Thread by @matt_boot_

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/

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/

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/

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/

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/

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/

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/

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/

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/

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

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/

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