is important to clarify the fact that while -dyr and -dy were commonly used in both the south- and north-western dialects, we have no representative philological data for the NWKar. -d 3rd person singular marker. As I reported in Németh (2013c: 270), the only example I am aware of is the above-mentioned word qylad, attested in a letter written in 1868.17 Obviously, in the forms excerpted from ADub.III.73, the affix -d can by no means be interpreted as a 3rd person ending (primarily because it is used with other personal endings). However, the Turkic linguistic material, and the nonconditional examples (1, 15, and 16) suggest another interpretation, namely that in this case -d is, in fact, an abbreviated variant of the Tkc. auxiliary tur- ~ dur- which in Turkic languages is commonly used in combination with the -a ~ -e (-ä) ~ -j converb18 to express several grammatical categories, predominantly 16 17 18 Again, for the sake of clarity let us remark that synchronically speaking the latter suffix is not identical with the -dyr ~ -d used in the -a-dyr construction discussed here, see our argumentation below. One argument supporting the thesis that at some point in the history of Karaim -d must have been very common in the north-western dialect is the existence of Mod.NWKar. -t, a widely used variant of -d that appears in the coda position only: it can only be interpreted by the -d > -t devoicing process triggered by Polish phonotactic influence. This took place, in all probability, in the late 19th or perhaps even in the 20th century. This is, of course, a simplified representation of this construction. Both the set of allophones of the -a ~ -e (-ä) ~ -j converb as well as the shape and grammatical affiliation of the cognates of Tkc. tur- ~ dur- (may) vary in the respective Turkic languages. Perhaps the most comprehensive (yet not exhaustive) overview of the Turkic cognates of the -a converb is presented in the table that the publisher added to Džanmavov’s (1967) work. In turn, in some languages, Tkc. tur- ~ dur- (< turur (aor) ← tur- ‘to stand, stay, stop’), International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 268–308 A Historical Morphology of Western Karaim … 291 continuative present tense, as well as continuative, durative, or iterative Aktionsarts (see Tenišev 1988: 443). For us, the most important comparative data come from the Kipchak languages. In this group the respective construction expresses: 1. durativity, as is the case in the language of the Codex Cumanicus (von Gabain 1959: 69), Crimean Tatar (Jankowski 2010: 135), Bashkir (Poppe 1962: 72; Juldašev 1965: 73–74), Tatar (Schönig 1984: 276–277, 325), Karakalpak (Baskakov 1952: 367), Kazakh (Menges 1959: 479), Kirghiz (Hebert & Poppe 1963: 46), or 2. a durative, continuative, or iterative Aktionsart as is the case in Karachay-Balkar (Filolenko 1940: 73–74; Urusbiev 1963: 100), Kumyk (Džanmavov 1967: 97–98, 103), or Nogai (Karakoç 2005: 146–148) also used, in some cases, to express: 3. the present tense, also used for future actions or for actions that are currently taking place or are about to end (egressive) at the moment of speech; see, e.g., Karakalpak (Baskakov 1952: 367), Tatar (Poppe 1961: 101; Schönig 1984: 276–277) or Kumyk and Karachay (Berta 1998: 311).19 To give a broader overview, we should say that the construction in question is also known in languages outside the Kipchak branch. In Chagatay it was used to express the durative present (and the durative past when followed by the verb er- ‘to be’ in simple past) (Bodrogligeti 2001: 237–241), a customary or repeated action performed in the present, or an uncertain future action (Eckmann 1966: 174–176; Blagova 1994: 341–343). In Uyghur, it is used to form present-future tense forms (Präsens II) (Pritsak 1959: 560; Rentzsch 2005: 94). In Turkmen, we can find examples where this construction is used to express ingressive verbs (Hanser 1977: 167–168), whereas in Turkish it refers to continuative-durative actions (Ersen-Rasch 2001: 257; Stachowski 2009: 377). In South-Siberian Turkic languages, e.g. in Tuvan, it may denote an inferential present that is also used to express actions that took place in the past (Räsänen 1957: 222; Ischakov & Paĺmbach 1961: 383–386). According to Ubrjatova (1972: 595), it denotes continuative-durative actions in Yakut, too.20 Finally, the Chuvash (durative) present appears to be a continuation of the same 19 20 behaves as a suffix and undergoes morphonological changes according to the vowel and consonant harmony rules, whereas in some languages it should rather be described as an auxiliary verb forming compounds. In several languages it also appears in the form of turur ~ durur. Let us merely remark here, that Berta (1998: 311) and Johanson (1999: 173) explicitly write that all Western Kipchak languages except Karaim use this construction. The respective chapter in Ubrjatova (1982: 288–289) lacks this form. International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 268–308 292 Németh construction (see Räsänen 1957: 222; Krueger 1961: 141–142; Levitskaja 1976: 59–62). In this case, the original -tur has evolved into -t. In light of the above facts, in Karaim, just as in Chuvash, Tkc. -a + tur- could have easily evolved into -a-dyr- > -a-dy-, -a-d-, which justifies the description of NWKar. -a-d-, SWKar. -a-dy-, and, thirdly, SWKar. -a-dyr- as variants of one and the same morpheme.21 Let us tentatively define it using the term continuative present before we move on to a more detailed semantic analysis. There is, however, one additional circumstance that we must bear in mind when analysing this verbal category: in theory, the 3rd person singular forms of the indicative and conditional present paradigm are homonymic to those of the basic (simple present) conjugation. This is because: 1. The -a ~ -e ~ -j converb is, at the same time, the present tense marker in Karaim. 2. The analysed continuative present -dyr- is polysemic to the -dyr 3rd person ending.22 3. Besides the conditional mood forms built by the suffix -sa attached to the verbal stem, there also exists an analytic approach to creating the conditional mood forms, that is by adding the auxiliary verb (NWKar.) eśa, (SWKar.) ese (< e- ‘to be’ + the -se, -śa conditional mood marker with the 3rd person marker marked by the zero morpheme) to the finite verb forms.23 This is demonstrated in Table 2.24 21 22 23 24 We should note here that the syncope of -y- in -a-d- was all the more possible, such that -dyr must have been unaccented: the stress is always placed on the converbial -a ~ -e—including in compound converb markers, as in NWKar.-á-do-ġon ~ -á-do-ġon-č ~ -á-do-ġo-č—whereas in the case of -j the stress falls on the syllable preceding it. Both morphemes ultimately derive from the Turkic aorist form of Tkc. tur- (turur). The analytical conditional forms are quite frequent in both ADub.III.73 and JSul.III.01, see bujurulduj ese ‘if you would be commanded’ (Genesis 45.19; ADub.III.73: 77 vo) or taptym ese ‘if I have found’ (Numbers 11.15; JSul.III.01: 156 ro) mentioned above in example 13. For a description of the Karaim analytical conditional mood forms see Musaev (1964: 293–294, 2003: 328–329), Németh (2011a: 50–51). This is known from other Turkic languages, too; to take one example, see Crimean Tatar (Jankowski 1992: 192). To simplify the picture, we have used Middle Western Karaim (roughly speaking, pre1800) unabbreviated forms, given that in this time period the South- and North-Western Karaim forms were phonetically almost identical. It is only the 2nd person marker that differs: (*ŋ >) NWKar. j vs. SWKar. n. Moreover, given that the subject of this study is a category that is extinct in Modern Western Karaim, using present-day forms would be, in fact, an anachronism. Finally, let us merely mention that in the light of the fact that these paradigms co-occur in a large number of Turkic languages, this dichotomy is an inherited feature in Karaim. International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 268–308 293 A Historical Morphology of Western Karaim … 1sg 2sg 3sg 1pl 2pl 3pl Analytical conditional 1sg 2sg 3sg 1pl 2pl 3pl Indicative Table 2 The indicative and conditional present forms of MWKar. al- ‘to take’ Simple present Continuative present al-a-men al-a-sen al-a-dyr al-a-biz al-a-siz al-a-dyrlar al-a-dyr-men al-a-dyr-sen al-a-dyr-Ø al-a-dyr-biz al-a-dyr-siz al-a-dyr-Ø-lar al-a-men e-se al-a-sen e-se al-a-dyr e-se al-a-biz e-se al-a-siz e-se al-a-dyrlar e-se al-a-dyr e-se-m al-a-dyr e-se-j, ese-n al-a-dyr e-se-Ø al-a-dyr e-se-k al-a-dyr e-se-jiz ~ ese-niz al-a-dyr e-se-Ø-ler Bearing this syncretism in mind, our list of examples noted above does not include two other forms recorded in ADub.III.73, which could theoretically be interpreted as continuative forms, namely: körüńadi eśa ‘if it seems’, and tujaqlajdy esede ‘even if it parts the hoof’. In my view, these should be described as present-tense analytical conditional forms, see: (17) körüńadi eśa (Numbers 22.34) Da ajtty Bilʿam malaḫyna Adonajnyn jazyqly boldum ki bilḿadim ki sen turasen utruma jolda da haligińa eger jaman k ö r ü ń a d i e ś a közĺarijd́ a qajtajym özüḿa. (ADub.III.73: 252 vo) Da ajt-ty-Ø Bilʿam-Ø malaḫ-yn-a Adonaj-nyn and say-pst-3sg Balaam-nom angel-3sg.poss\poss.acc Lord-gen jazyqly.bol-du-m sin-pst-1sg ki because bil-ḿa-di-m ki know-neg-pst-1sg that sen-Ø you-nom tur-a-sen utr-um-a jol-da da haligińa stand-prs-2sg against\1sg.poss-poss.dat way-loc and now International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 268–308 294 Németh eger if jaman bad körüń-a-di=e-śa-Ø seem-prs-3sg=be-cond-3sg köz-ĺar-ij-d́ a eye-pl-2sg.poss-loc qajt-ajym öz-üḿ-a. go.back-1sg.opt own-1sg.poss-poss.dat ‘And Balaam said to the angel of the Lord, ‘I have sinned, for I did not know that you stand in the way against me. Now therefore, if it seems bad in your eyes, let me go back to my place.’ ’ (18) tujaqlajdy esede (Deuteronomy 14.8) Da ošol ol ḥazirni ḥote t u j a q l a j d y e s e d e tujaq ol da güvün keltirmejdi murdardy ol sizge etlerinden alarnyn ašamajyz da gövdelerine alarnyn tijmejiz. (ADub.III.73: 305 ro) Da ošol=ol ḥazir-ni ḥote and art=art pig-acc though tujaqla-j-dy=e-se-Ø=de tujaq-Ø ol-Ø da part.the.hoof-prs-3sg=be-cond-3sg=int hoof-nom it-nom yet güvün-Ø keltir-me-j-di murdar-dy ol-Ø siz-ge cud-indef.acc bring-neg-prs-3sg unclean-3sg.cop it-nom you-dat et-lerin-den flesh-3pl.poss\abl alar-nyn they-gen aša-ma-jyz eat-neg-2pl.imp da and gövde-lerin-e alar-nyn tij-me-jiz. carcass-3pl.poss\dat they-gen touch-neg-2pl.imp ‘And the pig, even if it parts the hoof: yet it regurgitates not the cud. It is unclean to you. Of their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcass you shall not touch.’ A very good argument in favour of treating the two forms above (17 and 18) as analytical conditionals is the fact that in Deuteronomy 14.7, in the verse that directly precedes example 18 and has exactly the same logical structure as Deuteronomy 14.8, the word keltiredilerde ese is used in its 3rd plural form which automatically reveals its morphological affiliation (cf. Table 2), see: Tek ošol bunu ašamajyz jalġyz keltirüvčülerden ol güvünnü da jalġyz tujaqlavčulardan ol tujaqny ol ajyrylġanny ošol ol teveni da ošol qojanny da International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 268–308 295 A Historical Morphology of Western Karaim … ošol ol krolikni ḥote güvün keltiredilerde ese alar da tujaq tujaqlamajdylar murdarlardylar alar sizge. (ADub.III.73: 305 ro) Tek ošol bu-nu aša-ma-jyz jalġyz keltir-üvčü-ler-den just art this-acc eat-neg-imp.2pl only bring-cvb2-pl-abl ol art güvün-nü cud-acc tujaq-ny hoof-acc da and ol art ošol art ḥote though da jalġyz and only ajyryl-ġan-ny ošol to.be.split-ptcp-acc art qojan-ny hare-acc da ošol and art güvün-Ø cud-indef.acc alar-Ø they-nom da and tujaqla-vču-lar-dan part.the.hoof-cvb2-pl-abl ol art teve-ni camel-acc krolik-ni rabbit-acc keltir-e-diler=de bring-prs-3pl=int tujaq-Ø hoof-nom ol art ol art e-se-Ø be-cond-3sg tujaqla-ma-j-dylar part.the.hoof-neg-prs-3pl murdar-lar-dylar alar-Ø siz-ge. unclean-pl-cop.3pl they-nom thou-dat ‘Just: these you shall not eat of them that only regurgitate the cud, or of them that part the split hoof: the camel, and the hare, and the rabbit: even though they regurgitate the cud, but do not divide the hoof. They are unclean to you.’ Seen in this light, in ms. ADub.III.73 we observe the following strictly defined distinction: while the continuative -dyr- is abbreviated to -d-, the -dyr 3rd person marker, as, for instance, in the analytic conditional forms, is never abbreviated as -d, but only as -dy. 4 Semantic Analysis At the outset it is important to point out that all the analysed examples come from dialogues (including examples 15 and 16). This prompts the interpretation that the use of this construction is somewhat related to the moment of speech. In this case, Biblical translations have one significant advantage: the International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 268–308 296 Németh context of each grammatical form can be specified very precisely. So, if we turn to the context in which examples 1–14 appear, it seems valid to interpret them as continuative present tense forms that express either an action that is taking place in the moment of speech or an action that is about to happen immediately after the moment of speech. Presented below is a concise interpretation of the context: (1) čejpajdyr biz ‘we are destroying’: The two angels (referred to as two men) came down to Sodom to determine if it was truly wicked, because God wanted to destroy it (see Genesis 18.20–33). After having been assaulted by the people of Sodom the angels warn Lot that they are here to destroy the city. (2) qajtarmajdesej ‘if you do not give back’: The speaker (God), warns Abimelek that if he does not give back Sarah (or: continues to have Sarah for a wife), he will die. (3) aladese ‘if he takes’: The speaker (Rebekah) is afraid that Jacob (her son) will keep doing the same thing that Esau (her other son) has done, i.e. that he, too, will take the daughters of Heth as his wives. (4) ijedesej ‘if you are sending’: Jacob wants to send his sons to Joseph in Egypt for a second time to buy food. The speaker (Judah) tells Jacob (his father), that if he sends him and his brothers again, they will only go if their brother Benjamin goes with them, because that was the wish of Joseph. Example (5) is a direct continuation of this conversation. (5) ijmejdesej ‘if you are not sending’: The speaker (Judah) tells Jacob (his father), that if he refuses (or: keeps refusing) to send his brother Benjamin with him and his brothers to Joseph, they will not go to Egypt. The first two times when Jacob refused to send Benjamin to Joseph are described in Genesis 42.4 and Genesis 42.38. Cf. example 4. (6) biledesej ‘if you know’: The speaker (Pharaoh) asks Joseph whether he knows any worthy men who could be appointed herdsmen over royal herds. The Hebrew expression ‫י־חיִ ל‬ ַ ‫ ַאנְ ֵש‬ʾanšēy ḥayīl is usually interpreted as ‘wealthy, brave men who are able and thus are apt for military service’ (see Koehler & Baumgartner 1985: 295, s.v. ‫) ַחיִ ל‬, which might suggest that the speaker meant somebody whom Joseph knew very well (i.e., for a long time). (7) klemejdesej ‘if you are not willing’: The speaker (God) tells (through Jacob) Pharaoh to let the children of Israel go: he warns Pharaoh that if he still refuses to let his people go despite the warnings, he (God) will kill Pharaoh’s firstborn. (8) klemejdesej ‘if you are not willing’: The speaker (God) tells (through Jacob) Pharaoh to let the children of Israel go: he warns Pharaoh that International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 268–308 A Historical Morphology of Western Karaim … 297 if he still refuses to let his people go despite the warnings, he (God) will strike him with a second plague. (9) ijmejdesej ‘if you are not sending’: The speaker (God) tells (through Jacob) Pharaoh to let the children of Israel go: he warns Pharaoh that if he still refuses to let his people go despite the warnings, he (God) will strike him with a fourth plague. (10) klemejdesej ‘if you are not willing’: The speaker (God) tells (through Jacob) Pharaoh to let the children of Israel go: he warns Pharaoh that if he still refuses to let the people go, and he still holds them despite the warnings, he (God) will strike him with a fifth plague. (11) klemejdesej ‘if you are not willing’: The speaker (God) tells (through Jacob and Aaron) Pharaoh to let the children of Israel go: he warns Pharaoh that if he still refuses to let his people go despite the warnings, he (God) will strike him with an eighth plague. (12) bošatmajdesej ‘if you will not forgive’: God punishes the people because they have made a molten calf for a god (see Exodus 32.2–4). On the next day, the speaker (Moses) begs God to forgive the people and says that if God still refuses to forgive them their sin after listening to his entreaty, God shall let him die (this is how Heb. ‫ ְמ ֵחנִ י נָ א ִמ ִס ְפ ְרָך ֲא ֶשר ָכ ָת ְב ָת‬mḥēnī båʾ missip̄ rḵå ăšer kåṯåḇtå ‘blot me out from your book which you have written’ should be interpreted, see e.g. Peake 1920: 193). (13) qyladeśaj ‘if you do’: The speaker (Moses) begs God to kill him if God continues to treat him in the same way as he has so far, i.e., if God keeps burdening him alone with the responsibility of ruling his people (cf. Benson 1857, s.v. Numbers 11.15; Peake 1920: 218). (14) arttyradeśak ‘if we go on’: according to the speaker, the people say that they are afraid that if they continue listening to the voice of God, they will instantly die. At this point it is important to mention that a morphological analysis of the Hebrew equivalents of the analysed forms does not provide us with any additional information as far as the semantic scope of the category in question is concerned. Morphologically, neither of the respective Hebrew words expresses continuativity, durativity, or iterativity. The latter aspects transpire rather from the context or from the lexical meaning of the respective Hebrew root, as is the case, for instance, in example 14: in the BHeb. expression ‫ִאם־י ְֹס ִפים ֲאנַ ְחנּו‬ ‫ ִל ְשמ ַֹע‬ʾim-yosp̄ īm ănaḥnū lišmoaʿ ‘if we go on hearing’ the word ‫ י ְֹס ִפים‬yosp̄ īm is a participle of the verb ‫יֹוסף‬ ֵ yōsēp̄ that means ‘to add; to continue’. The Biblical Hebrew equivalents of the -a-d- forms are mostly participles located in the protasis (note that examples 2–14 come from conditional sentences), the role of which has been the subject of scholarly debate for more than a century International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 268–308 298 Németh (cf., e.g., Ferguson 1882, van Rooy 1985).25 However, these forms, do not express durative or durative-like Aktionsarts—rather they can be investigated in terms of the possibility, probability or reality of the condition they carry. From the viewpoint of semantic analysis, examples 15 and 16 are much less reliable: their importance lies rather in the fact that thanks to them we have the -dyr suffix documented in full. Finding the Polish original of the religious song they appear in would certainly cast some additional light on their meaning, but all attempts to identify the Polish original have so far ended without success, see Dubiński (1975: 403), Leszczyński (1985: 143), and Sulimowicz (2015: 102), and the manuscripts I have read to date do not contain this information, either. Based solely on the Karaim text, the forms in question might also be described as continuative present tense verbs, but I am aware of the speculative nature of this interpretation: (14) qabul etedirmen ‘I accept’ = The speaker asks for God’s protection and says that she/he (in the moment of speech?, always?) accepts what God gives her/him. (15) šükür etedirmen ‘I express my thanks’ = The speaker says that she/he (in the moment of speech?, always?) expresses her/his thanks for what God gives her/him. 5 Chronological Analysis The above data originate from the period between 1720 and the late 19th century. It is difficult to ascertain whether this category was still productive in the spoken language during this period given that religious texts, especially Bible translations, tend to be archaic for the obvious reason that the copyists’ duty was to keep the copy as close to the original as possible. In our opinion, this category eventually ceased to be used—including in written form—most probably in the first half of the 19th century. We base our argument on the fact that ms. JSul.III.01 features a number of morphologically incomprehensible formants copied as equivalents of the -a-d- forms known from ms. ADub.III.73, see: ‫ ִא ְײ ֶמ ְײ ֶדיא ֶא ֶיסין‬ijmejde esen (Genesis 43.5, Exodus 8.17; JSul.III.01: 49 ro, 66 ro), ‫ ִב ֵיל ֶידיא ֶא ֶיסין‬bilede esen (Genesis 47.6; JSul.III.01: 54 ro), ‫ ְכ ֶל ֶימ ְײ ֶדיא ֵא ֶיסין ~ ְכ ֵל ֶימ ְײ ֶדיא ֵא ֶיסין‬klemejde esen (Exodus 7.27, Exodus 9.2, Exodus 10.4; JSul.III.01: 65 vo, 66 vo, 68 ro). In these forms the segment -de cannot be properly interpreted morphologically, nor can it be treated as a result of 25 My heartfelt thanks go to Dr. Habil. Marek Piela (Kraków) for his kind help on Hebraistic matters. International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 268–308 A Historical Morphology of Western Karaim … 299 scribal error because of its repeated use. Also, the absence of this grammatical category in Karaim grammatical descriptions, based mostly on 19th–20thcentury texts (see 1. Preliminary remarks) complies with such an absolute chronology. Finally, it is perhaps also important to point out that there is no trace of the -a-dyr- construction in the Eastern Karaim Bible translations to which I had access (B 282, BSMS 288, Gaster Hebrew MS 170, and Tanakh 1841), or at least I failed to find any. Last but not least, the Biblical verses equivalent to Exodus 32.32 and Numbers 11.15 (examples 11–12) found in the 15th-century fragmentary translation of the Torah into a Turkic language (possibly Chagatay or Old Karaim), i.e. in manuscript Evr I Bibl 143,26 do not contain these forms, either. Below, I have quoted some exemplary data from these latter Crimean sources: Ad (12): Exodus 32.32 a) bošatsaŋ (simple present, conditional, 2sg) ‫דאימדי איגר בושטסנג גוננחיני דאיגר יוך איסא קירגין אימדי מני אול ביטיכינגדן כי‬ ‫יזדינג‬ Da egär imdi b o š a t s a ŋ günneḥini da egär joq esä qyrġyn imdi meni ol bitikiŋdän ki jazdyŋ. (Evr I Bibl 143: 18 ro) ‘And if you will forgive now his sin, but if not, wipe me out [lit. destroy] now of your book that you have written.’ b) bošatyr esäŋ (future, conditional, 2sg) ‫יטיֿגִ יֿגִ ַדן ִכי‬ ִ ‫יקל ִרין ַד ֵאֿגַ ר יֹוק ֵא ַסה ִײ ִליס ֵא ְט ִכין ֵמנִ י ֵאנְ ִדי ִב‬ ַ ִ‫בֹוש ִטיר ֵא ַסֿג יַ ז‬ ַ ‫ַד ֵאנְ ִדי ֵאֿגַ ר‬ ‫יַ זְ ִדיֿג‬ Da endi egär b o š a t y r e s ä ŋ jazyqlaryn da egär joq esä jylys etkin meni endi bitikiŋdän ki jazdyŋ. (BSMS 288: 85 vo) ‘And now, if you will forgive their sin, and if not, wipe me out [lit. destroy] now of your book that you have written.’ c) bošatyr esäŋ (future, conditional, 2sg) ‫יתּבּוגְ ַדן‬ ַ ‫יֹוק ֵא ַסה ִס ְילגִ יג ֵמנִ י ֵאנְ ִדי ִכ‬ ְ ‫ּבֹושט ׀ ַד ֵאגַ ר‬ ַ ‫יק ַל ִרינִ י‬ ְ ִ‫בֹוש ִטיר ֵא ַסג יַ ז‬ ַ ‫ַד ֵאנְ ִדי ֵאגַ ר‬ ‫ִכי יַ זְ ִדיֿג‬ 26 First listed in Harkavy & Strack (1875: 167–168). The investigation of the paper it was written on showed that it dates back to the late 15th century, see Grishchenko (2018: 172). This manuscript will undergo a thorough investigation in the near future in the framework of the ERC project (grant agreement № 802645; acronym: KaraimBible) led by the present author. For the time being, the distinction between e and ä is tentative. International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 268–308 300 Németh Da endi egär bošatyr esäŋ jazyqlaryny bošat, da egär joqesä silgiŋ meni endi kitabuŋdan ki jazdyŋ. (Tanakh 1841: vol. 1: 80 vo) ‘And now, if you will forgive their sin, forgive, and if not, wipe me out now of your book that you have written.’ Ad (13): Numbers 11.15 a) etär esäŋ (future, conditional, 2sg) ‫אולטירא איגר טפטים איסא‬ ֻ ‫אולטירגין מני אמדי‬ ֻ ‫דאיגר אלי איטר איסנג מנגא‬ ‫שירינליכ נדרינגדא ד כורמגימן ימן חלימני‬ Da egär alaj e t ä r e s ä ŋ maŋa öltürgin meni imdi öltürä egär taptym esä širinlik nadaryŋda27 da körmaġajmen jaman ḥalimni. (Evr I Bibl 143: 83 vo–84 ro) ‘And if you deal thus with me, kill me killing now, if I have found favour in your sight, and may I not see my wretched condition.’ b) qylar esäŋ (future, conditional, 2sg) ‫יםא ַסה ִש ִירינְ ִליכ‬ ֵ ‫דּור ַמה ֵאֿגַ ר ַט ְפ ִט‬ ְ ‫אֹול‬ ְ ‫דּורֿגִ ין ֵמנִ י ֵאנְ ִדי‬ ְ ‫אֹול‬ ְ ‫בּולי ֵסן ִק ַילר ֵא ַסֿג ַמֿגַ ה‬ ַ ‫ַד ֵאֿגַ ר‬ ‫ימנִ י‬ ְ ִ‫יַמנְ ִליֿג‬ ַ ‫כֹור ַמ ִײם‬ ְ ‫ַענֵ ַײ ְט ַל ִריֿגַ ה ַד‬ Da egär bulaj sen q y l a r e s ä ŋ maŋa öldürgin meni endi öldürmä egär taptymesä širinlik ʿänejätläriŋä da körmäjim jamanlyġymny. (BSMS 288: 131 vo) ‘And if you will do to me like this, kill me now, if I have found favour in your eyes, and may I not see my wretchedness.’ c) qylar esäŋ (future, conditional, 2sg) ‫דּורֿגִ ין ֵמנִ י ֵאנְ ִדי ׀ ֵאֿגַ ר ַט ְפ ִטים ֵא ַסה‬ ְ ‫אֹול‬ ְ ‫דּור ַמה‬ ְ ‫אֹול‬ ְ ‫ּבּולי ֵסן ִק ַילר ֵא ַסג ַמגַ ה ׀‬ ַ ‫ַד ֵאגַ ר‬ ‫ימנִ י‬ ְ ִ‫יַמנְ ִליג‬ ַ ‫גֹור ַמ ִײם‬ ְ ‫ִש ִרנְ ִלכ ַענַ ַײ ְט ַל ִריגַ ה ׀ ַד‬ Da egär bulaj sen qylar esäŋ maŋa, öldürmä öldürgin meni endi, egär taptym esä širinlik ʿänäjätläriŋä, da görmäjim jamanlyġymny. (Tanakh 1841: vol. 1: 131 vo) ‘And if you will do to me like this, surely kill me now, if I have found favour in your eyes, and may I not see my wretchedness.’ 27 ‫ظظ‬ < Ar. ‫�ر‬ �� naẓar ‘sight’. International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 268–308 A Historical Morphology of Western Karaim … 6 301 Final Conclusion In light of the above it would appear justified to say that the NWKar. -a-dyr- ~ -a-d- and SWKar. -a-dyr- ~ -a-dy- ~ -a-d- constructions primarily performed the role of expressing continuative present tense forms (conveying continuative, durative and iterative shades of meaning) and were used to denote an action that takes place at the moment of speech or immediately after it. In other words, the context in which the analysed verbal forms appear allows us to state that the newly found Karaim data complies with the Kipchak comparative material. Acknowledgement The research upon which this publication is based has been awarded funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement number 802645). The task of preparing the transcription and the English translation of manuscript ADub.III.73 as well as the process of collecting the required linguistic data from it was financed by the National Science Centre of Poland (Narodowe Centrum Nauki), grant agreement number UMO-2015/17/B/HS2/01498. Abbreviations abl acc aor Ar. arch. art BHeb. caus Chag. coll ablative accusative Turkic aorist Arabic archaic. article Biblical Hebrew causative Chagatay collective International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 268–308 302 Németh comp cond cont cop cvb cvb2 dat dur Eng. fut gen Heb. imp indef inf int loc nom Mod.NWKar. MWKar. NWKar. opt pers pl poss prs pst ptcp SG SWKar. Tkc. comparative conditional continuative copula Tkc. -a converb Tkc. -(i)gčü converb dative durative English future genitive Hebrew imperative indefinite infinitive intensifying particle locative nominative Modern North-Western Karaim Middle Western Karaim North-Western Karaim optative personal ending plural possessive present simple (Tkc. -dy) past Tkc. -ġan participle singular South-Western Karaim Turkic Primary Sources ADub.III.73 = A translation of the Torah, the Book of Ruth, the Book of Jeremiah, Ecclesiastes, and the Book of Esther into North-Western Karaim. The Torah was copied between 25 Mar 1720 and 31 May 1720. The other books were copied after 31 May 1720 and before 27 Mar 1723. Copied in Kukizów by Simcha ben Chananel. 385 folios. International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 268–308 A Historical Morphology of Western Karaim … 303 B 282 = An Eastern Karaim translation of some portions of the Tanakh (Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Daniel, Ezra and Nehemiah). Copied in the 18th century. 117 folios. BSMS 288 = An Eastern Karaim translation of the Tanakh (excluding 1–2 Chronicles). Copied in the 18th c. Kept in the Cambridge University Library. See Jankowski & Aqtay & Cegiołka & Çulha & Németh (2019). Evr I Bibl 143 = A translation of larger portions of the Torah (Exodus 21:11 – Numbers 28:15), copied into a Kipchak language (Karaim?) most probably in the 15th century. Held in the National Library of Russia. 105 folios. Full text available online at: http://web.nli.org.il/sites/NLI/English/digitallibrary/pages/viewer.aspx?presentorid =MANUSCRIPTS&docid=PNX_MANUSCRIPTS000151708–1#|FL38639157. Gaster Hebrew MS 170 = An Eastern Karaim Bible translation containing some portions of the Torah (Genesis 1:1 – Deuteronomy 32:51) and of the Book of Lamentations (4:11–5:22). Copied in the 18th century. 265 folios. Full text available online at: https://luna.manchester.ac.uk/luna/servlet/s/a0jk2m. JSul.I.19 = A prayer book in Hebrew, South-Western, and North Western Karaim. Copied most probably in Lutsk at the turn of the 19th century, by several unknown individuals. 225 folios. JSul.III.01 = A South-Western Karaim translation of the Torah and Haftarot. Copied in Halych in the 19th century by Jeshua Josef Mordkowicz (1802–1884). 298 folios. Mickiewicz, Zacharjasz & Rojecki, Elijahu (transl.). 1889. ‫ספר חמשה חומשי תורה‬ ‫מתורגם ללשון קדרי לבני מקרא קודש המורגלת בפי קהלות הקראים הדרים בגלילות‬ ‫רוסיא‬. Хамиша хумше тора, т. е., Пятикнижие Ветхаго Завѣта, переведенное на караимское нарѣчіе посредствомъ Захарія Михайлова Мицкевича и Илья Исаева Роецкаго. Vilnius. RAbk.IV.15 = A prayer book in Hebrew and North-Western Karaim. The work of many copyists (one of them is identified: Chanania Abraham ben David Abkowicz, born 1814 or 1817, died 1876, hazzan in Troki between 1844 and 1876). The different parts were copied between the 18th century and the 1st half of the 19th century. The place where they were created is unknown. 183 folios. Tanakh (1841) = Tiriškan, M. (ed.). 1841. ‫ ספר תרגום תורה בלשון טטר‬Sefer Targum Torah bi-lešon Ṭaṭar. Vol. 1–4. Gözleve [= Eupatoria]. TKow.01 = A translation of the Torah into North-Western Karaim. A partially vocalised sister manuscript of ADub.III.73 mistakenly described by Kowalski (1929: 289) and Zajączkowski (1939: 94) as a manuscript created in 1723 in Derażne. Copied by Simcha ben Chananel, the copyist of ADub.III.73; it was finished on 7 December 1722 A.D. Kept in Kraków in the private archive of the inheritors of the late Tadeusz Kowalski’s (1889–1948) private archive (re-discovered on 15 November 2019 by the present author and Dr. Anna Sulimowicz). 351 folios. International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 268–308 304 Németh References Baskakov, Nikolaj Aleksandrovič. 1952. Karakalpakskij jazyk. II. Fonetika i morfologija. Čast ́ 1. Časti reči i slovoobrazovanie. Moskva. Benson, Joseph. 1857. The Old Testament and New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. (According to the present authorized version.) With critical, explanatory, and practical notes: The marginal readings of the most approved printed copies of the New Testament with such others as appear to be countenanced by the original Greek: A copious collection of parallel texts; summaries of each book and chapter; and the date of every transaction and event recorded in this part of the sacred oracles, agreeably to the calculations of the most correct chronologers. Vol. 1. New York. [Available on-line, without page numbers indicated, at https://biblehub.com/commentaries]. Berta, Árpád. 1998. West Kipchak Languages. In: Johanson, L. & Csató, É. Á. (eds). The Turkic Languages. London, New York: 301–317. Blagova, Galina Fedorovna. 1994. « Babur-Name ». Jazyk, pragmatika teksta, stiĺ. K istorii čagatajskogo literaturnogo jazyka. Moskva. Bodrogligeti, András J. E. 2001. A grammar of Chagatay. [= Languages of the World/ Materials 155]. München. Csató, Éva Ágnes. 1998. Über die finiten Verbformen des gesprochenen NordwestKaraimischen. In: Taube, Erika & Demir, Nurettin. (eds). Turkologie heute—Tradition und Perspektive. [= Veröffentlichungen der Societas Uralo-Altaica 46]. Wiesbaden: 47–53. Dubiński, Aleksander. 1975. Przekłady literatury polskiej w piśmiennictwie karaimskim. – Przegląd Orientalistyczny 96.4: 403–404. Džanmavov, Jusip Džangišievič. 1967. Deepričastija v kumykskom literaturnom jazyke. Moskva. Eckmann, János. 1966. Chagatay Manual. [= Indiana University Publications. Uralic and Altaic Series 60]. Bloomington. Ersen-Rasch, Margarete I. 2001. Türkische Grammatik für Anfänger und Fortgeschrittene. Ismaning. Ferguson, Henry. 1882. An examination of conditional sentences in Hebrew. – Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis 2.1: 40–90. Filolenko, Viktor Iosifovič. 1940. Grammatika balkarskogo jazyka. Fonetika i morfologija. Naĺčik. Friedman, Richard Elliott. 2003. The Bible with sources revealed. A new view into the Five Books of Moses. New York. von Gabain, Annemarie. 1959. Die Sprache des Codex Cumanicus. In: Deny, Jean & Grønbech, Kaare & Scheel, Helmuth & Togan, Zeki Velidi (eds.). Philologiae Turcicae Fundamenta. Vol. 1. Wiesbaden: 46–73. International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 268–308 A Historical Morphology of Western Karaim … 305 Grishchenko, Aleksander I. 2018. Pravlenoe slavjano-russkoe pjatiknižie 15 veka: predvariteĺnye itogi lingvotekstologičeskogo izučenija. Moscow. Grzegorzewski, Jan. 1903. Ein türk-tatarischer Dialekt in Galizien. Vokalharmonie in den entlehnten Wörtern der karaitischen Sprache in Halicz. [Mit Einleitung, Texten und Erklärungen zu den Texten]. – Sitzungsberichte der kais[erlichen] Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien. Philosophisch-historische Klasse 146: 1–80. Grzegorzewski, Jan. 1916–1918. Caraimica. Język Łach-Karaitów. – Rocznik Oryentalistyczny 1/2: 252–296. Grzegorzewski, Jan. 1917. Narzecze południowe Karaitów polskich czyli t. zw. ŁachKaraimów. – Sprawozdania z czynności posiedzeń Akademii Umiejętności w Krakowie 22.3: 2–6. Gülsevin, Selma. 2016. Karay Türklerinin Dili (Troki Diyalekti). [= Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları 1165]. Ankara. Hanser, Oskar. 1977. Turkmen manual. [= Beihefte zur Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 7] Wien. Harkavy, Albert & Strack, Hermann Leberecht. 1875. Catalog der hebräischen Bibelhandschriften der Kaiserlichen Öffentlichen Bibliothek in St. Petersburg. Erster und zweiter Theil. St. Petersburg, Leipzig. Hebert, Raymond J. & Poppe, Nicholas. 1963. Kirghiz manual. [= Indiana University Publications. Uralic and Altaic Series 33]. Bloomington. Ischakov, Fazyl Garifovič & Paĺmbach, Aleksandr Adoĺfovič. 1961. Grammatika tuvinskogo jazyka. Fonetika i morfologija. Moskva. Jankowski, Henryk. 1992. Gramatyka języka krymskotatarskiego. Poznań. Jankowski, Henryk. 2010. Język krymskotatarski. Warszawa. Jankowski, Henryk. 2014. Two Karaim religious poems by Isaac ben Abraham Troki. – Karaite Archives 2: 35–57. Jankowski, Henryk. 2015. Karaim and Krymchak. In: Kahn, Lily & Rubin, Aaron D. (eds.). Handbook of Jewish languages. Leiden, Boston: 451–488. Jankowski, Henryk & Aqtay, Gülayhan & Cegiołka, Dorota & Çulha, Tülay & Németh, Michał. 2019. The Crimean Bible. Vol. 1. Critical edition of the Pentateuch, Five Scrolls, Psalms, Proverbs, Ezra and Nehemiah. Vol. 2. Translation. [= Turcologica 119]. Wiesbaden. Johanson, Lars. 1999. Typological notes on aspect and actionality in Kipchak Turkic. In: Werner, Abraham & Kulikov, Leonid (eds.). Tense-aspect, transitivity and causativity. Essays in honour of Vladimir Nedjalkov. [= Studies in Language Companion Series 50]. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: 171–184. Juldašev, Achnef Achmetovič. 1965. Analitičeskie formy glagola v tjurkskich jazykach. Moskva. Karakoç, Birsel. 2005. Das finite Verbalsystem im Nogaischen. [= Turcologica 58]. Wiesbaden. International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 268–308 306 Németh Koehler, Ludwig & Baumgartner, Walter. 1985. Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros. Vol. 1–2. Leiden. Kowalski, Tadeusz. 1929. Karaimische Texte im Dialekt von Troki. [= Prace Komisji Orjentalistycznej Polskiej Akademji Umiejętności 11]. Kraków. Krueger, John R. 1961. Chuvash manual. Introduction, grammar, reader, and vocabulary. [= Indiana University Publications. Uralic and Altaic Series 7]. Bloomington. Leszczyński, Rafał. 1985. Jan Kochanowski po karaimsku. In: Magnuszewski, W. (ed.). 450 rocznica urodzin Jana Kochanowskiego. Księga referatów ogólnopolskiej sesji naukowej. Zielona Góra 26–17 XI 1980. Zielona Góra: 139–145. Levitskaja, Lija Sergeevna. 1976. Istoričeskaja morfologija čuvašskogo jazyka. Moskva. Majtczak, Tomasz. 2008. A note on Old Turkic taŋlar-. – Studia Etymologica Cracoviensia 9: 103–110. Mann, Jacob. 1931 [1972]. Texts and Studies in Jewish History and Literature. Volume II: Karaitica. New York [second edition: 1972]. Menges, Karl Heinrich. 1959. Die aralo-kaspische Gruppe. In: Deny, Jean & Grønbech, Kaare & Scheel, Helmuth & Togan, Zeki Velidi (eds.). Philologiae Turcicae Fundamenta. Vol. 1. Wiesbaden: 434–488. Musaev, Kenesbaj Musaevič. 1964. Grammatika karaimskogo jazyka. Fonetika i morfologija. Moskva. Musaev, Kenesbaj Musaevič. 1977. Kratkij grammatičeskij očerk karaimskogo jazyka. Moskva. Musaev, Kenesbaj Musaevič. 2003, Sintaksis karaimskogo jazyka, Moskva. Németh, Michał. 2011a. Unknown Lutsk Karaim letters in Hebrew script (19th–20th centuries). A critical edition. [= Studia Turcologica Cracoviensia 12]. Kraków. Németh, Michał. 2011b. Zwięzła gramatyka języka zachodniokaraimskiego z ćwiczeniami. [= Prace Karaimoznawcze 1]. Poznań. Németh, Michał. 2013a. Ananiasz Zajączkowski’s doctoral thesis: The original manuscript of Sufiksy imienne i czasownikowe w języku zachodniokaraimskim. – Folia Orientalia 50: 115–156. Németh, Michał. 2013b. Karaim Letters of Jehoszafat Kapłanowski. I. Critical Edition. – Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis 130: 237–257. Németh, Michał. 2013c. Karaim Letters of Jehoszafat Kapłanowski. II. Linguistic analysis. – Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis 130: 259–276. Németh, Michał. 2014. An early North-Western Karaim Bible translation from 1720. Part 1. The Torah. – Karaite Archives 2: 109–141. Németh, Michał. 2015a. A historical morphology of Western Karaim. The -p edi past tense in the south-western dialect. – Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 68.2: 215–228. Németh, Michał. 2015b. An early North-Western Karaim Bible translation from 1720. Part 2. The Book of Ruth. – Karaite Archives 3: 49–102. International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 268–308 A Historical Morphology of Western Karaim … 307 Németh, Michał. 2018. An early North-Western Karaim text dating from before 1700. A linguist’s contribution to the biography of Josef ha-Mashbir. – Almanach Karaimski 7: 83–98. Németh, Michał. 2020 [forthcoming]. Middle Western Karaim. A critical edition and linguistic analysis of pre-19th-century Karaim interpretations of Hebrew piyyutim. [Forthcoming in Languages of Asia, Brill, ISBN 9789004414228]. Németh, Michał. [forthcoming]. The Western Karaim Torah. A critical edition of a manuscript from 1720. [forthcoming in Languages of Asia, Brill]. Olach, Zsuzsanna. 2012. Numerals in Halich Karaim Bible texts. In: Kincses-Nagy, Éva & Biacsi, Mónika. (eds.). The Szeged Conference. Proceedings of the 15th international conference on Turkish linguistics held on August 20–22, 2010 in Szeged. Szeged: 371–380. Olach, Zsuzsanna. 2013. A Halich Karaim translation of Hebrew biblical texts. [= Turcologica 98]. Wiesbaden. Olach, Zsuzsanna. 2014. Translational methods used for rendering special characteristics of Hebrew interrogatives in Karaim Bible translations. – Turkic Languages 18.1–2: 207–228. Peake, Arthur S. (with the assistance of Grieve Alexander James) (eds.). 1920. A commentary on the Bible. New York, London. Poppe, Nicholas. 1961. Tatar manual. [= Indiana University Publications. Uralic and Altaic Series 43]. Bloomington. Poppe, Nicholas. 1962. Bashkir manual. [= Indiana University Publications. Uralic and Altaic Series 68]. Bloomington. Prik, Oĺga Jakovlevna. 1976. Očerk grammatiki karaimskogo jazyka (krymskij dialekt). Machačkala. Pritsak, Omeljan. 1959a. Das Karaimische. In: Deny, Jean & Grønbech, Kaare & Scheel, Helmuth & Togan, Zeki Velidi (eds). Philologiae Turcicae Fundamenta. Vol. 1. Wiesbaden: 318–340. Pritsak, Omeljan. 1959b. Das Neuuigurische. In: Deny, Jean & Grønbech, Kaare & Scheel, Helmuth & Togan, Zeki Velidi (eds). Philologiae Turcicae Fundamenta. Vol. 1. Wiesbaden: 525–563. Räsänen, Martti. 1957. Materialien zur Morphologie der türkischen Sprachen. [= Studia Orientalia 21]. Helsinki. Rentzsch, Julian. 2005. Aspekt im Neuuigurischen. [= Turcologica 65]. Wiesbaden. van Rooy, Herculaas Frederik. 1985. Conditional sentences in Biblical Hebrew. In: Proceedings of the Ninth World Congress of Jewish Studies. Jerusalem: 9–16. Schönig, Claus. 1984. Hilfsverben im Tatarischen. Untersuchungen zur Funktionsweise einiger Hilfsverbverbindungen. Wiesbaden. Stachowski, Marek. 2009. Gramatyka języka tureckiego w zarysie. Kraków. International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 268–308 308 Németh Sulimowicz, Anna. 2015. Nieznany przekład Roty na język karaimski. – Almanach Karaimski 4: 101–116. Tenišev, Èdchjam Rachimovič. (ed.). 1988. Sravniteĺno-istoričeskaja grammatika tjurkskich jazykov. Morfologija. Moskva. Tuori, Riikka. 2013. Karaite zĕmīrōt in Poland-Lithuania. A study of paraliturgical Karaite Hebrew poems from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Helsinki. Ubrjatova, Elizaveta Ivanovna. 1972. Kratkij grammatičeskij očerk jakutskogo jazyka. In: Slepcov, P. A. (ed.). Jakutsko-russkij slovaŕ. Moskva: 569–605. Ubrjatova, Elizaveta Ivanovna. 1982. Grammatika sovremennogo jakutskogo literaturnogo jazyka. Moskva. Urusbiev, Ibragim Chadži-Muratovič. 1963. Sprjaženie glagola v karačaevo-balkarskom jazyke. Čerkessk. Zajączkowski, Ananiasz. 1931. Krótki wykład gramatyki języka zachodnio-karaimskiego (narzecze łucko-halickie). Łuck. Zajączkowski, Ananiasz. 1932. Sufiksy imienne i czasownikowe w języku zachodniokaraimskim (przyczynek do morfologii języków tureckich). [= Polska Akademja Umiejętności. Prace Komisji Orjentalistycznej 15]. Kraków. International Journal of Eurasian Linguistics 1 (2019) 268–308

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Log In

A Historical Morphology of Western Karaim: the -a-d- Continuative Present

A Historical Morphology of Western Karaim: the -a-d- Continuative Present

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS