SECOND SECTION
4.1 The Verb Conjugation
A look through the corpus shows that there is a conspicuous irregularity in the use of the verb in the registers of the actors playing the role of foreigner, either Greek, Turk or Italian. In many cases, the verbal form used does not correspond to the targeted form in terms of person, gender, number and/or aspect. I will use the term ‘target form’ for the latter and ‘non-target form’ for the former.
For instance, in (10.a) we see the verb /ʔemseku/ ‘to hold’ inflected in the imperative form for the second-person plural, whereas the target form is /te-msik/, i.e. the imperfective form of the second-person singular masculine. In (10.b), the verbal form is third-person singular masculine perfective /ħɑẓɑr/ ‘to arrive’, whereas the subject is feminine /ħɑrɑm/ ‘wife’. In (10.c), the verbal form /dɑwwɑrtu/ ‘to search’ is inflected in the perfective form for the second-person plural while the target form is /ni-dɑwwɑr/, i.e.
first-person plural imperfective.
(10.a) George GR: ʔemseku ʃuvajja nebiit ʕUsmɑɑn?
[Γεώργιος] hold.IPR.2PL some wine ‘Usmān
“[do you want to] take some wine, ‘Usmān?”
(10.b) Za‘tar Aġa TR: ħɑrɑm mutawaffi ħɑẓɑr?
wife deceased arrive.PRFV.3SM
“Did [the] deceased’s wife arrive?”
(10.c) Rosetta IT: xɑlɑɑṣ ħuṣɑɑn dɑwwɑrtu ʕaleeha sawa sawa never-mind Ḥuṣān search.PRFV.2PL for-her together
“Never mind Ḥuṣān (‘Iṣām)! We search for her together.”
There are 3,551 verbs in the registers of the actors playing the role of foreigners, after ignoring the repeated verbs within the same utterance. Of these verbs, less than half correctly follow the EA verb conjugation paradigms, namely 1,593 verb (~45%). The remaining verbs, namely 1,958 verb (~55%), vary in person, gender, number, or aspect from the targeted form; or in more than one of them.
The quantitative relation between the correctly inflected verbs and the incorrect ones differs markedly in different verbal forms:
• In the perfective form, the ratio between correct and incorrect verbs is nearly 1:1. The correctly inflected verbs are 456 (~51%) and 432 (~49%) are the ones that are inflected varyingly.
• In the imperfective form, the ratio between correct verbs and incorrect ones is nearly 1:2, with correct verbs being 642 (~34%) and varied verbs being 1,263 (~66%).
• Conversely, in the imperative form, the correctly inflected verbs amount to 495 (~66 %) compared to 263 varyingly inflected (~34%) with a ratio of nearly 2:1.
Similarly, the distribution of the correct and incorrect verbs differs noticeably from person to person:
• For the second-person singular feminine pronoun, the ratio between the correctly inflected verbs and the varied ones is 1:4, with 76 correct verbs (~20%) and 306 incorrect ones (~80%).
• Conversely, for the first-person plural pronoun, the ratio between the correctly inflected verbs and the varied ones is nearly 3:1, where the correctly conjugated verbs amount to 78 (~74%) and the incorrectly inflected verbs 28 (~26 %).
In addition, various verbal forms express the variously inflected verbs. Some of these verbal forms are used more than others, as we see in the tables below.
Seventeen forms are the alternative verbal forms that target the perfective form in EA.
The second-person plural perfective form, i.e. PRFV.STEM+tu, with 252 occurrences, is the most recurring alternative form. This form also targets all the other persons in the perfective form. Then comes the third-person singular masculine perfective form, i.e.
PRFV.STEM+Ø, with 94 occurrences. It probably also targets all the other persons in the perfective form. Together, both forms make up 80% of the alternative forms in the corpus that target the perfective.
Table 11
Distribution of the correct and incorrect conjugated verbs in the registers of the actors playing the role of foreigners
1S 1PL 2SM 2SF 2PL 3SM 3SF 3PL Total The use of third-person singular masculine perfective form as an alternative form to target the other persons in the perfective form could be justified by the fact that it is the simplest perfective form, having only the stem. Moreover, among the correctly inflected perfective verbs in the corpus, it is the most recurrent form, namely 230 times (of 456) or about half of the total verbs.
However, the second-person plural perfective form cannot be explained in this way for two reasons; on the one hand, it is a marked verbal form and, on the other hand, it is the less frequently used form in perfective with only 10 occurrences. Instead, one of two hypotheses may contain the explanation:
• The form is actually the more used—and less marked—form PRFV.STEM+t, i.e. the perfective verb inflected for the first-person singular and the second-person singular masculine, with the addition of a final /u/. In fact, it targets the first-singular person
occurrences (out of 252). The additional final vowel may be due to the influence of the SA first-singular perfective form PRFV.STEM+tu, which in some cases can serve as a kind of epenthetic vowel, since the first-singular person and the second-person singular masculine inflection end in two consonants, as in (11):
(11) Matthaios GR: wi baʕdeen roxtu ʕamaltu balaaɣ
[Ματθαίος] and afterwards went-I made-I denunciation
“After that, I went to make a denunciation.”
Bīǧu GR: ʔomtu min [n]-noom ʕalassan ne-ɣsil
got-up-I from the-sleep for wash-I
il-wessə btaaʕ il-ʔana
the-face of the-I
“I got up from the bed to wash my face.”
• The form is a mixed verbal form consisting of the perfective stem with the addition of a final /tu/, as there is also an analogous mixed form with the imperfective and imperative forms (vide infra).
Table 12
Distribution of the non-target forms targeting the PERFECTIVE
1S 1PL 2SM 2SF 2PL 3SM 3SF 3PL Total
complicated with respect to the perfective one, the former being prefixed and eventually suffixed. The alternative verbal forms that target the imperfective form in the corpus are 19. Five of these forms often occur and are therefore worthy of discussion.
The first alternative form is the plural perfective form of the second-person, i.e.
PRFV.STEM+tu, and it occurs 99 times. It targets all the persons but mostly the first-person singular and the second-person singular masculine (63 occurrences). This fact, once again, suggests one of the above-mentioned two hypotheses.
The second of the alternative forms is the first-person plural imperfective form, i.e.
nV+IPFV.STEM, with 209 occurrences exclusively for the first-person. In three of these occurrences, the form ends with additional /u/, i.e. nV+IPFV.STEM+u, once targeting the first-person plural and twice the first-person singular. This form is the unique form among the frequently used alternative forms that does not target all persons.
As a matter of fact, in the standard EA—as spoken in Cairo and the surrounding areas today—the first-person imperfective paradigm is a+IPFV.STEM (singular) and nV+IPFV.STEM (plural) (seeWoidich 2006b: 329). However, this is not (and has never been) the only paradigm known to Egyptian Arabic. This recalls the commonly known issue of nekteb-nektebu, discussed by, inter alia, Blanc (1974) and (1981), Owens (2003), Behnstedt (2016), Behnstedt & Woidich (2013) and (2018).
Speaking of the first-person imperfect, Woidich states in his article on rural dialects of Egyptian Arabic (1996, §17):
There are three different types of paradigms:
(a) aktib (b) aktib (c) niktib ‘I write’
niktib niktibu niktibu ‘we write’
The original system (a) developed into (c) by paradigmatic levelling. In Egypt, (a) is the common type in the Delta and is characteristic for the centre [Cairo included], the east and the north east, as well as for Middle Egypt. (c) dominates the west of the Delta and the Nile Valley from Asyūṭ southwards as far as Naǧ‘ Ḥammādi and the west bank of Lugṣur.
Paradigm (b) seems to stand halfway between (a) and (c), and indeed, we always find it in areas which lie between (a) and (c). In the Delta, for instance, the area with (b) […] forms a bridge between the west (c) and the north east (a). In this way, (a), (b) and (c) represent what is called a terrace landscape where (b) can either be seen as the intermediate stage of an internal development of paradigm (a) to (c) via (b), or as the result of dialect contact.
In addition, Blanc (1974) points out that in Cairo, where the a-kteb/ne-kteb paradigm (‘A-forms’ in his term) dominates, the native Cairene Jews use the ne-kteb/ne-ktebu forms (‘N-forms’ in his term) (see also Rosenbaum 2002: 37).
This is confirmed by my corpus data, where the A-forms (or the ‘(a) type’) are the dominating forms with very few exceptions, namely 12 occurrences:
1. In the speech of the Egyptian Jewish comedian Šālūm (1900–48), who was active in Egyptian cinema’s first decade. Šālūm used to appear in his movies with his real name, which even appeared in the title of one of them: Šālūm il-turgumān [Šālūm the Interpreter] (Tōgō Mizrāḥī, 1935) (see Qāsim 2004: 253). In the corpus, Šālūm appears in one movie: Il-Riyāḍī [The Sporty] (L. Nagel & Clément Mizrahi, 1937).
In this film, Šālūm uses the imperfective of the first-person six times, all referring to first-person singular: four times N-form (/raħ ni-igi/ ‘I’ll come’ twice and /na-akul/ ‘I eat’ twice) and 2 times A-form (/b-a-biiʕ/ ‘I sell’ and /b-a-ʔol-lak/ ‘I’m telling you’).
An example of the N-forms is shown in (12.a).
2. In the speech of an Egyptian Berber (barbari in EA) character performed by the eminent Egyptian pioneer actor ‘Alī al-Kassār (1887–1957). ‘Alī al-Kassār used to play the role of an Egyptian Berber, called ‘Usmān ‘Abd-il-Bāsiṭ, first on the stage and later in cinema (see Qāsim 2004: 259–60). Not surprisingly, the name ‘Usmān is the most stereotypically name given to any Egyptian Berber character in Egyptian cinema. ‘Alī al-Kassār actually appears in my corpus in two films: Ḫafīr il-darak [The Policeman] (Tōgō Mizrāḥī, 1936) and Il-Sā‘a 7 [Seven O’Clock] (Tōgō Mizrāḥī, 1937). In these two films, ‘Usmān uses the imperfective of the first person four times, all referring to first-person singular: N-form twice (/ne-ʃrɑb/ ‘I drink’ and /ma-ni-ʃrab-ʃi/ ‘I don’t drink’) and A-form twice (/b-a-ʔuul/ ‘I say’ and /a-ʃuuf/ ‘I see’).59 An example of the N-forms is shown in (12.b).
3. In only one case, an ‘ordinary’ middle-class Cairene Egyptian uses the N-form referring to first-person plural (12.c) in Ḥamātī malāk [My Mother-in-law is an Angel] (‘Īsā Karāma, 1959).
(12.a) Šālūm EG: ʔana raħ ni-igi hena kollə
[Jew] I FUT-MRK come.IPFV.1S here every
59 Another Egyptian Berber character appears also in another film: Il-Armala il-ṭarūb [The Merry Widow]
(Ḥilmī Raflah, 1956). He uses once the imperfective with A-form: /ʔana ħ-a-ʃuuf il-ħikaaja/ ‘I’ll investigate on this issue’.
joom na-akul hena bakʃiiʃ
day eat.IPFV.1S here gratis
“I will come here every day to eat here gratis.”
(12.b) ‘Usmān EG: ʔana ma-ni-ʃrab-ʃi ɣeer biira bass
[Nubian] I drink.NEG.IPFV.1S except beer only
“I don’t drink [anything] except beer.”
(12.c) Kamāl EG: ʔeħna ʕajziin ni-ʃteru d-dulaab elli
we wanting.PL buy.IPFV.1PL the- cupboard REL.PN
fi l-ʔooḍɑ nemra tɑlɑttɑɑʃɑr
in the-room number 13
“We want to buy the cupboard in the room number 13.”
4. In addition, although not often, Egyptian characters speaking in FT form use the N-forms. In just one case, the N-form refers to first-person plural (13.b). The N-form referring to first-person singular, instead, occurs four times, all uttered by the same actor, the famous Egyptian comedian Ismā‘īl Yāsīn, who had some knowledge of Greek. 60 The four occurrences are /ne-fahhimhaa-lik/ ‘I explain it to you (f.)’, /ħa-ne-fqaʕhum/ ‘I’ll burst them’, /rɑɑjix tṣɑrrɑf/ ‘I’m gonna take steps’ and /rɑɑx ni-rɑwwɑxuh/ ‘I’ll bring him [i.e. her] home’. An example of the N-forms referring to first-person singular is shown in (13.a).
(13.a) Nabīh FT: ʔana n-fahhemhaa -lik bi- r-rumeeka
I explain.IPFV.1S-it to-you.S.F. by/in Greco-arabic
“I’ll explain it to you (f.) in Greco-arabic.”
(13.b) Šarbāt FT: muʃ ni-xaafu -zzaaj ja xawaaga?!
NEG.PART fear.IPFV.1PL how VOC.PART foreigner
“How could we not be afraid mister?!”
An interesting idiosyncrasy is also revealed by a deep inspection of the numbers of both the forms and the N-forms. In fact, the first-person singular is inflected in the A-form, i.e. /a+IPFV.STEM/, 120 times and inflected in the N-form, i.e. /nV+IPFV.STEM/, 20861 times. The first-person plural is inflected in the A-form, i.e. /nV+ IPFV.STEM/, 45 times and inflected in the N-form, i.e. /nV+IPFV.STEM+u/, only once.
60 Ismā‘īl Yāsīn used to codeswitch to Greek, in a funny way, to sound puzzling or incomprehensible.
In other words, the /nV+IPFV.STEM/ is used 251 times62 to refer to the first person—
singular or plural—over twice as often the other forms, which were used 123 times, /a+IPFV.STEM/ 120 times and /nV+IPFV.STEM+u/ three times. This means that we are plausibly attesting to another paradigm levelling, where the /nV+IPFV.STEM/ became almost the unique form for the two first-persons in the imperfective form, thanks again to language contact.
The third alternative verbal form that targets the imperfective form is the third-person singular masculine, i.e. /jV+IPFV.STEM/. With 294 overall occurrences, it targets all the other persons.
The fourth alternative form to target all persons in the imperfective is the imperative of the second-person singular masculine, with 273 occurrences. To this form we can add another ambivalent form that may be a second-person singular masculine imperative or a third-person singular masculine perfective, such as: /fɑkkɑr/ ‘Think! (you S.M), he thought’; /ħaarib/ ‘fight! (you S.M), he fought’; /itkallim/ ‘speak! (you S.M), he spoke;
/istanna/ ‘wait! (you S.M), he waited; /saafir/ ‘travel! (you S.M), he travelled; /farfiʃ/ ‘cheer up! (you S.M), he cheered up’. The reason for joining the latter to the former is that there is no explicit third-person singular masculine perfective that targets the imperfective.
The second-person singular masculine imperative is thus the most frequently used alternative form to the imperfective, with 415 occurrences, representing one quarter of the total alternative forms (1,263). The number might rise again if we added the 20 occurrences of the imperative forms that are equally used for the second-person singular masculine or feminine, i.e. /rɑbbi/ ‘educate!, grow up!’ or /ʔemʃi/ ‘walk!, go away!’.
Besides, it targets all the eight persons.
Furthermore, the use of the second-person singular masculine imperative as an alternative form to the imperfective may be explained on the basis of its simplicity and unmarkedness. However, and since nearly one third of the singular masculine imperative forms targets the first-person singular (136 of 415), there may be another explanation: the resemblance between the two forms.
62 We may add other 19 occurrences (13 first-person singular and six plural) where the inflected form is a mixed one, i.e. /nV+IPFV.STEM+tu/.
The stem of the imperative form in EA, on the one hand, is the same as the imperfective form. Indeed, according to Woidich (2006a: 76):
Der Imperativ ist identisch mit der Flexionsbasis der [sic.] Imperfekts, die man durch Abtrennen des Präfixes vom Imperfekt erhält. Beginnt die Basis mit einem Konsonanten, so bleibt sie unverändert, beginnt sie mit zweien, dann tritt ein i-, bei /u/-haltiger Basis wahlweise auch ein u- davor: yiktib
> yi-ktib > ktib > iktib „schreib!’; u’‘ud „setz dich’. Die Flexion erfolgt wie beim Imperfekt mit -i für das F. und -u für den Pl.: iktibi „schreib!’;
iktibu „schreibt!’.63
In the ‘standard’ EA, on the other hand, the only difference between the two forms, i.e. the first-person singular imperfective and the second-person singular masculine imperative, lies in the vowel that precedes the stem, the low vowel /a/ for the former and the high vowel /i/ and, eventually /u/, for the latter. Yet, the imperfective of the first-person singular has other vowels. As Owens (2003: 716) states, such a vowel may be central, i.e. /e/: “In (1) [i.e. b-ə-ktob form] 1SG is represented by a vowel (a or ə).” This is a typical feature of eastern Arabic dialects shared by EA in some parts of Egypt: “The eastern Delta also shares the system of derived verb patterns with the eastern Arabic dialects […] The p-stem prefixes include bi-, bu- as in bimsik, buḥrut, also found in Palestinian Arabic” (Behnstedt & Woidich 2018: 74).
Therefore, on the basis of resemblance, 94 of the 136 occurrences of singular masculine imperative forms targeting the first-person singular can be explained.
The situation of the imperative, instead, is quite different, being the form less often targeted by alternative forms. Furthermore, when targeted by an alternative form, such form is mostly another imperative form. The relative simplicity of the imperative form justifies this.
Table 13
Distribution of the non-target forms targeting the IMPERFECTIVE 1S 1PL 2SM 2SF 2PL 3SM 3SF 3PL Total
PRFV.1S/2SM 3 - - 1 - 1 - - 5
PRFV.2PL 36 3 27 10 1 16 4 2 99
63 “The imperative is identical to the inflectional base of the imperfect, obtained by removing the imperfect prefix. If the stem begins with a consonant, it remains unchanged and if it starts with two, then an i, or optionally an u with stem containing /u/, precedes: yiktib > yi-ktib > ktib > iktib ‘write! (s.m.)’; u’‘ud
‘sit down (s.m.)’. The inflection is like the imperfect with -i for the feminine and -u for the plural: iktibi
‘write! (s.f.)’; iktibu ‘write! (p.)’.”
IPFV.1S 264 - - - 1 3
This is not the case, however, with the negative imperative (or the prohibitive), since the negation involves changing the verbal form from the imperative stem to the imperfective stem along with adding the proclitic /ma/ and the enclitic /ʃ(i)/: “Als Prohibitiv dient das y-Imperfekt mit Negation ma-…-š”67 (Woidich 2006a: 297, and see 335). In fact, the correctly inflected negative imperative occurs only nine times in the register of actors playing the role of foreigner: seven of them dealing with singular masculine as in (14.a) and two with singular feminine as in (14.b). To this we can add three other occurrences, such as in (14.c), where the negative imperative is correctly inflected to the second-person singular masculine, but the addressed persons are female.
(14.a) Kītī GR: ma-ti-lzaʔ-ʃi keda fi maʕmal ħalaawa!
[Καίτη] cling.NEG.IPR.2SM this way in (to) factory sweet
“Don’t cling this way to [the] sweet factory!”
(14.b) Bīǧu GR: bass ma-te-nsii-s ʔinn il-maxill di
but forget.NEG.IPR.2SF that the-pub this.SF kaan bi-j-wakkelna ʕees!
64 In these two cases, the verb is correctly inflected with the first person singular; however, they have the prefix /bi-/ (namely /b-a-stannaak/ and /b-a-stanna/), instead of /ħa-, ha/ (or even null) of the future as they supposed to be.
65 In two cases, the verb has an additional final /u/, namely /ni-baatu/ and /ni-xibbu/, both uttered by Greek characters.
66 This is an N-form, i.e. /ni-giibu/.
67 As a prohibitive serves the y-imperfect with ma- … -š negation.
was feeding-us bread
“But don’t forget that this pub was feeding us [our daily] bread!”
(14.c) Ḫristu GR: ma-t-xaf-sə ʕalajja!
[Χρίστος] worry.NEG.IPR.2SM about-me
“Don’t worry (SF) about me!”
In place of the ma-IPFV.STEM-š(i) negation of the imperative in EA, the actors playing the role of foreigners employ two other paradigms. These paradigms display two levels of simplification:
• Instead of the proclitic /ma/ and the enclitic /ʃ/, they use the negation particle muš ~ miš with the imperfective stem as for example in (15.a) (31 occurrences);
• or, further simplifying, they apply the negation particle muš ~ miš directly to the imperative stem as for example in (15.b) (13 occurrences).
(15.a) Katīna GR: miʃ ti-xɑbbɑṭ regleek ʔenta!
[Κατίνα] NEG.PART knock.IPFV.2SM legs-your you.SM
“Don’t knock your legs [against each other]!”
(15.b) ‘Āṣim Qaimaqli TR: muʃ xalli ħaddə j-xoʃʃə ʔabadan!
[Âsım Kaymaklı] NEG.PART let.IPR.2SM someone enter.IPFV.3SM never
“Don’t let anybody enter ever!”
Table 14
Distribution of the alternative forms targeting the IMPERATIVE 2SM 2SM.NEG 2SF 2SF.NEG 2PL 2PL.NEG Total
Furthermore, a look at all the alternative forms reveals a strong simplification behavior. Being mostly the less marked, the verbal forms inflected with singular masculine pronouns make up about 52% of the total forms (1,020 of 1,958 occurrences).
The number might rise to 72% (1,406 of 1,958 occurrences) if we add the 386 occurrences of alternative forms inflected to second-person in the perfective, since they can be reinterpreted as inflected to either the first-person singular ~ the second-person singular masculine (with the addition of final /u/) or the third-person singular masculine (with the addition of final /tu/) (vide supra).
Table 15
Table 15