"Ode to Joy"

[1] The genesis of this “soġīthā The word soġīthā is used here not in the classical Syriac mode but only in its aesthetic acclamation and versification. Since this word is a Syriac appellation for an occasional poem that extols and praises a person or an event – Saint Ephraim being the exemplar of this style – we have elected to give it this rubric. Given the spirit of this occasion the poem is presented hereby as a “soġīthā” ” was the presentation of a festschrift The venue for this presentation was a reception given by Beth Mardutho: the Syriac Institute, at the closing of the Fourth North American Syriac Symposium, held at Princeton Theological Seminary, July 9-12, 2003. This was, indeed, a most propitious and auspicious occasion to make this presentation. This writer is grateful to Dr. George Kiraz, President of Beth Marduth: the Syriac Institute, for graciously accepting this felicitous poem for publication in Hugoye. to Fr. Sidney Griffith, Professor of Semitic languages at the Catholic University of America. Dr. Monica Blanchard, of the Institute of Christian Oriental Research at the university, kindly invited this writer to preface the presentation with an introduction This writer extends his deep appreciation to Dr. Monica Blanchard for her gracious invitation to make the introductory remarks before the presentation of the festschrift to Professor Griffith and for including it in the festschrift publication. . It was, indeed an honor and a privilege to do so. Professor Griffith has been a colleague and a friend for more than three decades.

The word soġīthā is used here not in the classical Syriac mode but only in its aesthetic acclamation and versification. Since this word is a Syriac appellation for an occasional poem that extols and praises a person or an event – Saint Ephraim being the exemplar of this style – we have elected to give it this rubric. Given the spirit of this occasion the poem is presented hereby as a “soġīthā”

The venue for this presentation was a reception given by Beth Mardutho: the Syriac Institute, at the closing of the Fourth North American Syriac Symposium, held at Princeton Theological Seminary, July 9-12, 2003. This was, indeed, a most propitious and auspicious occasion to make this presentation. This writer is grateful to Dr. George Kiraz, President of Beth Marduth: the Syriac Institute, for graciously accepting this felicitous poem for publication in Hugoye.

This writer extends his deep appreciation to Dr. Monica Blanchard for her gracious invitation to make the introductory remarks before the presentation of the festschrift to Professor Griffith and for including it in the festschrift publication.

[2] Scholars and laymen of Syriac studies and Christian Arabic literature are well apprised of Professor Griffith’s contribution in these two fields. His erudition in the field of early Christian studies, especially of the Syrian Church, has deepened our understanding and appreciation of its ecclesiastical and literary heritage, as well as bringing to light opaque theological and doctrinal developments of the Christian Orient. His research in the field of Christian-Moslem dialogue in the formative years of Islam has expanded our understanding of the nature of this intellectual interlocution that took place between these two religions.

[3] But his examination of these two disciplines is appreciated not only for its intellectual rigor and perspicacity but also for bringing hope and heartening to those who belong to the Syrian Church. We, whose mother tongue is Neo-Aramaic and whose liturgical language is still sung in that mellifluous, classical Syriac Churches using the classical Syriac in their liturgy are: the Assyrian Church of the East, Chaldean, Maronite, Syro-Malabar, Syro-Malankar, Syrian Catholic and Syrian Orthodox. , irrespective of church affiliation, see in his chrestomathy a consolation and a catharsis. The future of this church in its native land is, sad to say, very dim, perhaps in its twilight. In consequence of his enlarging the horizon of Syriac studies, the Syrian Church, in all of its denominations, is now engaged in an ecumenical dialogue with the Western churches, and in an inter-denominational one. This new dialogue has brought a prospect of an ecclesiastical harmony and the promise of a theological concord within the Syrian Church. His love for this Oriental Church, seen through his copious writings, has brought hope that this ancient church, which has produced so many luminaries from Saint Ephraim to Aphrahat, the Persian Sage, will be sustained and survive in its motherland. Scholars of Syriac and Christian Arabic, among them Professor Griffith, are a perpetual fount of assurance. This church, whose language was spoken by our Lord, is endeavoring not to disappear in its homeland.

Churches using the classical Syriac in their liturgy are: the Assyrian Church of the East, Chaldean, Maronite, Syro-Malabar, Syro-Malankar, Syrian Catholic and Syrian Orthodox.

[4] On such an occasion the expected thing is to proffer salutary words in praise of the honoree. So when Dr. Blanchard invited this writer to preface the presentation the first instinct was to make a felicitous sentiment to the gathering at this reception See above, footnote no. 2. . However, after some rumination on the nature of the remarks, and it was obvious what they should be, thoughts turned to the ancient Semites, by asking, “What would they do?” Historically, on such an occasion the subject of the celebration would be feted with a poem, a soġīthā or a tešbohtā, if you please. This tradition has been an honored one among the ancient Semites and is still practiced by their modern descendents. It was in this spirit that this writer elected to compose a poem celebrating the presentation of a festschrift to Professor Griffith. It is presented here as a token of deep respect and affection Owing to the restriction of time at this reception this writer read a much shorter version of this poesy. The full text is presented here, together with an introduction and a bibliography. . But it is not only this writer who is presenting this poem on this special occasion. For it is also the Syrian Church, with its multi-denominational communicants, its churches, monuments, monasteries and convents, who are partaking in this festive presentation. They all sing, “Thank you for being a Ruhā Bassimtā 'u Bēt Yulpānā.”

See above, footnote no. 2.

Owing to the restriction of time at this reception this writer read a much shorter version of this poesy. The full text is presented here, together with an introduction and a bibliography.

[5] The poem is written in the Neo-Aramaic dialects of the villages and hamlets of the plains of Mosul (ancient Nineva), of northern Iraq. Specifically, it is the dialect of the town of Tel-Kape The Iraqi census of 1961 showed a population of 7307, all of them belonging to the Chaldean Catholic rite. Today, due to economic reasons, internal conflicts and three international wars, the number is around 3000, one fifth of them Moslems. , situated eighteen miles north of Mosul. The vernacular of this area, called Surath (i.e. Syriac), is one of a large sub-group of dialects historically referred to as Neo-Aramaic. For the student of Semitic philology these dialects are of paramount importance, for each dialect exhibits its own peculiarities, linguistic, historical and socio-cultural. And while some research has been done in these dialects, very little study has been done on their relationship to Aramaic and classical Syriac. Furthermore, political and religious reasons have hindered any serious field research in the different dialects. Most of the research has centered on a descriptive grammar Due to the difficulty of doing linguistic field work in the villages of these dialects, most of the research for the descriptive grammar is done through the use of an “informant,” usually far away from the geographical area. Clearly, the further away from these towns the less chance of the accurate linguistic information reaching the researcher. of a particular geographical area or a village. A serious philological study of these dialects is still the hope of students of Syriac.

The Iraqi census of 1961 showed a population of 7307, all of them belonging to the Chaldean Catholic rite. Today, due to economic reasons, internal conflicts and three international wars, the number is around 3000, one fifth of them Moslems.

Due to the difficulty of doing linguistic field work in the villages of these dialects, most of the research for the descriptive grammar is done through the use of an “informant,” usually far away from the geographical area. Clearly, the further away from these towns the less chance of the accurate linguistic information reaching the researcher.

[6] In the last fifty years these dialects have been the recipients of many foreign words, thus greatly diluting the historical integrity of the Neo-Aramaic. Furthermore, immigration has emptied many of the villages that speak Neo-Aramaic of their inhabitants. Hence there is an urgent need to study these dialects. Their survival, like the presence of Christianity in its land of birth, is at stake.

[7] The number of those speaking the different dialects of Neo-Aramaic has been declining since the first decade of the twentieth century. Two major events have had a profound effect on these dialects and those who speak them. The first one was the genocide against the Christians of the Ottoman Empire, specifically the Armenians and Syrian Christians. While the former suffered the most, the latter The Neo-Aramaic speaking communities that experienced the many massacres between 1910-25 were situated in Tūr cAbdīn and Mardin (Turkey), and Iraqi Kurdistan and Mosul (Iraq). They included Assyrians, Chaldeans, Syrian Catholics and Syrian Orthodox. suffered enough casualties that it caused the second catastrophic event. This was the emigration from areas where the many massacres took place, resulting in a depopulation of most villages of their Christian communities. Most of the immigrants were dispersed throughout the Arab world, with a large number emigrating to the West, especially the USA. The political and religious unrest of the last fifty years has accelerated this migration. Among immigrants whose native language is Neo-Aramaic, there is a tendency to marginalize it since the language of their adopted country is the medium of communication. For the first generation of these immigrants, Neo-Aramaic has become an anachronism. Its only relevance to them is the fact that it is related to classical Syriac, the liturgical language of their respective churches.

The Neo-Aramaic speaking communities that experienced the many massacres between 1910-25 were situated in Tūr cAbdīn and Mardin (Turkey), and Iraqi Kurdistan and Mosul (Iraq). They included Assyrians, Chaldeans, Syrian Catholics and Syrian Orthodox.

[8] Today, Neo-Aramaic (i.e. vernacular Syriac) is spoken in the following geographical areas:

Historically, a geographic area bounded by northern Mesopotamia (modern Iraq), north-east Turkey and north-west Iran.

[9] Historically Neo-Aramaic has been an oral vernacular. It has not been formally taught in schools, and has produced a limited religious and secular literature. There have been some printed liturgical compositions, with distribution limited to priests and deacons. Some occasional pieces are published in religious publications, such as festal poems, eulogies or specific communal commemorations. Early in this century there were few attempts to publish newspapers but they did not come to fruition. The one Neo-Aramaic speaking community that has produced a substantial literature is the Chaldean town of Alkosh cf. Khan, Geoffrey. The Neo-Aramaic of Qaraqōš. Leiden: Brill (2002), p. 8. , 35 miles north of Mosul, and those of Lake Urmia, in Iran. The latter was far more successful in producing a fairly extensive and varied literature, including newspapers and books Yaur, L. “A Poem in the Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Urmia.” Journal of Near East Studies. 16 (1957), p. 73. . Given the occasional theme of this paper no attempt is made to discuss the descriptive grammar of this Neo-Aramaic vernacular, neither have we chosen to discuss the historical relationship to classical Syriac. Hopefully, such a work will be presented at a different venue. The poem is presented herewith in the Syriac script, following as much as possible a phonetic transcription. However, where a word has gone through only a minor consonantal shift, such as “ara” (earth) for classical “arca” we have given the classical and not the vernacular. Nevertheless in the transliteration we have been faithful to the phonetics of the vernacular in order to give the reader a full appreciation for the orthographic and syntactical shift from classical Syriac to this dialect of Neo-Aramaic. The English translation mirrors the style and spirit of the Neo-Aramaic of the poem. It is the Neo-Aramaic (i.e. vernacular Syriac) which this writer learned at home and from the literati in this dialect, in Iraq and the United States.

cf. Khan, Geoffrey. The Neo-Aramaic of Qaraqōš. Leiden: Brill (2002), p. 8.

Yaur, L. “A Poem in the Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Urmia.” Journal of Near East Studies. 16 (1957), p. 73.

[10]

[11]

[12]

Refers to Fr. Griffith’s sixty-fifth birthday

_______

This bibliography is hereby included as a reference material for readers who are interested in the comparative philology of Neo-Aramaic dialects, as well as Semitic philology.

Blanc, Haim. 1964. Communal Dialects in Baghdad. Harvard Middle Eastern Dialects Monographs 10. Cambridge: Harvard University.

Fiey, Jean M. 1965-1969. Assyrie Chrètienne: Contribution à l’Étude de l’Histoire et de la Gèographie Écclesiastiques. Institute de Lettres Orientales de Beyrouth: Beyrouth.

Hetzorn, Robert D. 1969. “The morphology of the verb in modern Syriac (Christian colloquial of Urm?).” Journal of the American Oriental Society 89: 112-27.

Heberman, Robert. 1988. The Syntax and Semantics of Verb Morphology in Modern Aramaic. A Jewish Dialect of Iraqi Kurdistan. American Oriental Series 69. New Haven, American Oriental Society.

. 1988. “The history of modern Aramaic pronouns and pronominal suffixes,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 108: 557-575.

. 1989. “Reconstructing pre-modern Aramaic morphology: The independent pronouns,” in W. Heinrichs (ed.), Studies in Neo-Aramaic. Harvard Semitic Studies Series. Atlanta: Scholars Press. pp. 79-88.

. 1993. “The Chaldean Aramaic of Zakho,” in R. Contini, F.A. Pennacchietti and M. Tosros (eds.), Semetica Serta Philologica Constantino Tsereteli Dictata, Turin: Slivio Zamovani, pp. 115-26.

Jastrow, Otto. 1978. Die Mesopotamisch-Arabischen Q?ltu-Dialect. Band I. Phonologie and Morphologie, Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 43/4. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner.

. 1983. “Tikrit Arabic verb morphology in a comparative perspective,” Al-Abhath 31:99-110.

Khan, Geoffrey. 1999. A Grammar of Neo-Aramaic. The Dialect of the Jews of Arbel. Leiden: Brill.

. 2001. “Quelques aspects de l’expression d’’etre’ en neoaraméen,” in Ana?d Donabédian (ed.), Langues des Diaspora. Langues et Contact. Faits de Langues de Linguistique 18, Paris: Ophrys, pp. 139-148.

. 2002. The neo-Aramaic Dialect of Qaraqosh. Leiden: Brill.

Krotkoff, George. 1985. Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Kurdistan: Texts, Grammar and Vocabulary. American Oriental Society 64. New Haven: American Oriental Society.

Maclean, Arthur John. 1895. Grammar of the Dialects of Vernacular Syriac. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

. 1901. A Dictionary of the Dialects of Vernacular Syriac as Spoken by the Eastern Syrians of Kurdistan North-West Persia, and the Plain of Mosul. Oxford: Clarendon.

Mingana, Alphonse. 1905. Clef de langue araméenne ou Grammaire complete et pratique des deux dialects syriac occidental et oriental. Mosul: Imprimerie des Péres Dominicains.

Mutzafi, Hezy. 2000. “The Neo-Aramaic dialect of Maha Khtaya d-Baz = Phonology, morphology and texts.” Journal of Semitic Studies 45/2:293-322.

Nöldeke, Theodor. 1868. Grammatik der Neusyrischen Sprache am Urmi-See und in Kurdistan. Leipzig: T.O. Weigel.

Polotsky, Hans. 1961. “Studies in Modern Syriac.” Journal of Semitic Studies 6:1-32.

. 1967. “Eastern Neo-Aramaic. B.Zakho.” In Franz Rosenthal (ed.). Aramaic Handbook. Porta linguarum Orientalium. 4 parts. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz, ii.1, 73-77; ii.12, 104-111.

Rhétore, Jean. 1912. Grammaire de langue Soureth. Mosul. Imprimerie des Péres Dominicains.

Rubba, J. 1993. “Forms derived from verbal roots in Tisqoopa Modern Aramaic.” In R. Contini, F.A. Pennacchietti and M. Tosco (eds.). Semitic Serta Philologica Constantino Tsereteli Dicata, Turin: Silvio Zamorani, pp. 273-287.

Sabar, Yona. 1978. From Tel-Kepe in Iraqi Kurdistan to Providence, Rhode Island: The Story of a Chaldean Immigrant to the United States of America in 1927. Journal of the American Oriental Society 98/4:410-415.

. 1993. “A folktale and folk songs in the Christian Neo-Aramaic dialect of Tel-Kepe (Northern Iraq),” in R. Contini, F.A. Pennacchietti and M. Tosco (eds.), Semitica. Serta Philologica Constantino Tsereteli Dicata, Turin: Silvio Zamorani, pp. 289-297.

Sachau, Edward. 1895. Skizze des Fellichi-Dialect von Mosul. Abhandlungen der Königlischen-Preussischen Ackademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin. Berlin.

Sara, Solomon. 1974. A Description of Modern Chaldean. Janua Linguarum. Series Practica 213. The Hague -Paris: Mouton.

. 1990. “Feminine Gender in Modern Chaldean. Form and Function.” In W. Heinrichs (ed.). Studies in neo-Aramaic. Harvard Semitic Studies. Atlanta: Scholars Press, pp. 45-52.

. 1993. “Marked Gender in Modern Chaldean [ta/?a] suffix” in R. Contini, F.A. Pennacchietti and M. Tosco (eds.). Semitic Serta Philologica Constantino Tsereteli Dicata, Turin: Silvio Zomarani, pp. 229-308.

Socin, Albert. 1882. Die Neu-arämaischen Dialect von Urmia bis Mosul. Text und Übersetzung. Tubingen: Laupp.

Tsereteli, K. “The Aramaic Dialect of Iraq.” Annali dell’Instituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli .S. 22: 245-250.