±á´¡²Ñ´¡¶ÙÄ€±·
Introduction. The dialect spoken by the Jews of HamadÄån (henceforth HJ) and a close variant spoken by the Jews of TuyserkÄån (TJ; see Affiliations and Variantsbelow) belong to the Central Plateau Dialect (CPD) group of Northwestern Iranian languages (NWI), as opposed to Southwestern Iranian (SWI; e.g., Persian). The sources used for this description are abbreviated as follows: Abrahamian (AB), and Yarshater (YS).
Population and community. According to Ehsan Yarshater’s informants, the Jewish community had dwindled from around 13,000 souls in 1920 to less than 1,000 by 1969, and of these about half originated from the Jewish communities of MalÄåyer, TuyserkÄån, and various points in Kurdistan. The Jewish population lived mostly in the Darb-e Kalim-ḵÄåna quarter of HamadÄån. Haideh Sahim reports that in the mid-1970s the community numbered only about 350 (Sahim, p. 173, quoting an informant). According to members of the community that Donald Stilo encountered in 2001-02, there were only eight people from the Jewish community left in HamadÄån at the time, but others can still be found in Israel, New York City, and most predominantly in Los Angeles. He was also informed that only people born before the mid-1940s were raised speaking the dialect. Even Yarshater’s informants claimed, in 1969, that use of the language in the home was dwindling. Hence it is not known how many speakers are left and whether there are any full native speakers among the generation under the age of fifty. It is likely that the Jewish community of TuyserkÄån is now extinct, as Yarshater informants reported that in 1969 there were only two Jewish families left and they were at the time planning to leave.
Diachronics. The following list details the major NWI phonological developments from proto-Iranian (listed with *) present in the Jewish dialect of HamadÄån, but examples typical of SWI that are also found in this dialect due to heavy borrowing from Persian are listed alongside in parentheses: *ts > s as in masar, kasar (= mas, kas + tar) “large, small” (but dah “ten”); *dz > z, as in ³ú³Ü²Ô/³ú³Ü²ÔÄå “know,” heze “yesterday” (but »å³Ü³¾Äå»å “son-in-law” del “heart”); *tsv > sp~sb as in esbid “white”; *dzv> zb~zv in zowun “tongue”; *dv- > b-, as in bar “door.” Later changes consist of: *fr- > h- in he- “preverb (< *´Ú°ùÄå)” in he-geft “take,” ³ó±ð-»åÄå “give,” he-ništ “sit” (but note the SWI-like fr-, in HJ fraš/frat- “sell”); *θr > r in pir “son” (but se “three”);*w- > v- (instead of b-) in ±¹Äå²â´Ç³¾ “almond,” vece “child,” ±¹Äå°ù³Ü²Ô “rain,” ±¹Äå²â “wind, breeze,” ver- “preverb” (usually indicating “up”), (but ²úÄå³ú(-²¹³¾) “again,” barre “lamb”); *w- > v- (instead of g-) in veider~ veidešd “pass” (but gorg “wolf”); *j- remains as j- in jir “down,” jande “alive,” jn~jen- “hit,” jan “woman”; *-xt > NWI -(h)t~ -(t)t, as in sot- “burned,” pet- “cooked,” ret- “poured,” vat- “said,” dot “daughter”; the development of *-ft > -(h)t~-(t)t (usually parallel to *-xt)does not seem to occur in HJ, represented only by -ft : geft- “take,” kaft- “fall,” dor-oft- “sleep,” cf. the respective Farizandi (NE subgroup of CPD) forms gat, dar-kaft, hot; *-Ä- > -j- as in suj- “burn,” rij- “pour” with further weakening to -y/Ø- in ±¹Äå(²â)- “say-pres” and note the alternates pej-~pec- “cook-pres” (but ez~az “from”). The only major developments in the HJ vowel system are (1) -i- in place of -u- in pir “boy,” ri “face,” did “smoke,” found even in Arabic loanwords, e.g., aris “bride” and (2) the -Äå- vowel in ³¾Äå²Ô “I,” as opposed to man-men in other Iranian languages, but this development is also common in other CPD.
Phonology. The consonantal system of HJ has the following inventory: p, b, t, d, c, j, k, g, q~γ, f, v, s, z, š, x, h, m, n, r, l, y, although Yarshater’s notes also show a pharyngeal H, especially in Hebrew and Arabic words, e.g., ±ð²õ±áÄå±ç “Isaac” and ²õ´Ç²úÄå±á “tomorrow,” but also in words of Iranian origin: ±á²¹³¾±ð°ùÄå²Ô “I break.” No other sources show this consonant and even in Yarshater’s notes it occurs in very few words. The vowel system (i, e, a, u, o, Äå, ey, ow) is also similar to other Iranian languages; É™ is probably a variant of e. Stressis phonemic in HJ, e.g., such contrasts as: únÄå “him (direct object),” unÄåËŠ “they.”
NOUNPHRASE
Number. HJ nouns have one type of plural ending for both animates and inanimates: -ÄåËŠ, e.g., šÄåx-Äå “horns,” yehudi-Äå “Jews.” There are two indefinite markers: the number ye(y) “one” (yey šarbat “a syrup”) and an unstressed -ì (miÄåËŠn-e bÄåËŠγi “in a garden”), but both forms most commonly occur together (yey xiÄåËŠl-e xabi “a good idea”).
Object marking. Definite direct objects take -(r)Äå : -Äå after consonants (vecé-š-Äå né-š-di “she didn’t see her child”) -rÄå after vowels (hamÄåËŠ-rÄå bé-dÄån-ferÄåte “you have sold us”). -RÄå drops when the marker for subject (Set2; see Table 1) is moved from the verb to the direct object in the past tenses (see Fronting): ow-š bÉ™xo “he drank (the) water,” but -rÄå remains when this Set2 appears elsewhere: píl-Äå bé-š-be “he took the money,” sér-ešÄån-Äå hanÄå-šÄån bégeft “they hennaed their hair (lit: head).” Set2 on the verb can also express pronominal direct objects: jnút-em “he hits me,” bé-yrut-ed “that he catch you,” kÄåru bó-košid-eš “you must kill him,” da’vat-ešÄån kart-em “they invited me.”
Modifiers and the eżÄåfa. Modifiers follow their noun via an eżÄåfa connector: un taraf-e divÄår “that side of the wall,” kÄårÄå-ye kie “chores of the house”; adjectives: heyvún-e Äåqel “a smart animal,” ye xÄå-y emin-em “another sister of mine.” The eżÄåfa sometimes also drops: berÄå masár-em “my older brother.” Both full pronouns or Set2 may indicate possessives: gardán-e man “my neck”; buÄå-d “your father,” ésm-eš “his/her name”).
Demonstratives. HJ demonstratives are: in “this,” un “that,” as well as the intensives hamin/hamun “this/that very (same) one.”
Pronouns. Personal pronouns are listed in Table 1. HJ has the reflexives xo- and xoc-, which take the possessive suffixes. Both are used reflexively (be xoc-aš beš-vÄåt “he said to himself,” xo-š-Äå beš-xost miÄån-e ow “threw himself in the water”), emphatically (³¾Äå²Ô xóc-am beštÄån “I went myself,” xo-d zuni “you yourself know”), or possessively (bÄål-e xoc-aš, “his own wing,” kÄår-e xo-š “his own work”).
Prepositions. HJ has only prepositions: vÄå “with,” ez “from,” miÄån-e “in, inside,” dím-e “on,” déyr-e “around,” etc. as in vÄå ján-eš “with his wife,” miÄåËŠn-e sahrÄå “in the field,” dím-e zamin “on the ground.” Pronoun objects may be either full forms or Set2 suffixes, e.g., berÄå-š “for him/her,” beš-eš “to him” (doubled Set2), lÄå-š “next to it.”
VERB PHRASE
Verb roots. The past root in HJ is generally formed from the present root by adding: a) -Äå (zun/-Äå “know,” keš/-Äå “pull”), or b) -d after -n (ken/-d “dig,” xon/-d “read”), and -t after other consonants (bÄåf/-t “to weave,” xšÄår/-t “press,” sometimes with a vowel change: ker/kart “do,” etc. A third group shows either wider changes of the consonant before -t (hal/hašt “let,” veider/veidešt “pass”), root reduction (suj/sut “burn,” ferÄåš/ferÄåt “sell”), expansion (k/kaft “fall,” he-ni/ništ “sit”), or various other changes (gir/geft “take”). A fourth smaller group with no past formant drops the -n of the present root (birin/biri “cut,” j(e)n/ji “hit”). Some present and past verb roots that end in -r or -rt lose these consonants when final, e.g., vÄå-ker/kart, ber/bart, hamer/hamart: present root: vÄåËŠ-ke “open (sg)!,” bebe “carry (sg)!”; past root: béšÄån-be “they carried,” bé-š-Hame “he broke.” These consonants are retained, however, if a suffix follows them: vek(e)r-id “open (pl)!,” bart-eš “he used to carry,” Hamœrt-em “I used to break.”
Preverbsfurther specify a root, e.g., gir/geft “catch,” he-gir/geft “take, get,” ve-gir/geft “pick up”; gard/gardÄå “go around,” bar-gard/gardÄå “return.” Many roots only occur with preverbs: he-ni/ništ “sit,” vor-os/osÄå “get up, rise,” vÄå-pars/parsÄå “ask,” etc. Preverbs in HJ accompany all tenses as well as all negatives: henádÄån “I won’t give.”
Negation is expressed by a stressed, prefixed né- ~ ná- that comes just before the verb root: néšzunÄå “he/she couldn’t,” nédÄårÄån “I don’t have” vÄånábo “it didn’t become.”
Non-finite forms include infinitives, present, and past participles. Infinitives are formed by adding -an after the (preverb-)Past Root, with a transitional -y- after a final vowel: šiyan “to go,” xordan “to eat,” vÄåpušÄåyan “to dress.” Past participles are formed by adding -e after the (preverb-)Past Root: veidešte “past,” (ne)gefte “(un)taken.”
Person endings. While there is only one type of conjugation for present forms (present, subjunctive, imperative), Table 2 shows a basic distinction between intransitive and transitive conjugations in all past forms (preterit, imperfect, perfect tenses; for the full conjugation of an intransitive and a transitive verb in the simple past tense, see Table 3). Intransitives use Set1 endings (as in the present) after the past verb stem (bé-resÄå-n, dar-kaft-Äån “I arrived, I fell”), whereas transitives add Set2 before the stem when be-, a preverb, or a negative particle is present (bé-š-Hame, vÄåËŠ-š-parsÄå, né-š-zunÄå “he broke, asked, couldn’t”), and after the verb stem when none of these is present, i.e., in the imperfect (Hamart-eš “he used to break”). Fronting is also a crucial process in past transitives.
Fronting. As shown in the previous paragraph, there are two sets of person endings in HJ verbs (as with most NWI languages). Since Set2 endings are somewhat unusual in comparison to English, other European languages, and Persian, we will reiterate that Set2 endings show agreement with subject onlyin the case of transitive verbs and only in the tenses of the past system, as well all tenses of the verb “to want” (an irregular verb). While the position for the Set1 endings is completely fixed and unchangeable in HJ verbs (just as with all Persian verbs, for example), Set2 endings by contrast are quite mobile. As already seen, Set2 person endings are located in different positions just in the simple past and the imperfect forms even in isolation (see bé-š-Hame, “he broke” and Hamart-eš “he used to break” in the previous paragraph). It can be said in addition, however, that there is a general tendency for Set2 to move forward, i.e., to the left, even inside the verb whenever possible (see geft-em “I would catch” vs. hé-m-e-geft “I would get,” vÄå-parsÄån “I ask” vs. vÄåm-e-parsÄå “I would ask” and beri-em “I would cut” vs. n-em-e-beri “I would not cut”; see below TensesGeneral. comments).
An even further extension of this tendency of Set2 to move forward is found in the process called fronting here. This process only occurs in sentences that have other words besides the subject preceding the verb. In these cases we have the optional, but very common, process of fronting. This process moves the Set2 person endings in the past system of transitives offthe verb to a preceding word (but not to the subject), e.g., (past) har-ci-d buÄå “whatever you said” < b-ed-vÄå “you said,” mire-³¾Äå²Ô henédÄå “we didn’t marry her off” < he-ne-³¾Äå²Ô-dÄå “we didn’t give”; (imperfect) ³¾Äå²Ô har ru tefilÄå-m exond “I would say my prayers every day” < xond-em “I would read.” Table 3 contrasts the immobility of Set1 endings in the simple past tense of intransitive verbs with the mobility of Set2 in transitive verbs in the past system by showing the optional application of the fronting process in the transitive verbs.
As shown above under “Object Marking,” fronting a Set2 verbal marker to a word that has a Set2 possessive marker is not allowed, but Set2 may remain on the verb: vÄå dondók-eš béš-Äårt “he brought (it) with his beak.” For the effects of fronting with the verb “to want,” see the sentences híci-m nagu and har-ci-d bégu under Modals below.
TENSES
General comments. The present and imperfect are formed with the prefix e- (also called the durative marker), but the latter is deleted both when it would normally occur alone in initial position, e.g., (pres) šÄån “I go,” zunÄån “I know,” (imperf.) šiÄåyÄån “I would go,” ferÄåËŠtem “I would sell,” as well as after an Äå- of a preverb:vÄå-parsÄån “I ask.” The prefix e- is retained after a consonant of a preverb (der-e-kaftÄån “I would fall”) or after the first element of a compound verb (xerend “they eat,” vs. šum é-xerend “they eat dinner”). It is also retained in the transitive imperfect after Set2 that moves to a preverb (geft-em “I would catch” vs. hé-m-egeft “I would get”; vÄå-parsÄån “I ask,” but vÄå-m-e-parsÄå “I would ask”), to a compound verb (gerie-šÄån e-ke “they were crying”), or in all negatives even if the e- normally drops in the affirmative (beri-em “I would cut,” but n-em-e-beri “I would not cut”). After a preverb ending in -e, the prefix e- is realized as -y-: pres. heygirÄån (< he-e-gir-Äån) “I get” vs. Subj. hégirÄån “that I get.” The prefix e- and an initial o- of a verb root convert to ow- (eo > ew > ow), cf., Pres. dor-owsÄåËŠn “I sleep,” and Imperf. dor-owsÄåËŠyÄån “I would sleep,” vs. forms without the marker e-: Subj. dór-osÄån “that I sleep,” command dór-os! “sleep!,” preterit dor-oftÄån “I slept,” and the infinitive doroftan.
HJ has progressive forms but they appear only very occasionally in actual texts and seem to be modeled on the colloquial Persian equivalent: dÄårÄån qand hamerÄån “I am breaking the sugar (cone),” ³¾Äå²Ô dÄårtem lebÄås-em vÄåpušt “I was getting dressed.”
The verbal Marker b(e)- is used in the formation of the HJ subjunctive (b-Äårend “that they bring”), imperative (b-éider “pass by!), preterit (be-šÄån-be “they took it away”), the present perfect tense (to xorÄåËŠket-Äå be-t-xórte “you have eaten your food”), and the past perfect tense (be-šÄån-resenÄåËŠye-bo “they had delivered”), but it is suppressed in verbs roots with preverbs (see Table 2), in the negative forms, and often in compound verbs: dar jnu “that he hang (him)” (< dar + bé-jn-u).
To be. Aside from the short forms of “to be” (nÄåxoš-Äån, -i, -u, etc.“I am, you are, he is ill”), HJ has both a “to be” of existence in two forms (širini hu ~ hesu “there are sweets”) and a “to be” of location and existence-within: ke yÄå déru “who is here?”; yey xérsi miÄåËŠn-e jangal déru “there is a bear in the woods”).
Modals. Modals in HJ are gu/gÄå “want,” ³ú³Ü²Ô/³ú³Ü²ÔÄå “can” (= “know”), kÄåËŠru ~ kÄår-gu “must,” vÄå-b/bo “be possible” (= “become”), e.g., zuni hÄålÄå béši “you can go now”; kÄåËŠru ce kÉ™rim? "What must we do?” (Abrahamian), kÄår-gu bešÄån vÄåjÄår “I must go to the bÄåzÄår” (Yarshater); vÄånábu ³¾Äå²Ô bešÄån “it’s not possible for me to go.” The modal want is formed with gu/gÄå preceded or followed by Set2 endings, depending on the form: (pres) gum, gu-d, gu-š, gu-³¾Äå²Ô, gu-dÄån, gu-šÄån; (past) gÄå-m, gÄå-d,etc., but subjunctive: bé-m-begu, bé-d-begu, etc., past negative: né-m-e-gÄå, etc. Examples are: (pres) pÄådešÄåh guš xabi békru “the king wants to do good”; (past) gÄå-šÄån pÄådešÄåËŠ-rÄå masmum kerend “they wanted to poison the king.” Fronting of Set2 also optionally occurs in all tenses of “want”: Pres: híci-m nágu “I don’t want anything,” har-ci-d bégu “whatever you want.”
To become. This verb, in HJ as in Gilaki (see GILÄ€N ix), Vafsi and others, has a special particle -Äå between noun or adjective and the verb: sÄåket-Äå-bi “be quiet!,” ez masartarin reisÄå hasÄåb Äå-bu “he is considered one of the biggest bosses.” This particle seems to have formally converted to a preverb, even when the verb occurs independently: (see vÄånábu, belowunder Modals).
Causatives, passives. The causative marker (present/past forms) is -en/-enÄå, or -Äån/-ÄånÄå:béxandene “make (someone) laugh!” (< béxand “laugh!”). The -e of -(e)n is lost after a vowel: bédowne “make (him) run!” There are two productive ways to form the passive: either (1) with the addition of -i- to the present root (plus the past formant -Äå for the past), cf., active: darzúe/ bešdašt “he/she sews/ sewed” > passive: dœrz-i-u/bédarz-i-Äå “it is sewn/was sewn,” or (2) (on the model of Persian) with the use of the past participle + vÄå-bi/bu “to become”: šekÄåfte-vÄå-nabu “it will not split open.” Sometimes a different past root formation is used to form the active (-t) and the passive form (-Äå) of the verb: (active) sot, pet vs. (passive) pejÄå, sujÄå “cooked, burned,” respectively, but in most cases the passive formant -i- is inserted even if the roots are different: (act) hœme(rt), ret;(pass) hmeriÄå, rijiÄå “broke, spilled,” respectively.
Affiliations and variants The Jewish community of HamadÄån claims to have mostly migrated there from Yazd in the 18th century, but their dialect also shows connections to the Jewish (and non-Jewish) dialects of various CPD areas (see CENTRAL DIALECTS). It would be difficult to pinpoint the exact origins of the dialect without much more research. It is probably not original to the HamadÄån area and will most likely prove to stem from different CPD areas but it also has characteristics that are unique unto itself. Members of the Jewish community of TuyserkÄån also spoke of their derivation as from Yazd, but they also claim a portion of them came from Isfahan, which is most likely true for HamadÄån as well.
Table 4 compares a few typical features of HJ with representatives from each of the four types of CPD as laid out by Pierre Lecoq, to show the relationship of HJ to other CPD. Only some dialects in each of Lecoq’s categories can be mentioned here (and even fewer included in Table 4): northwestern CPD (MaḥallÄåti, VÄånišÄåni, ḴᵛÄånsÄåri), northeastern CPD (KÄåšÄån Jewish, Qohrudi, JowšaqÄåni, AbyÄånaʾi (q.v.), Farizandi, YÄårÄåni, Meymaʾi, AbuzaydÄåbÄådi (q.v.), Naá¹anzi, Kešaʾi, etc.), southwestern CPD (Gazi, Eá¹£fahÄåni Jewish, Seh-Dehi), and southeastern CPD (Yazdi Zoroastrian, Ker³¾Äå²Ô Jewish, NÄåʾini, Zefraʾi). Features 1 through 7 in the Table, with a few sporadic exceptions, show that HJ has features that are typical of most members of all four categories of CPD. Features 8 and 9 connect with three of the groups but not with the NW group, features 10 through 12 do unite HJ with the NW group. It should be noted that while some other dialects use the same roots for either “large” or “small” (or both)—c.f., Yazdi mas, kasog, Gazi, Zefraʾi and Kešaʾi kas—only HJ and the NW group of CPD have substituted the comparative form (“larger, smaller”) for the simple forms “big, small.” Of features 13, 14, 13 unites HJ with SW (and Zefraʾi) and 14 unites HJ with Eá¹£fahÄåni Jewish (SW) and VÄånišÄåni (NW). Features 15 through 17 are unique to HJ.
As the Jewish community of TuyserkÄån was most likely derivative from HamadÄån, TJ also agrees with HJ in all major grammatical points and lexical items, e.g., TJ xoc- “self,” yÄå, yÄånÄå “here,” he-gir/geft “take, get,” maser, kaser “big, small,” ferÄåš/feroxt “sell,” and HJ emin, TJ emi “other.” Set1 and Set2 are virtually identical in both dialects and the rules for the appearance of the durative marker e- seem to be the same as in HJ: ferÄåšend “they sell,” kÄår e-kerend “they work,” mosÄåferat-ešÄån e-ke “they used to travel.” Differences only appear in a few words, e.g., TJ pešme “sneeze,” bÄåyad “must” (from Table 4), and HJ xÄå, TJ xuÄår “sister,” HJ vÄå, vÄånÄå TJ uvÄå “there,” etc.
Bibliography:
Roubène Abrahamian, Dialectologie Iranienne: dialectes des Israélites de Hamadan et d’Isphahan et dialecte de Baba Tahir, Paris, 1936.
Harold W. Bailey, “Yazdi,” BSO(A)S 8, London, 1936, pp. 335-61.
Arthur Christensen, Contributions à la Dialectologie Iranienne: Dialecte GuiläkÄ« de Recht, Dialectes de Färizänd, de Yaran et de Natanz, avec une supplément contenant quelques textesdans le persan vulgaire de Téhéran, Det Kgl. Danske Videnskabernes w. Selskab., Historisk-filologiske Meddelelser 17/2, Copenhagen, 1930.
Wilhelm Eilers, Westiranische Mundarten aus der Sammlung Wilhelm Eilers I: Die Mundart von Chunsar, Wiesbaden, 1976;II: Die Mund-art von Gäz, Wiesbaden, 79.
FarÄånak Firuzbaḵš: Barresi-e sÄåḵte³¾Äå²Ô-e dasturi-e guyeš-e behdinÄån-e šahr-e Yazd, Tehran, n.d. IrÄån KalbÄåsi, Guyeš-e kalimiÄån-e Eá¹£fahÄån (yak guyeš-e irÄåni), Tehran, 1994.
Ann K. S. Lambton, Three Persian Dialects, London, 1938.
Pierre Lecoq, “Les dialectes du centre de l’Iran,” in Rüdiger Schmitt, ed., Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum, Wiesbaden, 1989, pp. 263-93.
Manfred Mayrhofer, “Vorgeschichte der iranischen Sprachen: Uriranisch,” in Rüdiger Schmitt, ed., Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum, Wiesbaden, 1989, pp. 4-24.
Haideh Sahim, “The Dialect of the Jews of Hamedan,” in Shaul Shaked and Amnon Netzer, eds., Irano-Judaica III, Jerusalem, 1994, pp. 171-81.
Rüdiger Schmidt, “Die altiranischen Sprachen im Überblick,” in Rüdiger Schmitt, ed., Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum, Wiesbaden, 1989, pp. 25-31.
Ehsan Yarshater, handwritten field notes collected in the Jewish communities of HamadÄån and TuyserkÄån, 1969, kindly provided to the writer.
V. A. ZhukovskiÄ, Materialy dlya izuceniya persidskikh nareciÄ, 2vols., Saint Petersburg, 1888-1922.
(Donald Stilo)
Originally Published: December 15, 2003
Last Updated: March 6, 2012
This article is available in print.
Vol. XI, Fasc. 6, pp. 623-627
Donald Stilo, “±á´¡²Ñ´¡¶ÙÄ€±· ix. JEWISH DIALECT,” Encyclopædia Iranica, XI/6, pp. 623-627, available online at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/hamadan-ix (accessed on 30 December 2012).
