Read on Twitter
a short thread on yet another development in colloq #Arabic.
the topic is
cliticization
, or what happens when words lose some of their independence & must 𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑛 on other words for support.
exx. come from Egyptian, but much of this will apply for other varieties. 1/
the topic is
cliticization, or what happens when words lose some of their independence & must 𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑛 on other words for support.exx. come from Egyptian, but much of this will apply for other varieties. 1/
an enclitic is a word that behaves as though it & the word preceding it were a single word, phonologically.
in English "gimme!" (= "give me!"), only the 1st half has stress. the 2nd half has lost its stress entirely, because it is functioning as an enclitic (or clitic). 2/
enclitic is a word that behaves as though it & the word preceding it were a single word, phonologically.in English "gimme!" (= "give me!"), only the 1st half has stress. the 2nd half has lost its stress entirely, because it is functioning as an enclitic (or clitic). 2/
we can observe something similar in the indirect object pronouns of Arabic.
when we want to say "she brought me [a book]," we have
جابت ˈgābit "she brought"
&
لي li "to me"
but when we combine them, the final product is pronounced not as *ˈgābitli, but as gaˈbitli. 3/
when we want to say "she brought me [a book]," we have
جابت ˈgābit "she brought"
&
لي li "to me"
but when we combine them, the final product is pronounced not as *ˈgābitli, but as gaˈbitli. 3/
the stress moves forward just as it would if you had added a direct object suffix, ex. ˈgābit+ha 
gaˈbitha "she brought it"
further exx.:
ˈḥaka lak ḥaˈkālak "he told you (m)"
ˈʔālu lina ʔaˈlulna "they said to us"
šaˈraḥt laha šaraḥˈtalha "i explained to her" 4/
gaˈbitha "she brought it"further exx.:
ˈḥaka lak
ḥaˈkālak "he told you (m)"ˈʔālu lina
ʔaˈlulna "they said to us"šaˈraḥt laha
šaraḥˈtalha "i explained to her" 4/
so the indirect object pronouns li "to me," lak "to you (masc.)," etc., have become cliticized!
further evidence is that the independent (non-cliticized) versions of these pronouns still exist..
liyya "to me," līk "to you (m)," etc.
..& can be used when emphasis is needed. 5/
further evidence is that the independent (non-cliticized) versions of these pronouns still exist..
liyya "to me," līk "to you (m)," etc.
..& can be used when emphasis is needed. 5/
this same clitic shows up in combination with بقى baqa "it has remained, become" baʔa, to indicate time passed in a certain state, ex.:
هو عايش هنا بقاله سنه
huwwa 3āyiš hina baʔā-lu sana
"he's lived here for a year"
lit. "he is living here it has become for him a year"
6/
baʔa, to indicate time passed in a certain state, ex.:هو عايش هنا بقاله سنه
huwwa 3āyiš hina baʔā-lu sana
"he's lived here for a year"
lit. "he is living here it has become for him a year"
6/
there are even non-verbs that this clitic can lean on!
for example, you can find it on بالنسبة bin-nisba "with relation (to), as for":
بالنسبة لي bin-ˈnisba li "as for me"
becomes
بالنسبالي binnisˈbāli
similarly,
binnisˈbalha "as for her"
binnisˈbālik "as you you (f)"
etc.
7/
for example, you can find it on بالنسبة bin-nisba "with relation (to), as for":
بالنسبة لي bin-ˈnisba li "as for me"
becomes
بالنسبالي binnisˈbāli
similarly,
binnisˈbalha "as for her"
binnisˈbālik "as you you (f)"
etc.
7/
this isn't even the only thing that has become cliticized in Egyptian Arabic.
you can find the same phenomenon with the demonstrative ده da (masc) / دي di (fem), exx:
السنة ده is-ˈsana di "this year"
for some speakers will become
السنادي issaˈnādi
8/
you can find the same phenomenon with the demonstrative ده da (masc) / دي di (fem), exx:
السنة ده is-ˈsana di "this year"
for some speakers will become
السنادي issaˈnādi
8/
AFAIK this one is generally optional (& might vary in frequency across sociolinguistic register), & it is restricted to short, usually disyllabic nouns.
more exx.:
المرادي il-ˈmarra di ilmarˈrādi "this time"
النحيادي in-ˈnaḥya di innaḥˈyādi "this side"
9/
more exx.:
المرادي il-ˈmarra di
ilmarˈrādi "this time"النحيادي in-ˈnaḥya di
innaḥˈyādi "this side"9/
cliticization is the same thing that once upon a time happened to the noun شيء šayʔ "(any)thing" when used as an emphasizer in negations.
it first reduced to clitic -ši and then suffix -š, as found in negated verbs (& pseudoverbs) with the ma-X-š structure; also بلاش balāš. 10/ https://twitter.com/bilmasripodcast/status/1355812986699579392
it first reduced to clitic -ši and then suffix -š, as found in negated verbs (& pseudoverbs) with the ma-X-š structure; also بلاش balāš. 10/ https://twitter.com/bilmasripodcast/status/1355812986699579392
in fact, the negating "circumfix" ma-X-š was born out of two clitics:
an enclitic -š (originally meant "thing" "at all")
& a 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐 ma- (from the negator ما mā). notice the long ā lost its length when it became cliticized.
(grand finale coming up.....)
11/
an enclitic -š (originally meant "thing"
"at all")& a 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐 ma- (from the negator ما mā). notice the long ā lost its length when it became cliticized.
(grand finale coming up.....)
11/
so what was once a bunch of independent words, ex.
ما قلتُه لها (شيئاً)
ˈmā ˈqultu-hu ˈla-hā (ˈšayʔan)
[not said-it to-her thing]
"i didn't say it to her (at all)"
is now treated as a single
phonological word:
مقلتهولهاش
ma-ʔult-uhu-lˈhā-š
is that not beautiful?
12/12
ما قلتُه لها (شيئاً)
ˈmā ˈqultu-hu ˈla-hā (ˈšayʔan)
[not said-it to-her thing]
"i didn't say it to her (at all)"
is now treated as a single
phonological word:مقلتهولهاش
ma-ʔult-uhu-lˈhā-š
is that not beautiful?
12/12
