Maintaining older lexical variants

Through the corpus, the registers of the actors playing the role of foreigners shows a strong tendency to maintain the older of two, or more, lexical variants

In the next paragraphs, I will demonstrate this tendency through some lexemes that occur frequently in the corpus: namely the negation particle muš ‘not’, the participle ‘āwiz

‘wanting, desiring’, the preverbal future marker rāyiḥ ~ rāḥ ‘going to’, and rabbuna ‘our Lord’.

5.3.1a The negation particle muš vs. miš

In his manual of Cairene Arabic, Woidich (2006a: 334) asserts that “Neben miš kommt muš vor, das fruher haufiger gewesen zu sein scheint, denn in älteren Texten wird nicht selten [mwš] geschrieben.”⁸⁸ However, in earlier work he states that “miš ist eine fakultative Variante von muš”⁸⁹ (Woidich 1969: 30).

In fact, a chronologic investigation through the lexical literature and manuals of EA shows how miš gradually gained ground at the expense of muš between the nineteenth and twentieth century.

Davies (1981: 293) on his work on Yūsuf al-Širbīnī’s Hazz al-Quḥūf, composed in the seventeenth century, noticed the absence of both muš and miš. He suggests that both should have developed later from an existing syntagma in the text, i.e. mā + hū:

These examples show, in the first place, the morphological development /ma-hu/ > /ma-hū-ši/ > /ma-hūš/ which leads finally, through contraction of the last form, to /muš/. (Likewise, /ma-hi/ > /ma-hī-ši/ > /ma-hīš/ > /miš/

may be assumed though not attested in HQ [i.e. Hazz al-Quḥūf]) (Davies 1981: 294).

Likewise, two of the earliest accounts of EA, i.e. Ṣabbāġ (1886)⁹⁰ and al-Ṭanṭāwī (1848), completely lack both muš and miš. Regarding the negation of the pronouns Ṣabbāġ (1775–

1816) writes (1886: 18):

[And as for the third person pronoun, they (i.e. the Egyptians) doubled its wāw and vocalized it with kasra. Thus, they used it as huwwī. To it the šīn

88 “Beside miš existes muš, which seems to have been more frequent, because in older texts is often written [mwš].”

89 “miš is a facultative variant of muš”.

90 This is a posthumous work since Ṣabbāġ died 1816, as mentioned in the editor’s introduction to the editor of the book (p. v).

of kaškaša⁹¹ may be attached. Thus, they say in question and negation mā huwwīš rāḥ mā huwwīš agā, didn’t he go? And he didn’t come. Notice that the three pronouns, i.e. anā anta huwa, when followed by the šīn of kaškaša they may say sometimes: mānīš māntīš māhuwwīš, vocalizing their finals with a kasra before attaching the šīn, and sometimes vocalizing them with fatḥa: mānāš māntāš māhuwwāš, and both are common in the people interactions […] in regard to the third person pronoun in feminine, i.e. hiya, they use hiyyi when it stands alone and when the šīn of kaškaša is attached to it mā hiyyīš and mā hiyyāš, with fatḥa and kasra, in question or negation.]

Further, he specifies that the question / negation enclitic has two variants šī ~ š:

اهنِّّكسي مهضعبو اهورِّسكَي ُرثكلأا ر صِّم ُلهأ نيشلا هذه ّنإ ّمث (Ṣabbāġ 1886: 34–5)

.

[Furthermore, the Egyptians vocalize this šīn with kasra and some of them leaves it vowelless.]

al-Ṭanṭāwī (1810–61), in his manual on EA, gives 13 examples of the use of شوه ام mā hūš (al-Ṭanṭāwī 1848: 26, 42,45, 48, 51, 57, 66, 68, 87, 92, 206, 208) and only two of the feminine, شيه mā hīš (al-Ṭanṭāwī 1848: 26, 92). No examples are given with the ام

‘heavy’ form, i.e. mā huwwāš and mā hiyyāš.

However, a few years later the contracted form, namely muš, appeared in Bocthor’s Dictionnaire français-arabe (1928: 491) ‘Mauvais […] بيط شوم’ [Bad muš ṭayyib].

Henceforth, through the rest of the nineteenth century, we encounter the contracted form more frequently, usually with an indication of its origin: a syntagma composed of the negation particle mā, the third-person masculine singular pronoun huwwa ~ hu and the negative enclitic šī ~ š.

In fact, Spitta-Bey (1880: 414) states that “muś (== mâ hûwa-ś) ist Nominalnegation und verneint nur das einzelne Wort (Nomen) oder die Wortverbindung (Genitiv, Apposition) vor denen sie steht. Z. B. eddukkân muś kebyre „die Bude ist nicht gross’”.⁹² Vollers (1890: 34) in addition to confirming the fact that mūš is a contraction of mā-hūwa-š, states that

Bei der Verneinung der oben genannten Verbindung des aktiven Partizips mit dem perscenlichen Fürwort zur Bezeichnung des Praesens wird mâ-ś

91 Ṣabbāġ erroneously believed that the enclitic šī ~ š is due to a palatalization, or kaškaša. For further details on kaškaša, see al-Azraqi (2007).

92 “muś (== mâ hûwa-ś) is for nominal negation and negates only single words (nouns) or words combination (genitive, apposition) which it precedes. For example, eddukkân muś kebyre ‘the shop is not big’.”

an das Fürwort gehængt, das hierbei theilweise Verænderungen erleidet, z. B. mânîś fâkir, ich erinnere mich nicht; mântiś f., du ―; mantiś fakrä, du (fem.) ―; mu ̄̆ ś fâkir oder fakrä, er oder sie ―; maḥnâś fakrîn, wir ―;

mantûś f., ihr ―; mâhumś oder muś f., sie ―; wo die Deutlichkeit nicht darunter leidet, wird muś statt aller andern Formen gebraucht.⁹³

This is a strong indication that muš was completely lexicalized as a negation particle for all persons. Interestingly, he wrote it in his glossary as ‘شوم mu ̄̆ ś’ (Vollers 1890: 194).

We also find muś in Spiro’s dictionary of EA (1895: 550) and later in his manual of EA (1912: 12 passim). Dirr (1904: 39)⁹⁴ also writes “To render negative the present formed from the active participle and the pronoun, the negative particle is used with the pronoun: thus mániš, not I; mántiš, not you; mantîš (fem.), not you ; muš, not he; máḥnâš, not we; mantûš, not ye; mahumš or muš, not they.” Then he adds: “muš (not), makes single words negative: e.g. dä muš kůwáiyis, this is not nice”.

Similar assertions can be found in other later accounts on EA in Arabic. For instance, Diyāb (1919: 176) writes:

However, in all these accounts there is no reference to the variant miš.⁹⁵ It was the Italian Nallino at the turn of the twentieth century who mentions the variant miš next to muš in his manual of EA (1900: 78):

Il presente italiano nella forma negativa si traduce colla particella muś (mûś, miś): anâ muś ta‘bân io non sono stanco, bêt-ak muś kibîr la tua casa non è grande, iḥnâ muś aġniye noi non siamo ricchi. In questo stesso modo si fa negativo il nostro presente, quando sia espresso in arabo dal participio attivo: anâ muś ‘ârif non so, hîya muś ‘ârfa essa non sa, hum muś ‘ârfîn essi non sanno. —Se il soggetto è un pronome personale, invece di muś si può usare la negativa mâ, seguita dal pronome, al quale si affigge di solito

93 “In the negation of the above-mentioned combination of the active participle with the personal pronoun to denote the present, mâ-ś ist o be used attached to the pronoun, which in this connection undergoes partial changes. i.e. mânîś fâkir, I don’t remember; mântiś f., you (s.m.) ―; mantiś fakrä, you (s.f.) ―;

mu ̄̆ ś fâkir oder fakrä, he or she ―; maḥnâś fakrîn, we ―; mantûś f., you (p.) ―; mâhumś oder muś f., they ―; where clarity does not suffer, muś is used instead of all other forms.”

94 It is worth mentioning that the book was first published in German in 1893.

95 It is worth mentioning that in Spitta-Bey’s Contes arabes modernes, miś occurs four times in four different stories (1883: 78, 81, 115, 147). He only indicates that it is equivalent to muś due to a vowel

la lettera—ś: mânîś ‘âuz; io non voglio, mântaś opp. mântiś ‘âuz tu non vuoi, mântiś ‘âuze tu (femm.) non vuoi, mâhûś ‘âuz egli non vuole, mâhîś opp. mâhyâś ‘âuze essa non vuole, mâḥnâś ‘âuzîn noi non vogliamo, mântûś ‘âuzîn voi non volete, mâhumś opp. mâhummâś ‘âuzîn essi, esse non vogliono. —Infine, si notino le espressioni impersonali: fîh c’è, ci sono, mâ fîś non c’è, non ci sono.⁹⁶

Moreover, Willmore (1905: 32, see also p. 99) mentions miš, asserting that it is abbreviated form of mā-huwwā-š: “The following are examples of other forms of abbreviation […] mahûsh, mûsh, mush, mish (for ma huwâsh) he, it, is not, not, ma hish (for ma hiyâsh) she is not, wala hish nor is she.”

This suggests that miš is a variant of muš through vowel change, as Vollers also alluded to (1890: 47 and 1883: 78) and not, as presumed by Davies (1981: 293–4), through contraction of mā-hī-š.

The variant miš continues to appear in other accounts of EA during the first half of the twentieth century: ‘muʃ and miʃ’ (Gairdner 1917: 41); ‘شُم mush, mish’ (Phillott &

Powell 1926: 4); ‘muʃ (or miʃ)’ (Mitchell 1956: 43 and 1962: 106). In these accounts—

as well as the above-mentioned ones—the variant miš of the negation particle is secondary and almost marginal, since the overwhelming occurrences are those of the variant muš.

However, as we go forward in the twentieth century, the variant miš gained gradually ground at the expense of muš, until it became the dominant form by the end of the century.

In fact, the accounts on EA from the second half of that century move /miʃ/ to the primary variant and muš becomes secondary, usually without giving any example with it (Aboul-Fetouh 1969: 113–14, Hinds & Badawi 1986: 824) or ignoring muš completely (Hanna 1967: 25, Omar 1976: 10, Gary & Gamal-Eldin 1982: 39, Brustad 2000: 289, 301–2).

Since this is the same period of the corpus of this study, it is not surprising that, of 233 occurrences of the negation particle in the register of the actors playing the role of Egyptians, 148 are with the variant miš (64%) and only 85 with the variant muš (36%).

96 “The Italian present in its negative form is translated with the particle muś (mûś, miś): anâ muś ta‘bân I’m not tired, bêt-ak muś kibîr your house is not big, iḥnâ muś aġniye we’re not rich. In the same way we negate our present when it is expressed in Arabic by the active participle: anâ muś ‘ârif I don’t know, hîya muś ‘ârfa she doesn’t know, hum muś ‘ârfîn they don’t know.—If the subject is a personal pronoun, instead of muś the negative mâ may be used, followed by the pronoun, to which the usual letter—ś is affixed: mânîś ‘âuz; I don’t want, mântaś or mântiś ‘âuz you (s.m.) don’t want, mântiś ‘âuze you (s.f.) don’t want, mâhûś ‘âuz he doesn’t want, mâhîś or mâhyâś ‘âuze she doesn’t want, mâḥnâś

‘âuzîn we don’t want, mântûś ‘âuzîn you (p.) don’t want, mâhumś or mâhummâś ‘âuzîn they don’t want.

—Finally, it is to be noticed the impersonal expression: fîh there is/are, mâ fîś, there is/are not.”

On the contrary, the registers of the actors playing the role of foreigners use mainly the variant muš, with 474 out of 602 occurrences (79%) and to lesser extent miš, with only 128 occurrences (21%).

Interestingly, when interacting with actors playing the role of foreigners the actors playing the role of Egyptians use the older variant muš (57%) more than the newer miš (43%).

Moreover, in the movie Zōg fī agāza [A Husband on Holiday] (Maḥammad ‘Abd-il-Gawwād, 1964), the female protagonist Gamalāt, who disguises herself as the Italian Rosetta to trap her husband, always uses the variant muš (namely /mus/, 27 times) unless she reverts to her original character, when she uses the variant miš.

Table 18

Distribution of the negation particle muš ~ miš

muš miš (total)

Foreigners 474 (79%) 128 (21%) 602

Foreigner talk 20 (57%) 15 (43%) 35

Egyptians 85 (36%) 148 (64%) 233

5.3.1b The Participle ‘āwiz vs. ‘āyiz

Aḥmad Taymūr (1871–1930) wrote in his unfinished dictionary of EA (2001: 4/452):

:زوع مهدنع لعفلاو ،اذك ديري يأ ،مهدنع ةدارلإا ىنعمب :اذك زوُعُيو ،اذك زواع نلاف :نولوقي

لعفلا نلأ ،باوصلل برقأ وهو ،زياع اًضيأ هيف اولاق لعافلا مسا ةغيصب زواع اولاق اذإف ،يواو .زئاع هلعاف مساف ،زاع ليقف ّلِّعُأ [‘.w.z.: they say fulān ‘âwiz kazā and yu‘ūz kazā in the sense of desiring, i.e. he wants so. For them the verb is with wāw, thus when the say‘âwiz as active participle, they say also ‘âyiz the latter being more correct since the verb is a weak verb then its active participle is ‘â’iz]

This peculiarity of ‘âwiz was asserted also by both Spitta-Bey (1880: 27): “Bei den Part.

act. der Verba mediae w oder j wird allerdings, wie im altarab., der mittlere Radical gewöhnlich zu Hamza; allein es kommen auch Formen vor, in denen er sich gehalten hat z. B. ‘âwiz „nöthig habend, müssend’ neben ‘â’iz”,⁹⁷ and Vollers (1890: 61): “√ زوع ‘âz, û, bedürfen, mögen, wünschen; Partizip. Sowohl ‘â’iz (‘âiz) als ‘âwiz (‘âuz).”⁹⁸

97 “As in old Arabic, in the active participle of the verba mediae w or j, the middle radical admittedly becomes hamza; but there are also forms in which it was conserved. For example, having ‘âwiz

“wanting, needing” together with ‘â’iz.”

The use of ‘āwiz is attested in early Egyptian literature. In fact, the renowned al-Suyūṭī (1445–1505) wrote in a maqāma on good and bad manners:⁹⁹ “ةكص نيفلأ زواع [‘āwiz alfēn ṣakka ‘He needs two thousands slaps’]” (1994: 43) and “رادج ةلقن زواع [‘āwiz naqlit gidār

‘He needs a transportation of a wall’]” (1994: 64). Also, Ibn Taġrī Birdī (1984: 7/218), in the biography of Ibn al-Ḫarrāṭ (1375–1436), reported some of his poetry, where we find:

“قيلع زواع سرف يلو [wa lī faras ‘āwiz ‘alīq ‘and I have a horse who needs fodder’].”

However, it seems that ‘āwiz was not common until the beginning of the nineteenth century. Other terms were used to express desiring or wanting, such as murād or ḫāṭir with pronominal suffixes (Bocthor 1828: 864, Davies 1981: 320, see also Spiro 1895:

213, 175 and Taymūr 2001: 2/118) and bedd with pronominal suffixes (Bocthor 1828:

864, Vollers 1890: 160, Spiro 1895: 34, Taymūr 2001: 2/118 Woidich 2006a: 318).

Yet, Bocthor in his dictionary (1828: 91) wrote: “J’ai besoin de vous, كزواع انأ” [I need you anā ‘āwzak]. Similarly, al-Ṭanṭāwī wrote (1848: 12): “هيا زواع == ديرت ام Que voulez-vous?” [‘āwiz ēh == mā turīd What do you want?] and we find the use of it in some of his examples (al-Ṭanṭāwī 1848: 71, 90). In the later accounts we encounter ‘āwiz as the participle to indicate wanting, needing or desiring (sometimes transliterated ‘āuz) either as the only variant, such as in Spitta-Bey’s Grammatik des arabischen Vulgärdialectes von Ägypten (1880) and Contes arabes modernes (1883) and in Fiske’s Agrûmyja masry (1904) or together with a secondary variant, i.e. ‘āyiz:

• “’awuz, or a’áyiz, he who needs, wishes […] aná a’áyiz or ’awuz, I want, I wish”

(Cameron 1892: 188);

• “زواع ‘âwiz, or زياع ‘âjiz, one who is in want, pl. نيزواع ‘âwzyn, or نيزياع ‘âjzyn”

(Spiro 1895: 378);¹⁰⁰

• “Volere […] con l’idea di bisogno ‘âuz o ‘âyiz usato per lo più al participio presente”¹⁰¹ (Nallino 1900: 336);

• “The participle of ‘âz want is either ‘âwiz (in pronunciation almost ‘auz) or ‘âyiz (‘ayz). Yi‘îz, ye‘îz, are sometimes heard for yi‘ûz, ye‘ûz” (Willmore 1905: 170);

• “زياع ‘âyiz, Act. Part. wanting (== زواع ‘âwuz)” (Phillott & Powell 1926: 24);

99 The language of the treatise is actually Mixed Arabic rather than EA.

100 In his manual of EA Spiro gives only one variant “زواع ‘âwiz wishing, wanting” (1912: 21).

101 “To want, with the idea of needing ‘âuz or ‘âyiz, used mostly as active participle.”

• “wanting to, ƹáawiz (or ƹáayiz), ƹáwza (or ƹáyza), ƹawzíin (or ƹayzíin)” (Mitchell 1956: 264).

However, in these accounts ‘âyiz either occurs much less than ‘âwiz¹⁰² or does not appear at all, as in Willmore (1905) for instance.

As we move forward to the second half of the twentieth century, ‘âyiz became the primary variant. In their dictionary of EA Hinds & Badawi (1986: 609) give ‘ƹaayiz or ƹaawiz’ as modal of desire or necessity, but their examples are only with ƹaayiz.

Similarly, in his manual of Cairene Arabic Woidich (2006a: 78) states that “‘âyiz, das aktive Partizip von ‘âz, yi‘ūz „wollen’, ist frei vertauschbar mit ‘âwiz von einem nicht vorhandenen ^⊄‘awaz oder ^⊄‘iwiz”.¹⁰³

As for the distribution of the two variants in the corpus, the actors playing the role of foreigners and those who interact with them in the form of FT maintain the older form

‘āwiz, with approximately 75% of occurrences. The actors playing the role of Egyptians, instead, tend more to use the innovative form ‘āyiz, with nearly 60% of occurrences.

Table 19

Distribution of the participle ‘āwiz ~ ‘āyiz

‘āwiz ‘āyiz (total)

Foreigners 94 (~72%) 36 (~28%) 130

Foreigner talk 6 (75%) 2 (25%) 8

Egyptians 44 (~41%) 64 (~59%) 108

5.3.1c The future marker rāyiḥ ~ rāḥ vs. ḥa ~ ha

In his study of the seventeenth-century Hazz al-Quḥūf, Davies (1981: 240) affirms that

“It seems clear that the historical development of these future markers has been /rāyiḥ/ >

/rāḥ/ > /ḥa-/ ( > /ha-/)”, underlying that rāyiḥ is the only future marker used in the text.¹⁰⁴ In fact, the early accounts of EA confirm this assumption, indicating that the future marker in EA is the participle rāyiḥ (the long form) or rāḥ (the short form) either declinable or not and, eventually ḥa (the contracted form):

102 For instance, in the examples of Phillott & Powell (1926) ‘âyiz occurs five times while ‘âwiz occurs 31 times. Meanwhile, in the anecdotes at the end of the manual, ‘âwiz occurs six times and ‘âyiz four.

103 “‘âyiz, the active participle of ‘âz, yi‘ūz ‘to want’, is freely interchangeable with ‘âwiz from the non-existent ^⊄‘awaz or ^⊄‘iwiz.”

104 Further, Davies (1981: 241) asserts that the absence of the variants rāḥ and ḥa- in the text does not

Hierher gehört auch die Construction von râ’iḥ, râḥ, lâḥ verkürzt ḥa mit folgendem Imperfect in der Bedeutung des franz. aller mit dem Infinitiv, um auszudrücken „im Begriff sein etwas zu thun, etwas thun wollen’.

Ursprünglich Participium activi von râḥ „gehen’ bedeutet es eigentlich

„gehend um etwas zu thun’ und wird entweder nach dem verschiedenen Genus und Numerus abgehandelt: Sing. m râ‘iḥ, fem. râ’iḥe, râḥe, Plur.

râ’iḥyn, râḥyn, oder ganz indeclinabel als râḥ oder ḥa gelassen¹⁰⁵ (Spitta-Bey 1880: 353, see also 180).

Similarly, Vollers affirms (1890: 30): “Den unmittelbar bevorstehenden Eintritt der Handlung bezeichnet das vorgesetzte râḥ (aus râïḥ), gehend, im Gange, fem. râḥa, pl.

râḥîn [nicht selten râḥ statt —a oder—în] […] Gleichbedeutend mit râḥ ist ḥa”,¹⁰⁶ Spiro (1912: 67): “The future is more precisely expressed by placing حيار râyiḥ going, or دب bidd wish, desire, before the verb in the present tense […] حيار râyiḥ is often contracted to حار râḥ or to اح ḥa” and Phillott & Powell (1926: 146): “By prefixing حيار rāyiḥ m. (هحيار f., نيحيار pl.) to the Aorist, the Future of Intention is formed. Rāyiḥ حيار may be contracted to the indeclinable forms حار rāḥ and اح ḥā.”

In addition,Willmore (1905: 127) provides an interesting observation regarding the contracted form ḥa:

The indefinite future is expressed:—

(1) Simply by the aorist.

(2) Emphatically by the aorist preceded by râyiḥ (the active participle of râḥ to go), agreeing with the subject in gender and number, or by its indeclinable form raḥ, or

(3) By the aorist with the particle ḥa (sometimes pronounced ha) prefixed.

The fact that the innovative contracted form ḥa was developing into ha shows that the contracted form was already substituting the longer forms. Not surprisingly, the later accounts of EA give ḥā as the primary future marker, while the long form rāyiḥ and the short one rāḥ is downgraded to secondary markers:

ꜧa- is a future prefix […] The imperfect with ꜧa- often has the sense of intention to do something or being about to do it […] raꜧ (invariable) may sometimes be heard for ꜧa, while ráayiꜧ with corresponding feminine and plural forms ráyꜧa and rayꜧíin) also occurs: ꜧayilƹábu, raꜧayilƹábu,

105 “Here also belongs the construction râ’iḥ, râḥ, lâḥ shortened ḥa with following imperfect in the sense of the French aller with the infinitive to express “to be about to do something, to will to do”. Originally the active participle of râḥ “to go” means actually “going to do something” and is treated either according to the different gender and number: s.m. râ‘iḥ, f. râ’iḥe, râḥe, p. râ’iḥyn, râḥyn, or left completely indeclinable as râḥ or ḥa.”

106 “The immediate impending action to take place is denoted by the prefix râḥ (from râïḥ) ‘going, underway’, fem. râḥa, pl. râḥîn [often râḥ instead of râḥa or râḥîn]. Synonymous with râḥ is ḥa.”

rayꜧíin yilƹábu they are going to play are all possible but the students are advised to adopt ꜧa- exclusively” (Mitchell 1956: 36, emphasis original, see also 1962: 82).

The same is noticed by Woidich (2006a: 280) “Gelegentlich, vor allem in älteren und ländlich gefärbten Texten, wird auch ṛāyiḥ ~ rāḥ, woraus das Präfix ḥa- hervorgegangen ist, verwendet.”¹⁰⁷

If we look at the corpus, we find that in the register of the actors playing the role of Egyptians, rāyiḥ does not occur as a future marker and rāḥ ~ raḥ occurs only once (47), while the contracted form occurs 261 times over 262, eight of which are with the variant ha.

(47) Abu-Lam‘a: je-ẓhɑr rɑħ je-ʕmelu hodna ʕaʃaan

it-seems FUT.MRK do.IPFV.3PL truce for ji-lemmu l-gɑrħɑ

pick-up.IPFV.3PL the-wounded.PL

“It seems that they are going to have a truce to pick up the wounded.”

On the other side, in the registers of the actors playing the role of foreigners only two thirds of the occurrences of the future marker are with the contracted form ḥa ~ ha and the rest are with the longer forms, mainly rāḥ ~ raḥ, 45 times (~31%) and, to lesser degree, rāyiḥ, six times (~4%).

Finally, it is worth mentioning that all the occurrences of the marker ha- in the corpus are from the 1960s except one that is from 1951 (uttered by an actress playing the role of Greek).

Table 20

Distribution of the preverbal future marker

rāyiḥ rāḥ ~ raḥ ḥa- ~ ha- (total) Foreigners 6 (~4%) 22+23 (~31%) 83+10 (~65%) 144 Foreigner talk 1 (~6%) 2+0 (~11%) 10+5 (~83%) 18

Egyptians 0 0+1 (~0.4%) 253+8 (~99.6) 262

(total) 7 (~2%) 48 (~11%) 369 (~87) 424

107 “Occasionally, especially in older and rural-colored texts, ṛāyiḥ ~ rāḥ is also used, from which the prefix

107 “Occasionally, especially in older and rural-colored texts, ṛāyiḥ ~ rāḥ is also used, from which the prefix

Im Dokument The Stereotyped Representation of the Foreigner in Egyptian Cinema : A Phono-Morpho-Syntactic and Lexical Study and Corpus (Seite 182-194)