Judezmo Ladino

Handbook of Jewish Languages
Revised and Updated Edition
Edited by
Lily Kahn
Aaron D. Rubin
leiden | boston
For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV

Contents
Acknowledgements ix
Author Biographies x
Transcription xvii
Introduction 1
Aaron D. Rubin and Lily Kahn
1 Jewish Amharic 8
Anbessa Teferra
2 Judeo-Arabic 22
Geoffrey Khan
3 Judeo-Aramaic 64
Steven E. Fassberg
4 Jewish Berber 118

Joseph Chetrit
5 Jewish English 130

Sarah Bunin Benor
6 Judeo-French 138
Marc Kiwitt and Stephen Dörr
7 Jewish Georgian 178

Reuven Enoch
8 Judeo-Greek 194
Julia G. Krivoruchko
9 Jewish Hungarian 226

Judith Rosenhouse
10 Judeo-Iranian Languages 234

Habib Borjian

vi contents
11 Judeo-Italian 298
Aaron D. Rubin
12 Judezmo (Ladino) 366

David M. Bunis
13 Karaim and Krymchak 452

Henryk Jankowski
14 Jewish Latin American Spanish 490

Evelyn Dean-Olmsted and Susana Skura
15 Jewish Malayalam 504

Ophira Gamliel
16 Judeo-Occitan (Judeo-Provençal) 518

Adam Strich with George Jochnowitz
17 Judeo-Portuguese 553
Devon Strolovitch
18 Jewish Russian 594

Anna Verschik
19 Judeo-Slavic 600
Brad Sabin Hill
20 Jewish Swedish 619

Patric Joshua Klagsbrun Lebenswerd
21 Judeo-Syriac 631
Siam Bhayro
22 Judeo-Turkish 635
Laurent Mignon
23 Yiddish 642
Lily Kahn

contents vii
Epilogue: Other Jewish Languages, Past and Present 749

Aaron D. Rubin
Index 753

chapter 12
Judezmo (Ladino)
David M. Bunis
1 Historical Introduction 367

1.1 Origins of Judezmo: Sephardic La‘az in Medieval Iberia 367
1.2 Middle Judezmo and Ḥaketía 370
1.3 Modern Judezmo 372
2 Texts and Literature 375
3 Linguistic Profile of Judezmo 378
3.1 Phonology 378
3.2 Orthography 382
3.3 Morphology 387
3.3.1 Nouns 387
3.3.1.1 Gender and Definiteness 387
3.3.1.2 Number 388
3.3.1.3 Hypocoristics 388
3.3.1.4 Noun Derivation 389
3.3.2 Adjectives 389
3.3.3 Numerals 390
3.3.4 Pronouns 391
3.3.4.1 Subject Pronouns 391
3.3.4.2 Object Pronouns 391
3.3.4.3 Reflexive Pronouns 392
3.3.4.4 Possessive Pronouns 392
3.3.4.5 Other Pronouns 393
3.3.5 Adverbs 393
3.3.6 Verbs 394
3.3.6.1 Indicative 394
3.3.6.1.1 Present 394
3.3.6.1.2 Preterite 395
3.3.6.1.3 Imperfect 397
3.3.6.1.4 Future 397
3.3.6.1.5 Progressive 398
3.3.6.2 Conditional 398
3.3.6.3 Subjunctive 398
3.3.6.4 Imperative 399
© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2017 | doi: 10.1163/9789004359543_014

judezmo (ladino) 367
3.3.6.5 Infinitives 399

3.3.6.6 Gerund and Participles 399
3.3.6.7 Compound Tenses 400
3.3.6.8 Paradigm Leveling 400
3.3.6.9 Verbal Prefixes 401
3.4 Syntax 401
3.5 Lexicon 405
3.5.1 Ibero-Romance Component 405
3.5.2 Hebrew-Aramaic Component 407
3.5.3 (Judeo-)Arabic Component 411
3.5.4 Turkish Component 413
3.5.4 Greek Component 415
3.5.6 South Slavic Component 416
3.5.7 Italian, French, and Spanish Influence 416
3.6 Dialects 417
4 Text Samples 420
4.1 Djuḏezmo de enlaḏinar (Sacred-Text Calque-Translation
Judezmo)—Genesis 12:1–7 420
4.2 Djuḏezmo de hahamim (Rabbinical Judezmo) 421
4.3 Djuḏezmo kabá (Popular Judezmo) 422
4.4 Djuḏezmo frankeaḏo (Western Europeanized Judezmo) 424
5 Further Study 426
5.1 Introductions to the Language 426
5.2 Textbooks and Grammars 426
5.3 Dictionaries and Lexicography 427
5.4 Stylistic Variation 427
5.5 History of the Language 428
5.6 Texts and their Linguistic and Literary Analysis 428
5.7 Online Resources 429
6 Bibliography 430
1 Historical Introduction
1.1 Origins of Judezmo: Sephardic La‘az in Medieval Iberia

The interaction of the Jews of medieval Iberia with their Ibero-Romance-
speaking Christian and—from the early 8th century, in parts of the peninsula
under Arab domination—their Muslim neighbors led to the rise of Judaized
spoken and written varieties of Ibero-Romance (termed here ‘Sephardic La‘az’),
which differed somewhat from those of their non-Jewish neighbors (Bunis

368 bunis
2015). The linguistic distinctiveness of the Iberian Jews was alluded to in texts
by Christian Spaniards such as the anonymous, early-14th-century Danza ge-
neral de la muerte (Mergruen 2007), in which Death and the character rep-
resenting a rabbi summoned by him converse using lexemes typical of Jew-
ish Spanish speech, such as Dio (instead of Spanish Dios) ‘God’, meldar ‘to
read, study’ (cf. Greek μελετᾶν > a presumed Jewish Latin *meletāre), and
Hebraisms such as çatán ‘Satan’ (cf. Hebrew. ‫ שטן‬śaṭan) and dayanes ‘Jewish
judges’, the latter showing a Hebrew base (‫ דיין‬dayyan) and Hispanic plural
marker.
Our knowledge of these varieties derives from the few remaining texts from
medieval Spain, most of which are literary in nature and were written in the
Hebrew alphabet by individuals who seem to have had knowledge of, and
probably were strongly influenced by, contemporary literary Spanish. These
texts probably do not closely mirror the actual language used on a daily basis
by the majority of Iberian Jews, but this is practically the only documentation
we have of their language as used before the expulsion. A rare exception to
this trend is a pre-expulsion women’s prayer book (Lazar 1995), which contains
features diverging from emerging Standard Spanish, and is likely to reflect
actual popular Jewish Iberian usage.
From the literary texts, we can infer that in each region of the peninsula
where Jewish communities existed in the Middle Ages, the Ibero-Romance
component of their language seems to have been the quantitatively most pre-
dominant component at all structural levels, and to have borne a closer resem-
blance to the Ibero-Romance used by the Christians in their immediate locale
than to varieties of Ibero-Romance used by Jews or Christians in other regions.
Since the majority of Iberian Jews resided in Castile, the most important and
prestigious region in medieval Spain, the predominant types of Ibero-Romance
used by the medieval Spanish Jews appear to have been Judaized varieties of
Old Castilian. For example, the word appearing in most Iberian Jewish vernacu-
lar texts for ‘woman’ or ‘wife’ was represented in Hebrew letters as ‫מוֿגיר‬, suggest-
ing realization as mujer [muˈʒer], as in Old Castilian, rather than muller/mulher
[muˈʎer], as in Galician, Aragonese, Portuguese, and Catalan, or muyer [mu-
ˈjer], as in Asturian. Nevertheless, contact with the Ibero-Romance varieties
used by Jews in other parts of Iberia, such as Aragon, Leon, Andalusia, Cat-
alonia, and Portugal—through the migration of Castilian Jews to those areas
and the immigration of Jews from those areas to Castile, for study, commerce
and so on—led to the incorporation within the language of the majority of
Iberian Jews of some features characteristic of the Ibero-Romance of other
areas as well. Moreover, Sephardic La‘az passages in 16th-century texts from the
Ottoman Empire—such as translations of Hebrew religious works meant for
popular readers (e.g., Meir Benveniste’s abridged translation of Joseph Karo’s

Šulḥan ʿAruḵ [Thessalonika, 1568] and Ṣaddiq ben Yosef Formón’s translation of
Baḥya ibn Paquda’s ethical treatise Ḥoḇot Hal-lǝḇaḇot [Thessalonika, 1568]) and
Judezmo passages representing oral and written court testimony appearing in
responsa collections of the Ottoman rabbis of the time—suggest that many,
perhaps the majority, of popular-level Jews in medieval Iberia were actually
using a language the Hispanic component of which diverged from literary
Castilian of the 15th century. Their Hispanic elements more closely resembled
features characteristic of popular varieties of non-Jewish Ibero-Romance, such
as those found in medieval Castilian, Aragonese, Portuguese, and Catalan, or
features unique to the Jews.
From their earliest origins, the Jewish Ibero-Romance varieties also incorpo-
rated elements originating in Hebrew and Aramaic, including features bearing
a connection to Jewish religion and civilization, as well as others: e.g., ‫תקנה‬
tekaná ‘communal regulation’ and ‫ אפילו‬afilú ‘even’. As heirs to the Jewish Greek
and Jewish Latin linguistic traditions of their forebears in the Greek and Roman
empires, the medieval Iberian Jews also preserved elements of Jewish Greek
and Latin origin, as in the abovementioned meldar ‘to read, study’. During the
long period of Arab subjugation of much of Iberia, the Jews in the regions
under Islamic rule evidently used Judeo-Arabic as their primary spoken lan-
guage, although they probably had some familiarity with Ibero-Romance as
well. When their regions of residence were retaken by the Iberian Christians
during the campaign known among Christians as the Reconquista, the Jews
returned to Ibero-Romance as their principal vernacular, but they continued
to use certain lexemes of (Judeo-)Arabic origin, some of them absent in the
Spanish of contemporaneous, co-territorial Christians.
After highpoints as well as trials and tribulations during various stages of
their centuries-long sojourn in Iberia, those Jews who refused to convert to
Catholicism in the late 15th century were expelled from Castile and Aragon
in 1492, and from Portugal in 1497, thus bringing to an end the full, open
use of distinctly Jewish Ibero-Romance in the peninsula, and initiating the
post-expulsion phase of the language, which was to continue into the present
century.
Before and after the expulsions, ‫ אנוסים‬ʾanusim (Jews who were secretly loyal
to Judaism but posed as Catholics in order to remain in Iberia) needed to speak
Spanish in the same manner as their Christian neighbors. Those daring to use
“Jewish” or “Hebrew” words might be informed on by their domestic servants
or others to the Inquisitorial authorities as suspected Jews. Nevertheless, in
an edition of the anonymous Tratado del Alborayque, an anti-converso treatise
first published around 1465, the non-Jewish author accuses Jews and ʾanusim
of using numerous expressions of Hebrew origin to denigrate the Catholic reli-

370 bunis
gion, e.g. timea ‘Virgin Mary’ (< Hebrew ‫ טמאה‬təmeʾa ‘impure (f.)’), queilderesim
derasin ‘church’ (< Hebrew ‫ קהילה דרשעים‬qəhilla də-rəšaʿim ‘community of
wicked ones’), yeliala ‘uproar of cursing (i.e., sermon, preaching)’ (< Hebrew
‫ יללה‬yəlala ‘wailing, howling’), and mesumadim alcihi ‘conversos’ (< Hebrew
‫ משומדים אל תצילי‬məšummadim ʾal taṣṣili ‘do not rescue apostates’); see Car-
penter (1993: 12r) for further examples from this text. Such expressions may
well have formed a part of Jewish speech. For numerous other Hebraisms pur-
portedly used by Spanish Jews as documented by Christian authors, see Bunis
(2013).
All of the primarily Hispanic-based linguistic varieties used in Iberia before
the expulsions (as well as the Jewish Castilian-based variety which eventually
developed after the expulsions into modern Judezmo, discussed below) were
often referred to in Hebrew-language texts by Sephardim collectively as ‫ל)ו(עז‬
laʿaz~loʿez or ‘Romance’, or more specifically, ‫ ל)ו(עז ספרדי‬laʿaz~loʿez səp̄ aradi
‘Sephardic (or Spanish) La‘az’ or ‫ לעז ספרד‬laʿaz səp̄ arad ‘the La‘az of Spain’.
While in the 15th–16th centuries, Christian Spanish speakers tended to refer
to Ibero-Romance by terms such as español, castellano, and romance (caste-
llano), in their own works in the Jewish correlate of Spanish written during
those centuries, Jews in the same period tended to denote their vernacular by
other names—some of them also used in Castilian, but with less frequency,
such as ‫ לאדינו‬laḏino (cf. Spanish ladino ‘Latin, Romance’), which was used
especially when opposing the primarily Latin- or Romance-origin vernacular
to Hebrew. Among Christian Spanish speakers ladino was frequently used in
various other senses, such as ‘cunning’ or ‘of mixed race’.
1.2 Middle Judezmo and Ḥaketía

Along with their other cultural baggage, the Jews expelled from Iberia at the
end of the 15th century carried away with them their varieties of Sephardic
La‘az. The documentation of the varieties used by their descendants in the
Ottoman Empire, where most of the expellees relocated, is much richer and
more varied than that surviving from the Middle Ages, and includes repre-
sentations of the everyday language used by diverse social levels of Ottoman
Sephardic society.
Already in the early sources we can discern the major distinctive features
which would set these Jewish linguistic varieties (termed ‘Judezmo’) apart from
the correlates used by non-Jews into the modern era. These features may be
summarized as: a primarily Jewish religious and cultural frame of reference,
reflected in the use, until recent times, of a Hebrew-letter orthography; the
incorporation of Hebrew-Aramaisms, especially to denote concepts of special
cultural or emotive significance; a sacred-text translation language maximally

mirroring the syntax of the original Hebrew and Aramaic source texts; the
selective, deep-level incorporation—but also occasional conscious rejection—
of elements from the neighboring cultures; and the amalgamation of the total
Jewish linguistic configuration into a unique new entity, the total constellation
of whose structural features tends to be shared by all users of the Jewish lin-
guistic synthesis, but absent in the historical, regional, and stylistic correlates
used by non-Jews.
It is very unlikely that the features in Early Middle Ottoman Judezmo texts
which diverged from the emerging non-Jewish Spanish literary standard, re-
sembling instead forms known in medieval popular or regional varieties of
Ibero-Romance, developed among the Ottoman Jews through polygenesis after
the expulsions. Rather, they must already have formed a part of the popular
language of the majority of the Jews in Castile, although (as mentioned above)
they were rarely or not at all documented in Jewish texts before the expulsion
because of the tendency of the particular authors of the documents to view
the variety of language preferred in educated Christian Spanish circles as their
model.
Within a century after their being transplanted to other lands following the
expulsions (the Ottoman Empire and, to a lesser extent, North Africa), those
varieties of Jewish Ibero-Romance the Hispanic components of which were
composed primarily of elements rooted in Hispanic varieties other than popu-
lar Jewish Castilian (e.g., Aragonese, Portuguese, and Catalan, which had been
used by only a minority of the Iberian Jews) were abandoned in favor of evolv-
ing varieties used by the majority of the exiles—the Hispanic component of
which was overwhelmingly Jewish Castilian in origin. The “minority” Hispanic
languages brought into exile did not, however, disappear without leaving their
mark on the language of the majority: during the course of the 16th century,
elements originating in those languages were incorporated into the two prin-
cipal, regionally-determined, gradually-evolving subvarieties of post-expulsion
Jewish Castilian.
The first principal subvariety of post-expulsion Jewish Castilian, having
throughout its history the greater number of speakers, flourished primarily in
the lands of the former Ottoman Empire (surviving today as Turkey, Greece,
Bulgaria, Romania, and the heirs to the former Yugoslavia, as well as in the
Land of Israel and other areas of the Middle East such as Syria and Lebanon),
and in daughter communities founded by Jews from the Ottoman regions in
parts of the Austro-Hungarian Empire (mostly Vienna) and elsewhere in West-
ern Europe (e.g., Venice and Livorno). Speakers of this group may be referred
to as (Ottoman and post-Ottoman) Judezmo speakers. From the late 19th cen-
tury, members of this group established new immigrant communities in more

372 bunis
far-flung places, such the Americas, France and other parts of Western Europe,
Australia, parts of Africa such as the Belgian Congo, and the modern State of
Israel. The second principal subvariety evolved in parts of North Africa, espe-
cially in what was to become Spanish Morocco; speakers of this subvariety,
termed Ḥaketía (derived perhaps from [Judeo-]Arabic ‫ ﺣﲀﯾﺔ‬ḥakāya ‘story’, i.e.,
the language in which popular stories were recounted [Benoliel 1977: 3–4]), also
established immigrant communities in the Land of Israel, the Americas, West-
ern Europe, and the State of Israel.
As will be further discussed below, from the 16th century there evolved in
both principal subvarieties of post-expulsion Sephardic La‘az internal varia-
tion, correlating with factors such as geographic region, social stratification,
and stylistics; all of the varieties of post-expulsion Sephardic La‘az increas-
ingly distanced themselves over time from all varieties of Spanish. Structurally,
many distinctive characteristics of Judezmo and Ḥaketía, vis à vis Spanish in
its diverse varieties, resulted from the widespread triumph of trends charac-
teristic of Sephardic La‘az such as: specific phonological propensities; a ten-
dency toward analogical leveling, simplifications, and other formal processes
of diverse types; the discontinuation of features and lexemes perceived to be
antiquated; the creation of neologisms through novel concatenations of pre-
existing morphemes, and diverse semantic shifts. Both major subvarieties of
post-expulsion Sephardic La‘az also increasingly evolved away from varieties of
Spanish through additional incorporations from Hebrew-Aramaic, and signif-
icant adaptations from local contact languages in the Ottoman Empire, espe-
cially Turkish, and North Africa, especially local (Judeo-)Arabic.
Linguistic evidence, primarily from texts produced in Sephardic communi-
ties of the Ottoman Empire, suggests that the Middle Judezmo (and Ḥaketía)
phase lends itself to further subdivision into the Early Middle Judezmo Period
(roughly 1493–1728) and the Late Middle Judezmo Period (roughly 1729–1796).
When compared with Spanish, Middle Judezmo and Ḥaketía display unique
features at all levels of linguistic structure.
1.3 Modern Judezmo

Written documentation of Judezmo in the Ottoman Empire and its modern
successor states continued to be rich into the Modern Judezmo phase; from the
early 20th century, linguistic descriptions of Modern Ḥaketía began to appear,
allowing us to obtain a picture of innovations in both varieties in the 19th–20th
centuries. In Judezmo, the innovations were of four kinds: (a) increased analog-
ical leveling and simplification of paradigms in the Hispanic component, which
continued to constitute the quantitative bulk of the language’s structure at all
levels; (b) a profound restructuring at several levels resulting from a prolonged

encounter with two prestige Romance languages, Italian and French (which
came to play an important commercial and social role in the region, among
Judezmo speakers and also among speakers of other languages), and with Ger-
man (among Judezmo speakers in regions of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, its
successor states, and other regions under its cultural and commercial sway);
(c) intensive borrowing from local contact languages, sometimes in novel ways,
especially after World War I; and (d) profound changes in the attitude of influ-
ential speakers toward Judezmo and toward its traditional component struc-
ture. Ḥaketía, too, underwent change as a result of analogical leveling and sim-
plification, and especially intensive interaction with peninsular Spanish, par-
ticularly Andalusian, as well as French, especially from the mid-19th century.
The primary catalyst for the rise of Late Modern Judezmo was the interaction
between Judezmo speakers and representatives of modern Western European
civilization. Judezmo speakers became acquainted with French and Italian
especially through commercial and social contacts with speakers of these lan-
guages, particularly merchants in Italian and Ottoman port cities, and teach-
ers in the schools established by the Alliance lsraélite Universelle (founded in
Paris, 1860) and the Società Dante Alighieri (founded 1889). The outstanding
harbinger of Late Modern Judezmo was Rap̄ aʾel ʿUziʾel, in his pioneering period-
ical Šaʿare Mizraḥ (Izmir, 1845–1846)—the earliest Judezmo periodical which
has survived. The language of the paper is innovative, attesting to the begin-
nings of the profound impact made on Ottoman Judezmo by Italian and French
(Bunis 1993a). The paper is also the earliest native organ to express animosity
toward Judezmo as a “broken Spanish”, and to its incorporation of elements
belonging to languages associated by Judezmo speakers with the East, partic-
ularly Hebrew-Aramaic and Turkish (Bunis 2011b, 2013a). Under the influence
of the Haskalah (Jewish Enlightenment), some later westernized writers rec-
ommended that Judezmo be replaced outright by more “civilized” languages
such as those of major European countries, and/or the local languages. In a
supplement to the Viennese Judezmo periodical El Koreo de Viena published
in 1872, the Sephardic rabbi David Halevi of Bucharest characterized the lan-
guage of the Sephardim as a “bitter souvenir” of their tragic Spanish past. To
him it seemed a bizarre irony that, in Turkey, the descendants of Jews who had
been exiled from Spain should consider the truest sign of a Jew to be his speak-
ing ‫ איל ֿגודיזמו‬el Djuḏezmo or ‘Jewish’; to Halevi the ‘Jewish’ language was merely
“defective Spanish”. He was perhaps the first to stress the problematic absence
of modern technical terms in the language (“El djuḏezmo ke avlamos es defek-
tozo … Le faltan las palavras téhnikas”). While praising the loftiness of Hebrew,
he proposed that Judezmo speakers replace their language with a ‘broad, cul-
tured and civilized language’ such as those of Europe.

374 bunis
fig. 12.1 Genesis 1:1–6 in Hebrew and Ladino, from the Pentateuch published in
Constantinople, 1547.
From the mid-20th century onwards a variety of factors including the Holo-
caust, assimilation, and widespread immigration of Judezmo speakers away
from the Ottoman Empire and North Africa have led to a severe reduction in
speaker numbers and an extremely low rate of transmission to the younger
generations. In the 21st century Judezmo is severely endangered, although it
still has a base of primarily older-generation speakers, concentrated chiefly in
Turkey and Israel. There is also some Judezmo-language literary activity (see
section 2 below) and a number of universities in Israel, Europe, and North
America offer courses in the language. See the sources in section 5.5 below for
expanded attempts to delineate the historical phases of Judezmo; see Harris
(1994) for details of its status in the late 20th century.

2 Texts and Literature
There is extensive written documentation of traditional Jewish Ibero-Romance

from the Middle Ages into the present. Pre-expulsion texts include personal
notes, rabbinical ordinances, communal records, and transcriptions of Spanish
literature into Hebrew letters. In addition, speakers of La‘az in medieval Iberia
used literal, word-for-word translations of the Bible as a pedagogical tool for
teaching boys Hebrew, and as a means for making the scriptures accessible
to those lacking a knowledge of Hebrew. For example, the book of Esther
was read in some medieval Iberian synagogues in Sephardic La‘az for the
sake of the unlearned, especially for women (Bunis 2004a: 125–135). As in
other communities using Jewish languages, the language of such sacred-text
translations, sometimes referred to by both native speakers and academics as
‘Ladino’ (Sephiha 1973; Nehama 1977: 321), closely mirrored the original Hebrew
syntax. The transmission of these translations was probably primarily oral
during this period (Bunis 1996), but began to be documented in writing in the
mid-16th-century in the Ottoman Empire (Lazar 1994).
Following the expulsions, Ḥaketía seems rarely to have been used in writing
before the early 19th century, and afterwards, its written use was limited almost
entirely to a few rabbinical manuscripts and works in Hebrew letters; represen-
tations of non-rabbinical, everyday spoken varieties of Ḥaketía began to appear
only in the 20th century, in Romanizations mostly derived from Castilian (e.g.,
Martínez Ruiz 1963; Benoliel 1977; Lévy 1992). Judezmo, on the other hand, has
enjoyed extensive written documentation from the 16th century into our own
times. Before World War I, Judezmo and Ḥaketía had been written almost uni-
versally in the Hebrew alphabet; since World War II, Judezmo has been written
mostly in various Romanizations and in Cyrillic (see section 3.2 below).
Jewish printing—and printing in general—began in the Ottoman Empire
in 1493, at the press of the immigrants from Spain, David and Šǝmuʾel Ibn
Naḥmias in Istanbul (Yaari 1967: 17). One of the first books with Judezmo text
appears to have been a Hebrew edition of the Pentateuch with Ladino and
Jewish Greek calque-translations published in Istanbul, 1547, at the press of
Eliʿezer ben Geršom Soncino, and known as the Constantinople Pentateuch
(Yaari 1967: 21–24; Ben Naeh 2001; on the Ladino translation of Deuteronomy,
see Sephiha 1973).
From the Middle Judezmo phase, the written documentation includes
calque translations of sacred Hebrew and Aramaic texts (e.g., Psalms, pub-
lished in Istanbul around 1540, and the complete Bibles published by Abraham
Asa in Istanbul, 1739–1744 and Yisraʾel Beḵar Ḥayyim in Vienna, 1813–1816), in
the register sometimes known as Ladino; rabbinical writings in several styles,

376 bunis
which might collectively be called ‫ ֿגוֿדיזמו די חכמים‬djuḏezmo de hahamim or

‘rabbinical Judezmo’ (see Bunis 1993a: 56; García Moreno 2004; Romero 1998,
2001, 2008a, 2008b, 2009; Lehmann 2005; Šmid 2012); diverse writings of a more
secular nature, in assorted styles—among them, ‫ ֿגוֿדיזמו קאבה‬djuḏezmo kabá
‘common or folk Judezmo’, and ‫ ֿגוֿדיזמו פֿראנקיאֿדו‬djuḏezmo frankeaḏo or ‘West-
Europeanized Judezmo’ (Bunis 1993a: 55; for samples see Bunis 1993b, 1999a,
2012c)—including attempts at artistic composition in rhymed verse and prose
(for drama see E. Romero 1979); pedagogical materials (Gomel 2006); a periodi-
cal press (from the mid-19th century; see Gaon 1965; Sánchez and Bornes-Varol
2013); and personal writings and records of various kinds (e.g., autobiogra-
phies, see Varol-Bornes 2003–2004), mostly in manuscript form. (For overviews
of Judezmo literature, see Molho 1960; E. Romero 1992; Lehmann 2005; and
Borovaya 2012).
In the Early Middle Judezmo phase, Judezmo publishing had been confined
primarily to rabbinical works, issued in the major cities of Istanbul, Thes-
salonika and Izmir, and at obliging Jewish presses in Amsterdam, and parts
of Italy such as Venice and Livorno (Arnold 2006), which mostly published
translations of sacred works. During the first half of the 19th century and into
the 20th, Sephardim in the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires began to
print vernacular works in Vienna, Belgrade, Sarajevo, Sofia, Ruse, Bucharest,
Jerusalem, and other smaller communities, as well. From the mid-16th century
through the Middle Judezmo phase, rabbinical scholars contributed halakhic
compilations, volumes of history, philosophy, biography, ethics, kabbalah, sto-
ries and legends, poetry and songs, and calendars and almanacs. The most
famous work of the 18th century is the ‫ ספר מעם לועז‬Sep̄ er Me-ʿam Loʿez, orig-
inally a commentary on Genesis and Exodus by Yaʿaqoḇ Xulí (first published
in Istanbul, 1730–1733), with subsequent contributions to the series by Yiṣḥaq
Magriso (Istanbul, 1746–1764), Yiṣḥaq Arguete (Istanbul, 1773), and others.
Additional noteworthy works are collections of komplas or rhymed couplets
(e.g., A. Toledo 1732 [1755]), the halakhic couplets of Abraham Asa (‫ספר צורכי‬
‫ צבור‬Sep̄ er Ṣorḵe Ṣibbur; Istanbul, 1733), and an educational manual for Eastern
Sephardim planning to visit Western Europe (ʿAtías 1778). The early 19th cen-
tury also brought translations of Hebrew texts, such as Zevi Hirsch Koidanover’s
‫ קב הישר‬Qaḇ Hay-yašar (1823), and ‫ פרקי רבי אליעזר הגדול‬Pirqe Rabbi Eliʿezer
Hag-gadol (Istanbul, 1824), the latter translated by Nissim Ha-Kohen. Among
the original treatises are those published in Belgrade by scholars from Sara-
jevo, such as ‫ דרכי נועם‬Darḵe Noʿam (1839) by Yǝhuda ben Šǝlomo Alkalai, ‫לקט‬
‫ הזוהר‬Leqeṭ Haz-zohar (1859) by Abraham Finzi, and ‫ דמשק אליעזר‬Dameśśeq
ʾEliʿezer (1861) by Eliʿezer ben Šem Ṭov Papo, as well as ‫ חנוך לנער‬Ḥanoḵ Lan-
naʿar (lzmir, 1862, 1872) by Aḇraham ben Ḥayyim Pontremoli of Izmir, ‫עצת השם‬

ʿAṣat Haš-šem (Thessalonika, 1869) by N.R.H. Peraḥya, ‫ דרכי האדם‬Darḵe Ha-

ʾadam (Thessalonika, 1843) by Yiṣḥaq Bǝḵor Amarači and Yosep̄ ben Meʾir
Sason, ‫ והוכיח אברהם‬Wǝ-hoḵiaḥ ʾAḇraham (Thessalonika, 1853–1862; Izmir, 1877)
by chief rabbi Aḇraham ben Ḥayyim Palachi of Izmir, and ‫ נחמדים מזהב‬Neḥ-
madim Miz-zahaḇ (2 vols. [Jerusalem: 1894]) by Yiśraʾel ben Miḵaʾel Badhav of
Jerusalem.
Ḥaketía rabbinical literature published before the Late Modern phase was
meager, essentially confined to prints from Livorno, e.g., ‫ דת יהודית‬Dat Yǝhudit
(Livorno, 1827; Jerusalem, 1878), by ʾAḇraham Laredo and Yiṣḥaq Hal-Lewi; see
further in Pimienta and Pimienta (2010) and Bunis (2011c).
An important reflection of growing western cultural influences among the
Ottoman Sephardi communities from the mid-19th century was the rise of a
secular, periodical press, where previously Sephardi vernacular literature had
been almost entirely of a religious nature. The first Judezmo newspaper to
appear was Šaʿare Mizraḥ, published by Rap̄ aʾel ʿUziʾel in Izmir, 1845–1846, at
the press of the missionary G. Griffith; its appearance was followed by over 300
Judezmo newspapers, published throughout the Mediterranean Sephardi dias-
pora. Among the earliest papers were ‫ אור ישראל‬ʾOr Yiśraʾel (founded in Istan-
bul, 1853), Djornal Yisreeliḏ (founded in Istanbul, 1860), El Dragomán (founded
Vienna, 1864), El Verdadero Progreso Israelita (founded Paris, 1864), El Lunar
(founded Thessalonika, 1865), and a Judezmo version of the Hebrew-language
newspaper ‫ חבצלת‬Ḥaḇaṣṣelet, founded in Jerusalem in 1870. Most of the early
attempts were short-lived; but some later periodicals enjoyed sustained suc-
cess, including the influential El Tiempo (Istanbul, 1871–1933), La (Buena) Esper-
ansa (Izmir, 1871–1917), and La Epoka (Thessalonika, 1875–1911). Later papers
were added in the same cities, as well as in others, such as Belgrade and Sofia
(e.g., El Amigo del Puevlo, founded 1888), Plovdiv (El Día, founded 1898), Sara-
jevo (La Alvorada, founded 1901), and centers of immigration such as New
York (e.g., La Amérika, founded 1911; La Vara, 1923–1948). In Thessalonika, the
Judezmo press continued to flourish until the Nazis closed the Jewish presses;
Aksión (1929–1940) and Mesajero (1935–1941) appeared daily.
In the 1930s, and especially after the establishment of the State of Israel in
1948, massive immigration from cities such as Thessalonika and Istanbul led to
a revival of the Judezmo press—now in Romanization—in Tel Aviv–Jaffa (e.g.,
La Verdad, 1949–1972; under the title La Luz de Israel, 1972–1991). In addition to
covering local and world news, the Sephardi press featured essays, social crit-
icism, religious, political and ideological commentaries, educational material,
plays, poetry, satire, short stories, and serialized novels. At the same time, sec-
ular material of the kind presented in the periodical press was also published
separately in the form of pamphlets and books.

378 bunis
Many of the newspapers and books of the Late Middle phase were writ-
ten, edited and published by Sephardi graduates of the Alliance Israélite Uni-
verselle and participants in the programs of the Italian Società Dante Alighieri.
Although many of the journalists used the highly Europeanized variety of
Judezmo first richly documented in ʿUziʾel’s ‫ שערי מזרח‬Šaʿare Mizraḥ, from the
late 19th century some writers rejected the highly Gallicized and Italianized
djuḏezmo frankeaḏo, preferring instead the popular, natural vernacular spo-
ken by the masses, which they used to create noteworthy periodicals featuring
fiction and satire such as El Meseret (ed. Alexandre Benghiatt, Izmir, 1897–
1922), El Djuḡetón (ed. Elia R. Karmona, Istanbul, 1909–1933), and El Kirbach
(ed. Moïse Levy, Thessalonika, 1910–1917). Reflecting a more widespread appre-
ciation of Judezmo as an independent Jewish language which evolved natu-
rally, especially among the popular Sephardic sectors, a compromise between
the folk and Europeanized varieties is used in the 21st century in the peri-
odicals Aki Yerushalayim of Jerusalem (founded 1979) and El Amaneser of
Istanbul (founded 2005; continuing Şalom, founded 1947); both periodicals use
the distinctive Romanization proposed in Shaul (1979). Internet sites such as
www.esefarad.com continue to publish news and features in the traditional
language (in Romanization), and the Sephardi section of Radio Kol Israel of
Jerusalem daily emits a varied, if brief, evening program in the language. Gifted
writers such as Avner Peretz, Eliezer Papo, Roz Koen, Matilda Koen-Sarano,
Margalit Matitiahu, Klara Perahya, Karen Şarhon, and others employ the tra-
ditional idiom for artistic self-expression.
Judezmo and Ḥaketía speakers also have rich oral traditions—including
proverbs, riddles, songs and ballads, and storied folklore—which began to be
committed to writing by native speakers as well as by European scholars, mostly
from the end of the 19th century. For a bibliography through 1980, see Bunis
(1981); on songs, see Hemsi (1995); on folktales, see Alexander-Frizer (2008); and
on proverbs, see Alexander-Frizer and Bentolila (2008).
3 Linguistic Profile of Judezmo
3.1 Phonology
The phoneme inventory of Jewish Ibero-Romance in Castile probably consisted
of the following members (denoted using IPA symbols), most of which also
existed in Old Spanish.

Vowels Semi-vowels Consonants
i u j w p t ʧ k
e o b d ʤ g
a f s ʃ x h
v ðz ʒ γ
r
rr
l
m n ɲ
Thanks to lexical incorporations from Hebrew-Aramaic and Iberian Judeo-

Arabic, the phoneme inventory of Sephardic La‘az in Castile was probably
richer than that of co-territorial Christian Ibero-Romance: for example, Old
Sephardic La‘az contained the phoneme /h/ [h], as in Old Spanish, e.g., ‫האזיר‬
hazer [haˈzer] ‘to do’ (cf. Old Spanish hazer < fazer), but also /x/ (today denoted
in Judezmo Romanization by h), which was absent from Old Spanish, e.g.,
‫אל֗כמיהש‬, probably realized alxami(h)as ‘(pl. of) kind of Moorish garment’ (cf.
Arabic ‫ اﳋﺎم‬al-xām; Minervini 1992: 1.355), and perhaps (especially in Andalu-
sia) /ḥ/, e.g., ‫ אלחבק”א‬alḥavaka ‘basil’ (cf. Ibero-Arabic alḥabáqa < Arabic ‫اﳊﺒﻖ‬
al-ḥábaq). The language—especially in Andalusia, where Jewish Ibero-Arabic
persisted the longest—might also have featured additional sounds preserved
from the (Jewish) Arabic phoneme inventory, such as the glottal stop /ʾ/, uvu-
lar /q/, and pharyngealized /ʿ/, /sˁ/, and /tˁ/.
Also, thanks to Semitic loans, pre-expulsion Sephardic La‘az would have had
as distinct phonemes occlusive /d/ vs. fricative /ð/ (ordinarily denoted in the
present chapter by ḏ), e.g., [niˈda] ‘state of menstruation’ < Hebrew ‫ נדּה‬nidda
vs. [ˈnaða] ‘nothing’. The phoneme /ð/ is transcribed with dalet+diacritic (‫ )֗ד‬in
a text from the second half of the 15th century, e.g., ‫ טו֗דו‬toḏo, standing in oppo-
sition to simple dalet, representing occlusive /d/, e.g., ‫ ֗פריאלדא֗ד‬frialdaḏ ‘cold’
(see Minervini 1992: 1.55–57 for numerous examples and further discussion). In
utterance-final position and before a voiceless sound, pre-expulsion Sephardic
La‘az /ð/ would have tended to be realized as [θ] (as in Old and Modern Span-
ish), as suggested by occasional representation by word-final ‫ ת‬t instead of ‫ ד‬d,
e.g., ‫ וילונטאת‬veluntað/θ ‘will, desire’ and ‫ וירדאת‬verdað/θ ‘truth’ in the responsa
of Ben Lev (1561, no. 23); cf. the Old Spanish variant verdath, Modern Spanish
verdad.
Similarly, pre-expulsion Sephardic La‘az would have distinguished phonem-
ically between occlusive /g/ and fricative /γ/ (the latter ordinarily denoted in

380 bunis
this chapter by ḡ), e.g., [agaˈða] ‘Passover Haggadah’ < ‫ הגּדה‬haggada vs.
‫ אגאלייאש‬aḡa(l)yas ‘tonsillitis’. The grapheme ‫( ֿג‬gimel+diacritic) is occasion-
ally used to denote [γ] in the women’s siddur published by Lazar (1995), e.g.,
‫ ריֿגמישטי‬reḡmiste ‘you saved (us)’ (ff. 55b, 138b).
The incorporation of Semitic borrowings also resulted in the fact that several
phonemes had a different rate of occurrence in the language of the Jews. For
example, the Old Sephardic La‘az phonemes /γ/, /ʤ/, /f/, /k/, /m/, /v/, /t/, /x/
(and perhaps /ḥ/, and other characteristic Semitic consonants, if they existed)
could appear in word-final position (e.g., ‫ חראֿג‬haradj ‘tax’ < Arabic ‫ ﺣﺮج‬ḥaraj,
‫ פסוק‬pasuk ‘Bible verse’ < Hebrew ‫ פסוק‬pasuq), whereas those of these sounds
which existed in Old Spanish could only appear word-initially and -medially.
Because of the tendency toward word-final stress in Hebrew, and the relative
frequency of word-final stress in Ibero-Arabic, word-final stress occurred in
many more lexemes in pre-expulsion Sephardic La‘az than in Christian Old
Spanish.
For further details of pre-expulsion Sephardic La‘az phonology see Minervini
(1992: 1.37–69).
The phoneme inventory of post-expulsion Middle and Modern Judezmo
remained similar to that of pre-expulsion Sephardic La‘az, but several impor-
tant changes and variations occurred. The reflections of Jewish Arabic [ḥ] and
[x] were apparently merged to [x], written ‫ח‬, in all regions of the Ottoman
Empire in which Arabic was not a major contact language. (It is possible that
this merger had already occurred in pre-expulsion Sephardic La‘az.) But in
regions in which (Jewish) Arabic was a major contact language (for example,
in the Land of Israel), the opposition between /ḥ/ and /x/ remained present.
The opposition between /ḥ/ and /x/ is also evident in modern Ḥaketía, which
still has [ḥ] in [alḥaˈβaka] ‘basil’ (Benoliel 1977: 171), rather than [x], as in the
modern Thessalonika Judezmo cognate (Nehama 1977: 28).
Similarly, Judezmo in non-Arab lands lacks the glottal fricative /h/, the
glottal stop /ʾ/, uvular /q/, and pharyngealized /ʿ/, /sˁ/, and /tˁ/, but Modern
Ḥaketía has [h], [ʾ], [ʿ], and [q] (Benoliel 1977: 15, 21–22, 27), and Judezmo in
16th-century Syria might have had the others as well.
The phonemic nature of /d/ vs. /ð/ and of /g/ vs. /γ/ (/ð/ and /γ/ with their
utterance-final and pre-voiceless consonant allophones [θ] and [x], respec-
tively) in pre-expulsion Sephardic La‘az was maintained in the Southeast
Ottoman Judezmo region (present-day Greece, Turkey, Eastern Bulgaria). But
in the Northwest dialect region, i.e., in the South Slavic lands, Romania, West-
ern Bulgaria, and their offshoots in Italy and Austria, where Sephardim were
in contact with Slavic, Romanian, Italian, German, and Yiddish—perhaps as
early as the 16th century—the phones [ð] (and positional variant [θ]) and [γ]
merged with the phonemes /d/ and /g/, respectively, with occlusive realization.

Probably as a result of interaction with speakers of local languages lacking

a phonemic opposition between flapped /ɾ/ and trilled /r/, Judezmo in some
regions lost this opposition, realizing both historical /ɾ/ and /r/ as flapped [ɾ], or
vacillating in their realization of their reflexes, as [ɾ] ~ [r]. This merger probably
occurred before the language’s modern phase, but the traditional Hebrew-letter
orthography, which never overtly reflected the [ɾ] vs. [r] opposition before the
Modern Judezmo phase (transcribing both sounds as simple ‫ ר‬reš), makes this
shift impossible to date. In the modern period, under the influence of Romance
languages such as Italian and French, some writers began to denote [r] by
doubled ‫ רר‬rr (e.g., ‫ פיררו‬perro ‘dog’, earlier written ‫( )פירו‬see section 3.2 below
for further details).
By the mid-18th century, ʤ and ʒ—which had once been positional variants
of a single phoneme /ʤ/—acquired phonemic status, with both sounds now
occurring intervocalically in certain words, mostly borrowed from co-territorial
languages, with /ʤ/, denoted by ‫ֿג‬, as in ‫ מאֿגאר‬madjar ‘Hungarian (coin, etc.)’
(cf. Turkish Macar < Hungarian Magyar) vs. /ʒ/, denoted by ‫ ֿז‬, as in ‫ מא ֿזאר‬majar
‘to grind’ (cf. Old Spanish majar).
Probably from as early as the 16th or 17th centuries, the Northwestern vari-
eties of Judezmo acquired phonemic /ʦ/ and /ʣ/. (These affricates had existed
in early Old Spanish but it is unlikely that Judezmo preserved them from this
period.) The sound /ʦ/ is phonemic in languages with which speakers of North-
west Judezmo were in contact, such as South Slavic, Italian, German, Yiddish,
and Romanian; it is likely that this reinforced the phonemic status of /ʦ/ in
Northwest Judezmo as well. In contrast, in texts from the Southeast Judezmo
dialect region, the etymological /ts/ in borrowings from Greek and Italian was
often written with simple s (‫)ס‬, instead of Hebrew ‫ צ‬ṣ or ‫ טס‬ts, reflecting the
simple fricative s realization in speech.
As in Old Spanish and popular Spanish of all periods—but more widespread
in Judezmo—there is a tendency toward metathesis of etymological syllable-
final r and a preceding vowel, both in Hispanisms and in borrowings from con-
tact languages, e.g., ‫ פריסונה‬presona ‘person’ (cf. Spanish persona) and ‫ טרושי‬tru-
shí ‘brine’ (cf. Turkish turşu). Unlike in Spanish, however, this change is not
typecast as sub-standard or non-standard. There are also instances of methesis
between r or l and other consonants, e.g., ‫ ֿגירינאל‬djerenal ‘general’ (cf. Spanish
general), ‫ פרובֿי‬prove ‘poor’ (cf. Spanish pobre), and ‫ ביליביזיס‬bilibizes ‘roasted
chick peas’ (cf. Turkish leblebi). Similarly, Judezmo (particularly the Southeast
Ottoman dialects) often exhibits metathesized -ḏr- corresponding to Spanish
-rd- [rð], e.g., ‫ טאֿדרי‬taḏre ‘late’ (cf. Spanish tarde), ‫ בֿיֿדראֿד‬veḏraḏ (cf. Spanish
verdad).
From at least the mid-19th century, the impact of Italian and, especially,
French was increasingly profound at all linguistic levels, changing dramati-

382 bunis
cally the directions Judezmo was to take into the 21st century. Phonologically,
French influence led to replacement, in the literary language of some writers,
of /ʤ/ with /ʒ/: the sound now occurred word-initially not only in new bor-
rowings, e.g., ‫איספאנייול‬-‫ ֿזודיאו‬judeo-espanyol ‘Judeo-Spanish’ (cf. French judéo-
espagnol), but also in old vocabulary, e.g., ‫ ֿזובֿין‬joven ‘young’ (cf. Old Spanish
joven with /ʤ/). Borrowings from French, Italian, Turkish, and other regional
languages resulted in an increasingly high incidence of intervocalic occlusive
/d/ and /g/, unknown in Spanish.
Linguistic descriptions which begin to be published in this period document
the final stress given to lexemes historically having antepenult stress, e.g.,
‫ סאבֿאנה‬savaná ‘sheets’ (cf. Spanish sábana), ‫ טומאבֿאמוס‬tomavamós ‘we took’
(cf. Spanish tomábamos).
For further discussion of Middle Judezmo phonology see Bunis (1997); for
Modern Judezmo phonology, see Wagner (1914: 90–118), Luria (1930: § 17), Crews
(1935), Sala (1971), Quintana (2006a), Bradley (2007a, 2007b, 2009), Bradley and
Smith (2011), and Hualde and Şaul (2011).
3.2 Orthography
Just as Christians wrote Medieval Spanish in the Roman alphabet of the Catho-
lic Church and Hispano-Romance-speaking Muslims wrote their language in
the Arabic letters of the Qurʾān, so the Jews of Spain most often practiced what
their descendants in the Ottoman Empire called soletrear ‘writing the vernac-
ular in the Hebrew alphabet’. The Hebrew characters were normally written by
hand in a form which in the 15th century provided the model for the type of font
which popularly came to be called ‘Rashi script’, and which in the modern era
was known as soletreo. Printing was also done in merubá (‘square’) type, espe-
cially in publications for popular readers, but Rashi type became the preferred
typeface in post-expulsion Judezmo publications produced in the Ottoman
Empire and in emigrant communities.
Until the late 19th century, words of Hebrew and Aramaic origin generally
retained their original spellings, although there were some exceptions (e.g.,
‫ גאלאח‬galah ‘Christian priest’ [< Hebrew ‫ גלח‬gallaḥ]); words derived from other
languages tended to be spelled phonemically, with a basically uniform tran-
scription system, occurring in three principal regional variants—Southeastern,
Northwestern, and Italian—employed in all Judezmo-speaking communities
(for detailed treatment, see Bunis 1974, 2005a).
From its beginnings in medieval Iberia, the sounds of the language (see sec-
tion 3.1 above) have had rather fixed graphemic correspondents during each
historical phase. Graphemes whose values have remained constant throughout
the history of Judezmo are: ‫ א‬álef, denoting initial and medial (and occasion-

ally in some texts, final) a (e.g., ‫ אמאר‬amar ‘to love’) and constituting a ‘silent’
letter before other initial vowels and a hiatus marker (e.g., ‫ אורה‬ora ‘hour’, ‫דיאה‬
día ‘day’); ‫ ב‬beḏ, denoting b (e.g., ‫ ביזו‬bezo ‘kiss’); ‫ ה‬e, denoting final -a (e.g., ‫קארה‬
kara ‘face’) and, in Hebraisms, realized as zero (e.g., ‫ הכנות‬ahanoḏ ‘preparations’
< Hebrew haḵanot); unmarked ‫ ג‬gémal denoting both g and, in those dialects
which maintained the sound, fricative γ (e.g., Modern Judezmo ‫ סאנגרי‬sangre
‘blood’, ‫ אגורה‬aγora ~ agora ‘now’); ‫ ו‬vav for o and u, e.g., ‫ או‬o ‘or’, ‫ אונו‬uno ‘one
(m.)’, as well as the bilabial glide u [w], e.g., ‫ בואינו‬bueno [ˈbweno] ‘good’; ‫ ז‬zayn,
denoting z (e.g., ‫ דיזי‬dize ‘s/he says’); ‫ ח‬ḥet, denoting χ in all Ottoman regions
except Arab lands, where it could denote [ḥ] (e.g., ‫חן‬: Istanbul hen; Alexandria
hen/ḥen ‘grace’); ‫ ט‬teḏ, denoting t (e.g., ‫ טופאר‬topar ‘to find’); and ‫ י‬yoḏ for e
and i, e.g., ‫ מירקו‬merko ‘I buy’, ‫ מיראר‬mirar ‘to look at’, as well as the palatal
glide i [j], e.g., ‫ ביין‬bien [bjen] ‘well’, ‫ קייסטו‬kyisto ‘desired’, ‫ ריי‬rey ‘king’, ‫ איי‬ay
‘there is/are’, ‫ ייו‬yo ‘I’ (from the Middle Judezmo phase, ‫ יי‬vacillated with (‫ לי)י‬to
denote syllable-initial [j], e.g., ‫ לייו‬yo ‘I’); ‫ כ‬kaf and ‫ כ‬haf, denoting (in Hebrew-
Aramaisms) k and χ, respectively (e.g., ‫ כונה‬kavaná ‘intention’, ‫ מלך‬méleh ‘king’);
simple ‫ ל‬lámeḏ denoting l (e.g., ‫ מאל‬mal ‘ill’); ‫ם‬/‫ מ‬mem, denoting m (e.g., ‫מאנו‬
mano ‘hand’, ‫ עולם‬olam ‘world’); ‫ן‬/‫ נ‬nun, denoting n (e.g., ‫ ני‬ni ‘nor’, ‫ אין‬en ‘in’); ‫פ‬
pe, denoting p (e.g., ‫ פור‬por ‘for’); and ‫ ק‬kof, denoting k (e.g., ‫ קאמה‬kama ‘bed’).
Since the early period, the orthographic system has undergone some modi-
fication. Diacritics over or accompanying certain letters have come to be used
to indicate consonants that do not exist in Hebrew, or to distinguish distinct
phonemes represented by the same Hebrew letter. In Iberia, initial ‫ ב‬beḏ usually
denoted /b/, initial ‫ ו‬vav (used consonantally) usually denoted /v/, and medial
‫ב‬, ‫בֿ‬, and ‫ ו‬alternated to denote /v/ (e.g., ‫ ביביר‬or ‫ ביויר‬bever ‘to drink’ and ‫ ויר‬ver
‘to see’). However, from the Middle Judezmo period, there was an increasing
tendency toward using only ‫ בֿ‬veḏ for v (e.g., ‫ ביבֿיר‬bever and ‫ בֿיר‬ver), which in
the modern phase became the norm. In Iberia, ‫ ֿג‬gémal+diacritic represented
[ʧ] (e.g., ‫ מוֿגו‬mucho ‘much’), [ʤ] (e.g., ‫ ֿגינטי‬djente ‘people’), and [ʒ] (e.g., ‫מוֿגיר‬
mujer ‘woman’); during the Middle Judezmo phase, [ʒ] was instead increasingly
represented by ‫( ֿז‬e.g., ‫ או ֿזה‬oja ‘leaf’); and in the Modern phase, in some pub-
lications, [ʤ] was denoted by ‫( ד ֿז‬e.g., ‫ ד ֿזינטי‬djente ‘people’). In the early texts,
unmarked ‫ ד‬dálet could represent both d and ḏ (e.g., ‫ מונדו‬mundo ‘world’, ‫טודו‬
toḏo ‘everything’), although the latter was sometimes denoted by ‫( ֿד‬e.g., ‫טוֿדו‬
toḏo); in Middle Judezmo, the two phonemes were increasingly differentiated,
with ‫ ֿד‬used for ḏ, which in the Modern phase became the norm in many publi-
cations from the Southeast region (e.g., El Tiempo of Istanbul). In Iberia, simple
‫ פ‬pe (and final ‫ )ף‬were often used to denote f, but from after the expulsion, the
sound was increasingly denoted by initial and medial ‫פֿ‬, and final ‫פֿ‬-/‫ף‬-, which
became the norm (e.g., ‫ פֿרוטה‬fruta ‘fruit’, ‫פֿ‬-/‫‘ פילאף‬rice pilaf’).

384 bunis
In Iberia, Jewish texts showed some striking parallels to Old Spanish orthog-
raphy. For example, intervocalic /z/ corresponding to Old Spanish ⟨s⟩ (denoting
[z]) was denoted by ‫ ש‬sin (e.g., ‫ קאשה‬kaza ‘house’, Old Spanish casa); and, since
Old Sephardic La‘az spelling tolerated no doubled letters except ‫ י‬yoḏ, ‫ ש‬sin
also corresponded to Old Spanish ⟨ss⟩, denoting /s/ (e.g., ‫ פאשאר‬pasar ‘to pass’,
Old Spanish passar). The letter ‫ ש‬by itself or with a diacritic (i.e., ‫ )ֿש‬was also
the usual letter used for /š/ (e.g., ‫באֿשו‬/‫ באשו‬basho ‘low’, Old Spanish baxo). For
the Judezmo sound corresponding to the Old Spanish voiceless sound denoted
by ⟨ç⟩ or ⟨z⟩ (originally [ts]; later [θ] in Castilian and [s] in Andalusian), Old
Sephardic La‘az used ‫ ס‬sámeh or, rarely, ‫ צ‬sadi (e.g., ‫ קאסאר‬kasar ‘to hunt’).
But from Early Middle Judezmo, the Judezmo phoneme /z/ was denoted by ‫ז‬
zayin only (e.g., ‫ קאזה‬kaza ‘house’); and there was vacillation between ‫ ס‬and
‫ ש‬for the phonemes corresponding both to Old Spanish ⟨ç/z⟩ and ⟨ss⟩ (e.g.,
‫פינסאמיינטו‬/‫ פינשאמיינטו‬pensamiento ‘thought’ [cf. Old Spanish pensamiento]),
proving that by then, if not before, the two latter phonemes had merged to
[s] in Judezmo, as in Andalusian. By the Early Modern Judezmo phase, a dia-
critic often appeared with šin (i.e., ‫ )ֿש‬to denote /š/ (e.g., ‫ באֿשו‬basho), and ‫ס‬
was used regularly for /s/, though unmarked sin (‫ )ש‬continued to represent
/s/ in words of Hebrew origin that had this letter (e.g., ‫ בשורה‬besorá ‘good tid-
ings’).
From the Middle Judezmo phase, ‫ ֿק‬kof +diacritic was sometimes used for
palatalized k (e.g., ‫ ֿקייושי‬k´-/kyushé ‘corner’ < Turkish köşe [k´öˈʃe]); and in the
Northwest dialect region, Vienna, and in Italy, ‫ צ‬sadi was often used for ts (e.g.,
‫ נאצייון‬natsión ‘nation’).
In the Modern phase, the trilled [r] phoneme preserved in some Judezmo
dialects led to the introduction of a distinction between single ‫ ר‬resh, denoting
flapped /r/ [ɾ], and doubled ‫( רר‬previously absent from Judezmo), denoting
[r]. This introduction was a result of familiarity with the doubled rr of Italian
and other Romance languages. A minimal pair example is ‫ פארה‬para ‘four’ and
‫ פאררה‬parra ‘vineleaf’. The innovative digraph came to be used, if unsystemat-
ically, by writers speaking Southeast Judezmo dialects, in which the phonemic
opposition has been preserved into the present era; but it was generally not
used by writers in the Northwest region, in which the opposition tended to be
lost (Quintana 2006a: 84–88).
In texts using traditional orthography, the letters ‫ כ‬kaf or haf (already men-
tioned), ‫ ע‬ayn, and ‫ ת‬tav continued to enjoy use in words of Hebrew-Aramaic
origin. The letter ‫ ע‬was realized syllable-initially as zero and word-finally as zero
or [χ], except in Arab lands, where it was pronounced [ʿ] in all positions; cf.
Thessalonika Judezmo ‫ מערה‬meará ‘cave’, ‫ טבע‬téva(x) ‘nature’. The letter ‫ ת‬rep-
resented [t] syllable-initially and Southeast [ð/θ] or Northwest [d/t] syllable-

finally, e.g., ‫ תענית‬ta(a)niḏ/-ṯ/-d/-t ‘fast (from food)’. Similar orthographic prin-

ciples prevailed in Ḥaketía, except that ‫ ח‬ḥet and ‫ ע‬ʿayin always denoted [ḥ]
and [ʿ], respectively (Benoliel 1977: 34–35).
With the growing westernization and secularization of Judezmo speakers,
especially in the Late Modern phase, Hebrew studies declined, leading to
increasing unfamiliarity with the traditional spelling of Hebrew-Aramaisms.
The result was the adoption of the phonemic principle for them as well, exem-
plified in spellings such as ‫ מיארה‬meará ‘cave’ (Hebrew ‫ מערה‬məʿara), ‫ביזדראֿדיל‬
bizdraḏel ‘with God’s help’ (Hebrew ‫ בעזרת האל‬bə-ʿezrat ha-ʾel), and even ‫טורה‬
torá ‘Torah’ (Hebrew ‫ תורה‬tora), which reflected popular pronunciations of
these words.
In Thessalonika, the Sephardim continued to print Judezmo books and peri-
odicals in Hebrew letters until World War II, when the Nazis closed the Jewish
presses of the city. Judezmo printing in New York essentially came to an end
at about the same time. But as early as the late 19th century, as young speak-
ers throughout the Judezmo-speaking world increasingly acquired familiarity
with the writing systems of French, Italian, Modern Turkish, Serbo-Croatian,
Bulgarian, and other non-Jewish languages in foreign schools, some speakers
began to write Judezmo in the Roman and, in Bulgaria, the Cyrillic alphabets.
Today, Judezmo tends to be written in the Roman alphabet. The following chart
outlines the diverse spelling systems used for writing Judezmo in the Modern
phase, including those used in the contemporary print and internet media:
Graphemes of Modern Judezmo
Vowels
IPA Israel Ladino Turkish- Serbo-Croatian- French- Cyrillic Rashí Merubá

Authority based based based
[a] a a a a а ‫ה‬- ,‫)־(א־‬ ‫ה‬- ,‫)־(א־‬

[e] e e e e е ‫י‬ ‫י‬
[i] i i i i и ‫י‬ ‫י‬
[o] o o o o/eau о ‫ו‬ ‫ו‬
[u] u u u u/ou у ‫ו‬ ‫ו‬

386 bunis
Semi-vowels
IPA Israel Ladino Turkish Serbo-Croatian French Cyrillic Rashí Merubá

Authority
[u] u u, o u, o u, ou у ‫ו‬ ‫ו‬

[j] i, y y j i/y ј, й (я= ya, ю= yu) ‫ ליי‬,‫ יי‬,‫י‬ ‫ ליי‬,‫ יי‬,‫י‬
Consonants
IPA Israel Ladino Turkish Serbo-Croatian French Cyrillic Rashí Merubá

Authority
[b] b b b b б ‫ב‬ ‫ב‬

[d] d d d d д ‫ד‬ ‫ד‬
[ð] d d, d’ d d д ‫ﬞד‬ ‫ֿד‬
[ʣ] dz dz dz dz дз ‫דז‬ ‫דז‬
[ʤ] dj c dž/gj/đ dj дж, ђ ‫ ﬞז‬,‫ﬞג‬ ‫ ֿז‬,‫ֿג‬
[f] f f f f ф ‫־ף‬/‫ﬞפ‬ ‫־ף‬/‫פֿ‬
[g] g g g g/gu г ‫ג‬ ‫ג‬
[γ] g g, ğ g g/gu г ‫ג‬ ‫ג‬
[k] k k k c/qu/k к ‫ק‬ ‫ק‬
[k´] k, ky k, ky kj k/qu кј ‫ﬞק‬ ‫ֿק‬
[l] l l l l л ‫ל‬ ‫ל‬
[m] m m m m м ‫ ־ם‬,‫מ‬ ‫ ־ם‬,‫מ‬
[n] n n n n н ‫ ־ן‬,‫נ‬ ‫ ־ן‬,‫נ‬
[nj/ɲ] ny ny nj gn/ni нј ‫נײ‬ ‫נײ‬
[p] p p p p п ‫פ‬ ‫פ‬
[r] r r r r р ‫ר‬ ‫ר‬
[rr] rr rr rr, r rr р ‫ רר‬,‫ר‬ ‫ רר‬,‫ר‬
[s] s s s s-/-ss-/-s с ‫ס‬ ‫ס‬
[ʃ] sh ş š ch ш ‫ ﬞש‬,‫ש‬ ‫ ֿש‬,‫ש‬
[t] t t t t т ‫ט‬ ‫ט‬
[θ] t, th t, t’ t t т ‫ ־ת‬,‫־ ﬞד‬ ‫ ־ת‬,‫־ֿד‬
[ts] ts ts c ts ц ‫טס‬/ ‫ץ‬- ,‫צ‬ ‫טס‬/‫ץ‬- ,‫צ‬
[ʧ] ch ç č, ć tch ч ‫ﬞג‬ ‫ֿג‬
[v] v v v v в ‫ﬞב‬ ‫בֿ‬
[χ] h h h h х ‫ח‬ ‫ח‬
[z] z z z -s-/z з ‫ז‬ ‫ז‬
[ʒ] j j ž j ж ‫ﬞז‬ ‫ﬞז‬

3.3 Morphology
In the Early Middle Judezmo phase we begin to see, as variants or unrivaled
forms, many more of the features which would come to characterize Modern
Judezmo and Ḥaketía. Unless indicated otherwise, the features described here
continue to be used into Modern Judezmo, and some of them in Ḥaketía as
well.
3.3.1 Nouns
3.3.1.1 Gender and Definiteness
As in Spanish, all Judezmo nouns and adjectives have gender. The gender of
Judezmo nouns of Hispanic origin tends to correspond to their Old Spanish
correlates (with -o as the primary masculine marker, and -a as the primary
feminine marker). In contrast to Modern Spanish, nouns ending in the suf-
fix -or tend to be feminine, e.g., ‫ לה קולור‬la kolor ‘the color’, ‫ לה דולור‬la dolor
‘the pain’, and ‫ לה קאלור‬la kalor ‘the heat’ (cf. Spanish el color, el dolor, el calor).
The same is true of some other Modern Spanish masculine nouns, e.g., ‫לה מאר‬
la mar ‘the sea’ and ‫ לה פֿין‬la fin ‘the end’ (cf. Spanish el mar, el fin). Judezmo
often corresponds with variants in Old Spanish and regional varieties of Ibero-
Romance (e.g., fin is feminine in Old Spanish, Old Portuguese, and Arago-
nese).
The feminine definite article ‫ לה‬la often precedes feminine nouns, even if
they begin with stressed á (in which case normative Modern Spanish prefers
the masculine el), e.g., ‫ לה אלמה‬la alma ‘the soul’, ‫ לה אגילה‬la áḡila ‘the eagle’, ‫לה‬
‫ אגואה‬la aḡua ‘the water’ (cf. Spanish el alma, el águila, and el agua).
The criteria for determining gender assignment of Judezmo nouns of non-
Hispanic origin (including those derived from Turkish, which lacks grammati-
cal gender) are based on natural gender when applicable. Thus, nouns referring
to males are masculine, e.g., ‫ פאשה‬pashá ‘pasha’ (< Turkish b-/paşa) and ‫תוקע‬
tokea ‘blower of the ram’s horn’ (< Hebrew m. ‫ תוקע‬toqeaʿ), while those referring
to females are feminine, e.g., ‫ לה חאסאקי‬la hasakí ‘the sultan’s favorite woman’
(< Turkish haseki). Inanimate nouns are typically masculine, except if ending in
-á/-a, -al, or -é, in which case they are feminine, e.g., ‫ מורא‬morá ‘fear’ (< Hebrew
m. ‫ מורא‬mora), ‫ ייאקה‬yaká ‘collar’ (< Turkish yaka), ‫ פישטאמאל‬peshtamal ‘Turk-
ish towel’ (< Turkish peştemal), and ‫ קאבֿאני‬kavané ‘coffeehouse’ (< Turkish
kahvehane).
Feminine counterparts of some substantives and adjectives of Hebrew-
Aramaic and Turkish origin were created by suffixing native -a to the stems:
e.g., ‫ סאמאסה‬samasa ‘wife of the beadle; extra light added to the Hanukkah
lamp’ (← ‫ שמש‬samás ‘beadle’), ‫ סירגונה‬sirguna ‘woman registered in the sul-
tan’s records for relocation within the Ottoman Empire’ (← ‫ סירגון‬sirgún ‘person

388 bunis
forced to relocate’ < Turkish sürgün), and ‫ ֿגולאקה‬cholaka ‘armless woman’ (←

‫ ֿגולאק‬cholak ‘armless man’ < Turkish çolak). Some substantives and adjectives
do not ordinarily have overt feminine forms, like ‫ קאדיר‬kadir ‘capable (m./f.)’
(< Turkish kadir).
3.3.1.2 Number
As in Spanish, the Judezmo plural marker for substantives and adjectives (of
non-Hebrew-Aramaic origin) is -es for lexemes ending in a consonant, e.g.,
‫ לימוניס‬limones ‘lemons’ (sg. ‫ לימון‬limón), ‫ קושאקיס‬kushakes ‘belts’ (sg. ‫קושאק‬
kushak < Turkish kuşak), and -s for those ending in a vowel, e.g., ‫ ֿגאפיאוס‬chapeos
‘hat’ (sg. ‫ ֿגאפיאו‬chapeo) and ‫ ליטראס‬letras ‘letters’ (sg. ‫ ליטרה‬letra). For further
discussion of Judezmo pluralization see Bunis (1985).
When the plural marker -es is added to a word with final -s, the -s of the base
is voiced. This applies to words of Hispanic and non-Hispanic origin, e.g., ‫מיס‬
mes ‘month’, pl. ‫ מיזיס‬mezes, and ‫ מאטראפאס‬matrapás ‘middle-man’ (< Turkish
madrabaz), pl. ‫ מאטראפאזיס‬matrapazes.
Especially from the 18th century, -s/-es also came to be used with a few
lexemes of Hebrew-Aramaic origin, e.g., ‫ גארוניס‬garones ‘throats’ (cf. Hebrew
‫ גרון‬garon, pl. ‫ גרונות‬gǝronot).
Some nouns and adjectives of Turkish origin do not ordinarily have overt
plural forms, e.g., ‫ קאדיר‬kadir ‘capable’ (< Turkish kadir).
As in popular and regional Spanish, Judezmo shows tautological plurals of
some nouns with a stressed final vowel, e.g., ‫ פיי‬pie ‘foot’, pl. ‫ פייזיס‬piezes (cf. Old
Spanish and non-standard Spanish pieses vs. standard Modern Spanish pies).
Historical stem-final -is/-es was sometimes metanalyzed as the plural mark-
er, leading to back-formations such as ‫ לאפ‬lap ‘pencil’, pl. ‫ לאפיס‬lapes (cf. Span-
ish lápiz, pl. lápices).
3.3.1.3 Hypocoristics
The default diminutive suffix in Ottoman Judezmo is -iko (f. -ika), e.g., ‫אי ֿזיקוס‬
ijikos ‘little sons’ (← ‫ אי ֿזוס‬ijos ‘sons’), ‫ ֿגוֿדייוייקו‬djuḏioyiko ‘little Jew’ (← ‫ֿגוֿדייו‬
djuḏió), and ‫ מיזוריקה‬mezurika ‘small measure’ (← ‫ מיזורה‬mezura). For nouns
whose base ends in a velar, -ito/-ita is used instead. This applies to words of
both Spanish and non-Spanish origin, e.g., ‫ פוקיטו‬pokito ‘a tiny bit’ (← ‫ פוקו‬poko
‘a little’), ‫ דקדוקיטו‬dikdukito ‘small grammar book’ (< Hebrew ‫ דקדוק‬diqduq),
and ‫ פסוקיטו‬pasukito ‘little biblical verse’ (< Hebrew ‫ פסוק‬pasuq). For certain
other nouns, mostly having monosyllabic stems or stems incorporating a glide,
the the suffix -eziko/-ezika is used instead, e.g., ‫ פֿלוריזיקה‬florezika ‘little flower’
(← ‫ פֿלור‬flor), and ‫ קאליזיקו‬kaleziko ‘little synagogue’ (← ‫ קהל‬kal < Hebrew ‫קהל‬
qahal).

These suffixes can be added to adjectives and adverbs as well, e.g., ‫באשיקו‬
bashiko ‘rather low, short’ (← ‫ באשו‬basho) and ‫ דיבֿאגאריקו‬devaḡariko ‘rather
quietly’ (← ‫ דיבֿאגאר‬devaḡar ‘quiet’).
Pejoratives were formed with suffixes such as -ako, e.g., ‫ ֿגיליבאקו‬chelebako
‘finicky gentleman’ ← ‫ ֿגיליבי‬chelebí ‘gentleman’ (< Turkish çelebi).
Hypocoristics of proper names follow a similar pattern, e.g., masculine
‫ אברהם‬Avram → ‫ אבֿראמיקו‬Avramiko, feminine ‫ רוזה‬Roza → ‫ רוזיקה‬Rozika.
Additional hypocoristic suffixes added to common nouns and adjectives,
all of Hispanic origin, include ameliorative -acho, e.g., ‫ בונאֿגו‬bonacho ‘good-
natured’, pejorative -(C)ucho, e.g., ‫ טראנפאטוֿגו‬tranpatucho ‘miserable trick’, and
-Vnko, e.g., ‫ דורמייונקוס‬dormionkos ‘sleepy people’ (cf. ‫ דורמיר‬dormir ‘to sleep’),
and augmentative -(C)ón, e.g., ‫ פאפאלון‬papalón ‘glutton’. For further discussion
of Judezmo hypocoristics see Bunis (2004b) and Bradley and Smith (2011).
3.3.1.4 Noun Derivation

Derivational suffixes are used to create innovative forms unknown in Spanish,
e.g., ‫ קאזאמינטיריאה‬kazamentería ‘matchmaking’ (← kazar + -m(i)ento + -ero +
-ía; cf. Spanish actividades de casamiento), ‫ ֿגיקורה‬chikura ‘smallness’ (← chiko
+ -ura; cf. Spanish pequeñez), ‫ ֿגיקיס‬chikés ‘youth’ (← chiko + -és; cf. Spanish
juventud), djentambre ‘large number of people’ (← djente + -ambre; cf. Spanish
grupo, gentío), and ‫ פרובֿאייה‬provaya ‘poverty area, collective of poor people’ (←
prove + -aya; cf. Spanish los pobres).
In the 19th century, we see some influence of Italian and French on Judezmo
morphology. For example, the abstract nominal-marking suffix -daḏ is some-
times replaced with -tá (< Italian -tà) or the hybrid form -táḏ, e.g., ‫ֿגינירוזיטאֿד‬
djenerozitaḏ ‘generosity’ (cf. Italian generosità; Spanish generosidad).
3.3.2 Adjectives
As in Spanish, Judezmo adjectives are either basic or derived through affix-
ation. Some basic adjectives diverging formally or semantically from mod-
ern Spanish include ‫ מאנקו‬manko ‘less’ (cf. Spanish menos ‘less’); ‫ ראלו‬ralo
‘scarce’ (cf. Spanish raro, but Old Spanish variant ralo); and ‫ דינגונו‬dinguno/-a
‘no(thing)’ (cf. Spanish ninguno, but regional dinguno).
Derivational adjective affixes include -uḏo, e.g., ‫ קוראסונוֿדו‬korasonuḏo ‘com-
passionate’ (← ‫ קוראסון‬korasón ‘heart’); -iozo, e.g., ‫ גולורייוזו‬ḡoloriozo ‘fragrant’ (←
‫ גולור‬ḡolor ‘odor’); -ío, e.g., ‫ דולינטיאו‬dolentío ‘sickly’ (← ‫ דולור‬dolor ‘pain’); and
en- -aḏo, e.g., ‫ אינחאמינאֿדו‬enhaminaḏo ‘hardboiled’ (← ‫ חמין‬ḥamin ‘hot water’).
The adjective ‫ גראנדי‬grande ‘big’ tends to be used as such before a singular
noun, e.g., ‫ אונה גראנדי פֿורטונה‬una grande fortuna ‘a great storm’, whereas Span-
ish prefers the apocopated form gran in this position (una gran tormenta).

390 bunis
Judezmo makes some formal distinctions of gender that are generally lack-
ing in standard Spanish, e.g., m.sg. ‫ דוליינטי‬doliente vs. f.sg. ‫ דוליינטה‬dolienta
‘infirm’ (cf. Spanish m./f. doliente).
Judezmo comparative adjectives are formed by adding ‫ מאס‬mas ‘more’ or
‫מאנקו‬/‫ מינוס‬menos/manko ‘less’, e.g., ‫ מאנקו לואינגו‬manko luengo ‘shorter’. The
use of tautological comparative constructions is known from the 18th century,
e.g., ‫ מאס מי ֿזור‬mas mijor, lit. ‘more better’ (cf. Spanish mejor).
Superlative adjectives are formed by adding ‫מונֿגו‬/‫ מויי‬muy/muncho ‘very’ or
the definite article plus ‫ מאס‬mas ‘the most’, e.g., ‫ איל מאס אלטו‬el mas alto ‘the
tallest’; ‫ איל מאס מאנקו‬el mas manko ‘the least’. Tautological superlative con-
structions are also attested, e.g., ‫ לו מאס מי ֿזור קי טיניש‬lo mas mijor ke tenésh ‘the
(most) best that you have’ (cf. Spanish lo mejor). The superlative may addition-
ally be denoted by reduplication, e.g., ‫ פור לו מאנקו מאנקו‬por lo manko manko
‘at the very least’ or ‫מונֿגו‬/‫מונֿגו די מויי‬/‫ מויי‬muy/muncho de muy/muncho, e.g., ‫מויי‬
‫ די מויי פֿיֿדורינטו‬muy de muy feḏorento ‘very snobbish’. While the suffix -ísimo
was used to create superlative adjectives in renaissance Spanish and remains
in widespread use, in Judezmo, while it is found in some popular 16th-century
works, it was essentially restricted to the word ‫ גראנדיסימו‬ḡrandísimo ‘very large’
(← ‫ גראנדי‬ḡrande ‘large’), and unusual forms such as the synonymous pleonas-
tic ‫ גראנדיסיסימו‬ḡrandesísimo and ‫ ריקישמו‬rikishmo ‘very rich’ (← ‫ ריקו‬riko ‘rich’).
In spoken Modern Judezmo the -ísimo suffix is non-existent.
3.3.3 Numerals
Judezmo cardinal numerals diverge from modern normative Spanish in four
principal respects. Firstly, there are regional variants, absent from Spanish. For
example, ‘twelve’ is ‫ דוֿגי‬dodje in Thessalonika, ‫ דוֿגי‬dodje or ‫ דוזי‬doze in Istanbul,
and ‫ דודזי‬dodzi in Bosnia; ‘thirteen’ is ‫ טריֿגי‬tredje in Thessalonika, Istanbul,
Izmir, and Edirne, alternating with ‫ טריזי‬treze in Thessalonika and Istanbul. For
more on regional variation, see Quintana (2006a: 367–371).
Secondly, there are forms differing from Spanish due to internal phonologi-
cal developments in Judezmo, e.g., ‫ סיש‬sesh ‘six’ (cf. Spanish seis), ‫ מואיבֿי‬mueve
‘nine’ (cf. Spanish nueve), and ‫ שישינטוס‬sheshentos ‘six hundred’ (cf. Spanish
seiscientos).
Thirdly, there are archaic forms, e.g., ‫ דיז אי אוֿגו‬diz i ocho ‘eighteen’ (cf. Old
Spanish diziocho/dieziocho; Modern Spanish dieciocho), as well as innovative
ones, e.g., ‫ סיין‬sien ‘hundred (as a citation form)’ (cf. Spanish ciento).
Fourthly, there are some differences in usage. For example, a singular noun
is employed after multiples ending in un(a) ‘one’, where Spanish uses a plural,
e.g., ‫ בֿינטי אי און דיאה‬vente i un día ‘twenty-one days’ (Spanish veintiún días).
Likewise, the conjunction ‫ אי‬i ‘and’ is inserted between numbers above twenty

in multiples, e.g., ‫ סייטי מיל אי אוֿגוסיינטוס‬siete mil i ochosientos ‘7,800’ (Spanish

siete mil ochocientos).
Some Judezmo ordinal numerals differ from their Spanish counterparts, e.g.,
(‫ טריסיר)ו‬treser(o) ‘third’ (cf. Spanish tercer[o]), (‫ קואטרינ)ו‬kuatrén(o) ‘fourth’
(cf. Old Spanish and Navarrese cuatren[o], cuarto; Modern Spanish cuarto),
(‫ סינקינ)ו‬sinkén(o) ‘fifth’ (cf. Old Spanish cinquén[o], quinten[o], quinto; Mod-
ern Spanish quinto), and (‫ דוֿגינ)ו‬dodjén(o) ‘twelfth’ (cf. Old Spanish dozén[o],
duodézimo/-cimo; Modern Spanish duodécimo, duzavo).
An alternate ordinal construction, known from the 18th century and perhaps
reflecting Modern Greek influence (Luria 1930: 145), is the construction definite
article + noun + de + cardinal numeral, e.g., ‫ איל אנייו די קוארינטה‬el anyo de
kuarenta ‘the fortieth year’.
3.3.4 Pronouns
3.3.4.1 Subject Pronouns
The Judezmo subject pronouns are 1sg. ‫ ייו‬yo ‘I’, 2sg. ‫ טו‬tu ‘you’, 3m.sg. ‫ איל‬el,
3f.sg. ‫ אילייה‬eya ‘he, she’, 1pl. early ‫ נוזוטרוס‬nozotros (f. ‫ נוזוטראס‬nozotras) and
later ‫מוזוטראס‬/‫ מוזוטרוס‬mozotros/mozotras or ‫מוזאס‬/‫ מוזוס‬mozós/mozás ‘we’,
2pl. ‫ בֿוזוטרוס‬vozotros (f. ‫ בֿוזוטראס‬vozotras) or ‫בֿוזאס‬/‫ בֿוזוס‬vozós/vozás ‘you’,
3m.pl. ‫ אילייוס‬eyos; 3f.pl. ‫ אילייאס‬eyas ‘they’. The archaizing first-person plural
‫ נוש‬nos is used in some calque translations of Hebrew texts.
The third-person singular and plural, and second-person plural pronouns
are used for polite address. Traditionally, husbands used ‫ בֿוזוטראס‬vozotras to
address wives, whereas the wives addressed their husbands with third-person
masculine singular ‫ איל‬el. The honorific (‫ סו מירסי)ֿד‬su mersé(ḏ) ‘his mercy’ (pl.
‫ סוס מירסיֿדיס‬sus merseḏes) was used mostly between religious scholars, e.g.,
singular ‫ טוֿדו לוקי סו מירסיֿד קירי‬toḏo lo ke su merseḏ kere ‘everything your mercy
wants’. In the 17th–18th centuries, ‫ אוסטי‬usté (cf. Spanish Usted) was evidently
still known, but used as a satirical/ironic form; in the 19th–21st centuries, ‫אוסטיֿד‬
usteḏ is occasionally used by writers influenced by standard Castilian Spanish.
3.3.4.2 Object Pronouns

The direct object pronouns are 1sg. ‫ מי‬me, 2sg. ‫ טי‬te, 3m.sg. ‫ לו‬lo, 3f.sg ‫ לה‬la,
1pl. ‫ נוס‬nos or ‫ מוס‬mos, 2pl. ‫ בֿוס‬vos, 3m.pl. ‫ לוס‬los, and 3f.pl. ‫ לאס‬las. (On ‫בֿוס‬
vos, see Luria 1930: §82; Crews 1935: #165.)
There is often metathesis of the second-person plural imperative suffix -ḏ
and the l of enclitic third-person object pronouns (i.e., -ḏl- < -ld-), e.g, ‫אמאטאלדו‬
amataldo ‘extinguish it’ (cf. Spanish apagadlo) and ‫ אזילדי‬azelde ‘make for him’
(cf. Spanish hacedle), although the phenomenon began to wane in the written
language of the modern period, probably as writers became familiar with the
analogous form in literary Italian and, to a lesser extent, Spanish.

392 bunis
Before a third-person object pronoun, the first- and second-person pro-

nouns, mos and vos, reduce to mo and vo (as in Old Spanish), e.g.,
‫ מו לו אינטריגארון‬mo lo entregaron ‘they handed it over to us’, and ‫בֿו לו בֿינגו‬
‫ אה דיזיר‬vo lo vengo a dezir ‘I come to tell it to you’ (Wagner 1914: §78; Luria
1930: §59; Crews 1935: #699). Some similar phenomena are documented for Old
Spanish (Lapesa 1981: 150).
The pronouns ‫ מי‬mi ‘me’, ‫ טי‬ti ‘you’, ‫ סי‬si ‘oneself’, ‫מוס‬/‫ נוס‬nos/mos, ‫ בֿוס‬vos,
and ‫אילייאס‬/‫ אילייוס‬eyos/eyas appear following prepositions, including ‫ קון‬kon
‘with’ (as opposed to Spanish conmigo, contigo, consigo), e.g., ‫ ייו ארי קון טי‬yo aré
kon ti ‘I’ll do with you’. Mi and ti are also used after ‫ קומו‬komo ‘like’ (as opposed
to Spanish como yo, como tú), e.g., ‫ סיאן בואינוס קומו )אה( טי‬sean buenos komo (a)
ti ‘may they be good like you’.
The indirect object pronouns diverge from the direct ones only in the third
person, namely, 3sg. ‫ לי‬le and 3pl. ‫ ליס‬les.
3.3.4.3 Reflexive Pronouns

The reflexive pronouns, when positioned before a verb, are 1sg. ‫ מי‬me, 2sg. ‫טי‬
te, 3sg. ‫ סי‬se; 1pl. ‫ נוס‬nos or ‫ מוס‬mos, 2pl. ‫ בֿוס‬vos, 3pl. ‫ סי‬se. When attached
enclitically to an imperative, infinitive, gerund, or a finite verb, the modern
3pl. reflexive pronoun is -sen (as opposed to normative Spanish invariant -se),
e.g., ‫ סיראנדוסין‬serándosen ‘closing themselves’ (cf. Spanish cerrándose) and
‫ לאבֿארסין‬lavarsen ‘to wash themselves’ (cf. Spanish lavarse).
From at least the 18th century, when there is a double object pronoun
consisting of a first- or second-person indirect object pronoun and the reflexive
pronoun ‫ סי‬se, the indirect pronoun precedes se, in contrast to Spanish, e.g.,
‫ מי סי איזו מויי קורטו‬me se izo muy korto ‘it became very short for me’. However,
with a third-person indirect object pronoun the order is reversed, agreeing with
normative Spanish, e.g., ‫ סי ליס איזו אונה סינייאל‬se les izo una sinyal ‘a signal was
given to them’ (for further discussion, see Luria 1930: § 143).
3.3.4.4 Possessive Pronouns

The Judezmo possesive pronouns resemble their Spanish counterparts except
for the first-person plural, which can be ‫ מואיסטרו‬muestro, or (in the modern
period) ‫ מואישו‬muesho (in addition to the more westernized modern literary
variant ‫ נואיסטרו‬nuestro), and the second-person plural, which can be ‫בֿואיסטרו‬
vuestro, ‫ גואיסטרו‬ḡuestro, or ‫ בֿואישו‬vuesho.
In some poetic writing, and in some early prose works, especially those from
Italy, the definite article was used with a possessive adjective (as in Old Spanish
and Italian), e.g., ‫ איל טו פאֿדרי‬el tu paḏre ‘your father’, ‫דיזדי לוס מיס טיירנוס אנייוס‬
dizde los mis tiernos anyos ‘from my young years’.

3.3.4.5 Other Pronouns

The relative pronoun occurs in forms such as ‫ קי‬ke, ‫ קואלו‬kualo, and ‫איל קואל‬
el kual, e.g., ‫ סאבֿרה קואלו איס מי ֿזור‬savrá kualo es mijor ‘he will know which is
better’. When the relative clause is in a genitive relationship with the antecen-
dent, the relative is typically used with a possessive adjective (‫ קי סו‬ke su), e.g.,
‫ און אומברי קי סו קוראסון לו קונפלייו פארה פיקאר‬un ombre ke su korasón lo kunplió
para pekar ‘a man whose heart caused him to sin’, though in the modern period
we also find relative ‫ דיל קואל‬del kual (Luria 1930: § 85). In the 16th century there
is some literary use of the relative ‫ קוייו‬kuyo ‘whose’, e.g., ‫ קוייה מאנו‬kuya mano
‘whose hand’.
The demonstrative pronouns are ‫ איסטו‬esto ‘this (close to the speaker)’ and
‫אקיאו‬/‫ אקילייו‬ake(y)o ‘that (distant from the speaker)’, though ‫ איסו‬eso ‘that
(unspecified distance from the speaker, or an abstract concept)’ is attested in
some early texts and in rare literary contexts in the late 19th and early 20th
centuries (under Castilian influence), e.g., ‫ פור איסה ראזון‬por esa razón ‘for that
reason’. The demonstratives decline for number and gender.
The interrogative pronoun ‘which, what’ is ‫ קואלו‬kualo (cf. Spanish cuál),
which agrees in number and gender with the referent, e.g., ‫ קואלה אובֿרה‬kuala
ovra ‘which work?’, ‫ קואלוס כלים‬kualos kelim ‘which vessels?’. In Istanbul and
neighboring and certain other dialects, the interrogative pronoun ‘who?/
whom?’ is ‫ קין‬ken, while in Thessalonika and vicinity it is ‫ קיין‬kien.
The positive indefinite pronoun is ‫ אלגונו‬alḡuno ‘someone’ (cf. Old Spanish
alguien, alguno; Modern Spanish alguien), and the negative is ‫ נינגונו‬ninguno or
‫ דינגונו‬dinguno ‘no one’ (cf. Old Spanish nadie, ninguno; Modern Spanish nadie).
3.3.5 Adverbs
Numerous Judezmo prepositions and adverbs diverge from their analogues in
normative Spanish. Many of these divergent forms correspond to variants in
Old Spanish and/or popular or regional forms of Ibero-Romance, e.g., ‫אגורה‬
aḡora ‘now’, ‫ אאינדה‬aínda ‘still’, ‫ ארובֿיס‬ar(r)ovés ‘backwards’, ‫ איסטונסיס‬estonses
‘then’, ‫ לונֿגי‬londje ‘far (adv.)’, ‫ מונֿגו‬muncho ‘very; much’, and ‫ אונדי‬onde ‘(to)
where?’.
Perhaps under the influence of Italian molto ‘very’, from at least the 18th
century ‫ מונֿגו‬muncho (in Thessalonika and vicinity, ‫ מוֿגו‬mucho) could precede
adjectives, with an adverbial function, e.g., ‫ איראן מונֿגו ריקוס‬eran muncho rikos
‘they were very rich’ (cf. Spanish muy ricos).
Adverbial phrases created through the reduplication of nouns and other
parts of speech express intensification, e.g., ‫אבאשאבֿאן לוס מלאכים די לוס סיילוס‬
‫ בולוקיס בולוקיס‬abashavan los malahim de los sielos bolukes bolukes ‘the angels
descended from heaven in large groups’ (cf. Turkish bölük bölük), and ‫אל קאבֿו‬

394 bunis
‫ קאבֿו‬al kavo kavo ‘at the very end’. Reduplication is also employed in various
adverbial constructions, perhaps reflecting regional Hispanic constructions,
e.g., ‫ אה פוקו אה פוקו‬a poko a poko ‘little by little’ (cf. Catalan a poc a poc); ‫אה‬
‫ אונו אה אונו‬a uno a uno ‘one by one’.
3.3.6 Verbs
When compared both with medieval and modern Spanish, the Judezmo verbal
system exhibits distinctive features, primarily the result of analogical leveling,
certain phonological tendencies, and perhaps, as in other instances of Judezmo
distinctiveness, a conscious distancing from normative Christian Spanish,
as represented in Ottoman Sephardic communities by the speech of con-
verso immigrants arriving in the empire to return to the open practice of Juda-
ism.
Before the expulsions, several verb forms which were becoming archaic in
Spanish appear in the Jewish texts, both in original works and translations;
in the century following the expulsions, these forms continued to appear, as
variants, but thereafter they were used solely in the archaizing calque trans-
lations of the Bible and other sacred Hebrew and Aramaic texts taught to
boys and used in the synagogue and para-liturgy. One example is the second-
person plural form with -ḏ- reflecting Latin -t- in future indicative forms such as
‫ סירבֿיריֿדיש‬serviréḏesh ‘you shall serve’ (cf. Modern Judezmo ‫ סירבֿיריש‬servirésh;
Modern Spanish serviréis). Another is the insertion in future indicative forms
of object and personal pronouns between the infinitive and the future marker,
e.g., ‫ מילדארלוזאס‬meldarlozás ‘you shall study them’ (cf. Modern Judezmo los
meldarás) and ‫ אינביזארלואן‬enbezarloán ‘they will teach it’ (cf. Modern Judezmo
lo embezarán).
3.3.6.1 Indicative
3.3.6.1.1 Present
The present indicative paradigm, which typically corresponds to that of Span-
ish except for the second-person plural, is as follows.
-ar verbs: singular -o, -as, -a; plural -amos, -ásh, -an
-er verbs: singular -o, -es, -e; plural -emos, -ésh, -en
-ir verbs: singular -o, -es, -e; plural -imos, -ísh, -en
Compare the present tense forms of the verb ‘to drink’ in Judezmo (‫ ביבֿיר‬bever)
and modern Castilian Spanish (beber):

Judezmo Castilian
1sg. ‫ ביבֿו‬bevo bebo

2sg. ‫ ביבֿיס‬beves bebes
3sg. ‫ ביבֿי‬beve bebe
1pl. ‫ ביבֿימוס‬bevemos bebemos
2pl. ‫ ביבֿיש‬bevésh bebéis
3pl. ‫ ביבֿין‬beven beben
The distinctive marker of the second-person plural (vozotros/vozós) is -sh

(throughout the verbal system), as seen in the table above; other examples are
‫ סוש‬sosh ‘you are’ (cf. Spanish sois) and ‫ טומאש‬tomásh ‘you take’ (cf. Spanish
tomáis). This is the result of an anticipatory palatalization of final -s following
an original (vowel +) i (> y). It should be noted that Spanish /s/ tended to be
systematically reflected as š in all positions in Morisco texts (Luria 1930: § 19),
and historical word-final -s in all words yielded -š in peninsular Portuguese; but
no exact parallel to the more limited phonological shift in Judezmo is known in
other Ibero-Romance varieties. Already in the 16th century, the -sh marker was
used for the second-person plural even on verbs without a phonological moti-
vation (i.e., without an original vowel +-is, e.g., dezísh, cf. Spanish decís), and
by the 18th century the use of -sh had become the universal Judezmo second-
person plural marker. (On the use of -sh in Modern Judezmo see Wagner 1914:
§§ 36, 48; Luria 1930: §86; and Crews 1935: #167.)
3.3.6.1.2 Preterite
In vocalized texts from the 16th century, in the preterite indicative conju-
gation the first-person singular marker is regularly as in Spanish: -é for -ar
verbs, e.g., ‫ דימאנדי‬demandé ‘I asked’, and -í for -er and -ir verbs. The first-
person plural marker -emos (instead of Spanish -amos) is attested for -ar verbs
already in 16th-century vocalized texts, e.g., ‫ טירימוס‬tiremos ‘we pulled’ (cf.
Spanish tiramos). The -emos inflection constituted a closer parallel to the
first-person singular marker -é, and also marked a clear distinction between
the present indicative (-amos) and the preterite (-emos). As demonstrated
by vocalized texts, by at least the 18th century, the first-person singular and
plural markers for -ar, -er and -ir verbs were leveled to -í and -ímos, e.g.,
‫ אבֿלי‬avlí, ‘I spoke’ (cf. Spanish hablé), ‫ אבֿלימוס‬avlimos ‘we spoke’ (cf. Spanish
hablamos). (On the modern language, see Luria 1930: § 148–174; Crews 1935:
# 138).

396 bunis
For the second-person forms of the preterite indicative, the 16th-century

texts show diverse forms, all documented in Spanish of that period. The princi-
pal markers were singular -ste, e.g., ‫ טיראשטי‬tiraste ‘you (sg.) pulled’, and plural
-stes, e.g., ‫ בֿישטיש‬vistes ‘you (pl.) saw’ (cf. Old Spanish vistes/visteis; Modern
Spanish visteis) or -steis, e.g., ‫ פֿיזישטייש‬fizisteis ‘you did’. However, already in the
15th-century women’s prayer book (Lazar 1995), we find the second-person sin-
gular with -stes, with final -s on analogy with the -s used to denote that person
in all other tenses, as in several regional varieties of Spanish (e.g., Extremadu-
ran, Zamoran, Andalusian) and in Portuguese (Luria 1930: § 86e; Crews 1935:
#176). By the 17th century, the second-personal singular was denoted rather sys-
tematically by -stes, e.g., ‫ טו טי פֿואישטיש‬tu te fuistes ‘you (sg.) left’ and ‫איזישטיש‬
izistes ‘you (sg.) did’, (cf. Spanish te huiste and hiciste). By around the same time,
the second-person plural was increasingly denoted by -V́ stesh, e.g., ‫לייאמאשטיֿש‬
yamástesh ‘you (pl.) called’ (cf. Spanish llamasteis) and ‫ קיזיישטיֿש‬kizyístesh
‘you wanted’ (cf. Spanish quisisteis). The final stage in the development of the
second-person markers in this tense is the syncope of medial -s- (singular -stes
> -tes; plural -stesh > -tesh), which characterizes the early modern period. Rare
examples are already documented in representations of speech of the late 17th
and early 18th centuries, e.g., ‫ קונושיטיֿש‬konosítesh ‘you (pl.) knew’, ‫אינפישאטיש‬
enpesates ‘you (sg.) began’, but the -stes and -stesh forms dominated until the
late 18th century.
The regular third-person preterite indicative inflections correspond to Span-
ish, i.e., -ar verbs: singular -ó, plural -aron; -er and -ir verbs: singular -ió, plural
-ieron.
In the conjugation of verbs having irregular stem variants in the preterite
indicative, Judezmo shows several instances of the preservation of the stems
rejected in Spanish and/or of sounds obsolete in Spanish, e.g., ‫ דיזיר‬dezir ‘to
say’ > dish- (cf. Old Spanish dix-, Modern Spanish dij-), e.g., ‫ דישי‬dishe ‘I said’
(cf. Old Spanish dixe, Modern Spanish dije) and ‫ טרושי‬trushe ‘I brought’ (cf.
Old Spanish truxe, Modern Spanish traje). By the 20th century the first-person
singular irregular forms showed final -i/-í instead of -e, on analogy with the
regular forms (e.g., ‫ דישי‬dishi ‘I said’).
By the 18th century, the stem of the verb ‫ איר‬ir ‘to go’ (probably also used with
‫ סיר‬ser ‘to be’) showed the variant hui-/hue- (along with fui-/ fue-; cf. Spanish
fui-), e.g., ‫ חואימוס‬huimos [ˈχwimos] ‘we went’. By the early 19th century this
stem was widely documented for both ‫ איר‬ir and ‫ סיר‬ser in texts from the entire
Ottoman region and from Vienna, e.g., ‫ אנסי חואי‬ansí hue [χwe] ‘thus it was’, ‫סי‬
‫ חואירון‬se hueron ‘they left’.

3.3.6.1.3 Imperfect
The imperfect paradigm of earlier stages of Judezmo used the following suf-
fixes:
-ar verbs: singular -ava, -avas, -ava; plural -ávamos/-avamós, -ávash,

-avan
-er and -r verbs: singular -ía, -ías, -ía; plural -íamos/-iamós, -íash, -ían
With the exception of the second-person plural inflection (showing -Vsh in-
stead of -Vis), and the use of v rather than b (the latter in fact realized as [β] in
Spanish), these endings corresponded to those of Spanish. Variants of -er and
-ir verbs with a y glide (denoted by ‫ יי‬or [‫ )לי]י‬between í and the following vowel
are documented, e.g., ‫ דיזייאן‬deziyan ‘they said’, ‫ סאבֿילייה‬saviya ‘he knew’.
From the Middle to the Modern Judezmo period there have been two imper-
fect indicative variants of the conjugation of ir ‘to go’, one with -v- (as in stan-
dard Spanish), e.g., ‫ איבֿה‬iva ‘s/he was going’ and ‫ איבֿאן‬ivan ‘they were going’,
and one without -v- (as in Aragonese), e.g., ‫ איאה‬ía ‘s/he was going’ and ‫איאמוס‬
íamos/iamós ‘we were going’.
On analogy with the -v- (e.g., -ava) found in the conjugation of -ar verbs,
the sequence -ía- in -er and -ir verbs (e.g., ‫ טראאיאה‬traía ‘s/he was bringing’)
began to an extent to give way to -íva, e.g., ‫ טראאיבֿה‬trayiva ‘he/she was bringing’,
‫ טראאיבֿאן‬traívan ‘they were bringing’. Both sets of suffixes have been used in the
modern period.
3.3.6.1.4 Future
The future indicative paradigm has the following suffixes for all verb types:
Singular -é, -ás, -á; plural -emos, -ésh/-ásh, -án
With the exception of the second-person plural -ésh/-ásh ending, the paradigm
corresponds to normative Spanish.
Judezmo continued to use both metathesized and epenthetic variant stems
of the verbs having irregular future and conditional stems in Old Spanish, while
in modern Spanish such forms have become obsolete. For example, from the
verb ‫ סאליר‬salir ‘to go out’, we find variant future forms like ‫ סארלי‬sarlé ‘I will go
out’, ‫ סארלאס‬sarlás ‘you (sg.) will go out’, etc. (cf. Spanish saldré, saldrás), and
variant conditional forms like ‫ סארליאה‬sarlía ‘I would go out’, ‫ סארליאס‬sarlías
‘you (sg.) would go out’, etc. (cf. Spanish saldría, saldrías). Other verbs that
show metathesis in the future and conditional include ‫ טיניר‬tener ‘to have’ (e.g.,
‫ טירני‬terné ‘I will have’; cf. Spanish tendré), and ‫ בֿיניר‬venir ‘to come’ (e.g., ‫בֿירנאן‬

398 bunis
vernán ‘they will come’; cf. Spanish vendrán). For the verb ‫ טיניר‬tener, the base
tern- predominated through the 18th century, after which the base tendr-, which
corresponds to Spanish, became more popular.
3.3.6.1.5 Progressive
A progressive tense normally employed the verb ‫ איסטאר‬estar + gerund, as
in Spanish, e.g., ‫ איסטובֿו לאזדראנדו‬estuvo lazdrando ‘s/he was striving’. When
denoting motion, the progressive can be indicated with the auxiliary ir ‘to go’
or another motion verb, plus a gerund, e.g., ‫ בֿאן פינאנדו‬van penando ‘they go on
suffering’.
3.3.6.2 Conditional
The conditional endings are as follows:
Singular -ía, -ías, -ía; plural -íamos/-iamós, -íash, -ían
As in the case of the future (discussed in 3.3.6.1.4), these endings all correspond
to Spanish with the exception of the second-person plural suffix -íash.
Since the conditional forms use the same base as the future tense, they
exhibit the same differences from Spanish as the future indicatives discussed
above, e.g., ‫ סארליאה‬sarlía ‘he/she would leave’ (cf. Old Spanish sarlía/saldría;
Modern Spanish saldría).
3.3.6.3 Subjunctive
The present subjunctive suffixes, which resemble their Spanish counterparts
except in the second person plural, are as follows:
-ar verbs: singular -e, -es, -e; plural -emos, -ésh, -en
-er verbs: singular -a, -as, -a; plural -amos, -ásh, -an
-ir verbs: singular -a, -as, -a; plural -amos, -ásh, -an
In the imperfect subjunctive there were in an earlier stage of Judezmo two

variant sets of suffixes, as follows:
1. singular -[a/ie]ra, -[a/ie]ras, -[a/ie]ra; plural -[á/ié]ramos, -[á/ie]rash,

-[a/ie]ran
2. singular -se, -ses, -se; plural -[á/ié]semos, -[á/ié]sesh, -[á/ié]sen
Although there was a clear preference for the first set (with the element ra), the
second set (with the element se) was also used into the 18th century.

Another set of endings, with an element re, is used for the future subjunctive:
Singular -[a/ie]re, -[a/ie]res, -[a/ie]re; plural -[á/ié]remos, -[á/ie]resh,

-[a/ie]ren
On the modern use of this form, see Luria (1930: § 151).
3.3.6.4 Imperative
The imperative endings, which resemble their Spanish counterparts (except in
the second-person plural variant -á), are as follows:
-ar verbs: 2sg. -a, 3sg. -e; 2pl. -á(ḏ), 3pl. -en
-er verbs: 2sg. -e, 3sg. -a; 2pl. -é(ḏ), 3pl. -an
-ir verbs: 2sg. -e, 3sg. -a; 2pl. -í(ḏ), 3pl. -an
3.3.6.5 Infinitives
Judezmo infinitives typically correspond to their Spanish counterparts, but
from the mid-19th century onwards, the infinitival suffix -r followed by third-
person object pronouns with initial l- now often exhibited the shift -lr- > -dl-
(with metathesis and dissimilation), e.g., ‫ קימאלדוס‬kemaldos ‘to burn them’ (cf.
Spanish quemarlos).
The variant infinitive (‫ ייר)סי‬yir(se) ‘to go (toward/away)’ is used along-
side older (‫ איר)סי‬ir(se) (cf. Spanish ir[se]), especially in the area centered
around Thessalonika. This variant form is based on the gerund ‫ יינדו‬yendo
‘going’.
3.3.6.6 Gerund and Participles

The regular Judezmo gerund, present participle and regular past participle
are similar to Spanish. The regular gerund has the suffix -ando (for -ar verbs)
or -iendo (for -er and -ir verbs), e.g., ‫ מילדאנדו‬meldando ‘reading’. The present
participle has the suffix -ante (for -ar verbs) or -iente (for -er and -ir verbs), e.g.,
‫ בֿיניינטי‬viniente ‘coming’. Regular past participles end in -aḏo (for -ar verbs) and
-iḏo (for -er and -ir verbs). In archaizing calque translations of Hebrew texts,
the apocopated present participle (minus the element -te) is used to reflect the
Hebrew singular active participle, e.g., ‫אבֿריין אה טוס מאנוס אי פֿארטאן אה טוֿדו‬
‫ ביבֿו‬avrién a tus manos i fartán a toḏo bivo ‘(you) open your hands and satisfy
every living thing’ (translating Hebrew ‫ פּוֹ ֵ֥תַח ֶאת־ ָי ֶ֑דָך וַּמְשׂ ִ֖בּיַע ְלָכל־ ַ֣חי‬pōṯēaḥ ʾɛt
yādɛḵā u-maśbiaʿ lǝ-ḵol-ḥay, Psalm 145:16, as found in Lazar 1995: 12). This form
was considered archaic already in 15th-century Spanish and Judezmo, but it
survived into the modern era in the archaizing Judezmo of Hebrew sacred-text

400 bunis
translations, such as the complete Bible translation published by Yisraʾel Beḵar

Ḥayyim of Belgrade in 1813–1816 (Vienna).
There are certain irregular present participles, e.g., ‫ אינדו‬indo ‘going’ (cf.
Portuguese indo), as a variant of ‫ יינדו‬yendo (cf. Spanish yendo), and past
participles, e.g., ‫ בינדיֿגו‬bendicho ‘blessed’ (cf. Spanish bendito). Some participles
are formed from different bases than in Spanish, e.g., ‫ טובֿיינדו‬tuviendo ‘having’
and ‫ טובֿיֿדו‬tuviḏo ‘had’ from ‫ טיניר‬tener ‘to have’, formed with the preterite base
(cf. ‫ טובֿו‬tuvo ‘s/he had’), though more standard forms are also in use (‫טיניינדו‬
teniendo and ‫ טיניֿדו‬teniḏo; cf. Spanish teniendo and tenido). Others have been
made regular by analogy, e.g., ‫ מוריֿדו‬moriḏo ‘dead, died’ (also ‫ מואירטו‬muerto).
In some regions, such as Thessalonika and its environs, the gerund is used
instead of the second-person plural imperative form, e.g., ‫ בֿיניינדו‬viniendo
‘come!’.
3.3.6.7 Compound Tenses

Both ‫ טיניר‬tener and ‫ אבֿיר‬aver are used in Judezmo as auxiliaries in compound
tenses (Varol-Bornes 2002), in contrast to Modern Spanish, which does not
use tener in this way. For example, we find forms like present perfect ‫טינימוס‬
‫ דיֿגו‬tenemos dicho ~ ‫ אבֿימוס דיֿגו‬avemos dicho ‘we have said’; pluperfect ‫טיניאה‬
‫ קריסיֿדו‬tenía kresiḏo ‘had grown’ and ‫ אבֿיאה אֿגונטאֿדו‬avía adjuntaḏo ‘had added’;
future perfect ‫ טירנאס סינטיֿדו‬ternás sentiḏo ‘you will have heard’ and ‫אבֿרה‬
‫ מירקאֿדו‬avrá merkaḏo ‘will have bought’; past perfect subjunctive ‫אובֿייראמוס‬
‫ איֿדו‬uviéramos iḏo ‘we would have gone’ and future perfect subjunctive ‫טוביירי‬
‫ פֿיֿגו‬tuviere fecho ‘I might have done’.
3.3.6.8 Paradigm Leveling

In all of the tenses and moods there is a strong tendency toward analogical
leveling, thus regularizing what might earlier on have been irregular forms. In
the present tense, in both indicative and subjunctive moods and in imperatives,
Judezmo shows a monophthong in the stressed syllable of many verbs that
exhibit vowel-breaking (e > ie, o > ue) in Spanish, e.g., indicative 3sg. ‫אימפיסה‬
empesa ‘begins’, 3pl. ‫ פינסאן‬pensan ‘they think’, 2sg. ‫ ֿגוגאס‬djuḡas ‘you play’, 3sg.
‫ סולטה‬solta ‘releases’ (cf. Spanish empieza, piensan, juegas, suelta).
Some verb forms exhibit regional variation in this respect. For example,
in Istanbul and certain other areas, finite forms of ‫ קיריר‬kerer ‘to want’ have
invariant ker- thorought the present tense, while in Thessalonika, speakers
prefer vowel-breaking throughout the paradigm (e.g., ‫ קיירימוס‬kieremos ‘we
want’), as well as in the infinitive (‫ קייריר‬kierer ‘to want’). These situations both
contrast with Spanish, which shows the breaking in the 3pl. and all singular
forms (e.g., quieres ‘you (sg.) want’), but not the 1/2pl. forms or the infinitive
(e.g., querer ‘to want’, queremos ‘we want’).

Another example of the leveling of vowel-breaking throughout the present

and the infinitive (including tenses based on the infinitive) is the verb ‫פואיֿדיר‬
pueḏer ‘to be able’ (cf. Spanish poder). Note forms like ‫ פואיֿדימוס‬pueḏemos ‘we
can’ (cf. Spanish podemos), ‫ פואיֿדרה‬pueḏrá ‘will be able’ (cf. Spanish podrá),
and ‫ פואיֿדריאה‬pueḏría ‘would be able’ (cf. Spanish podría).
In verbs in which Old Spanish showed variation in various finite forms,
Judezmo often retains forms corresponding to the more regular variant even-
tually rejected by normative Spanish. Examples are first-person singular forms
such as present indicative ‫ סו‬so ‘I am’ (also ‫ סי‬se), ‫ דו‬do ‘I give’, ‫ איסטו‬estó ‘I am’,
and ‫ בֿו‬vo ‘I go’ (cf. Old Spanish soy/so, doy/do, estoy/estó, voy/vo; Modern Span-
ish soy, doy, estoy, voy). “Regular” present indicative forms of aver ‘to have’ (often
used as an auxiliary in compound tenses) are found alongside the “irregular”
forms, e.g., ‫ אבֿי ~ אה‬ave ~ a ‘h/she has’ and ‫ אבֿימוס ~ אימוס‬avemos ~ emos ‘we
have’ (cf. Old Spanish habe/ha, habemos/hemos; Modern Spanish ha, hemos).
Likewise, there are some regularized forms of the second-person singular
imperative, which contrast with their irregular standard Spanish counterparts,
e.g., 2sg. ‫ בֿאטי‬vate ‘go away’ (cf. Spanish vete, but non-standard vate), 2sg. ‫דיזימי‬
dízeme ‘tell me’ (cf. Spanish dime).
3.3.6.9 Verbal Prefixes

There is some variation in the use of verbal prefixes in Judezmo. For exam-
ple, normative Modern Spanish des- and es- enjoy discrete status, whereas in
Judezmo (as in Old Spanish) there is some vacillation between des- and es- as
free variants, e.g., ‫ דיסטרואיר‬destruir ~ ‫ איסטרואיר‬estruir ‘to destroy’. Judezmo
forms also show some inherited vacillation in the use of distinct prefixes,
e.g., ‫ אינסינדיר‬ensender ~ ‫ אסינדיר‬asender ‘to light’ (cf. Old Spanish encender
~ as[c]ender; Modern Spanish encender). In Modern Judezmo there is some
correlation between the two variants and regional dialects, with ensender pre-
ferred in the Istanbul area (Perahya 1997: 320), and asender in the Thessalonika
region (Nehama 1977: 342); nevertheless, there is some vacillation within the
two regions.
3.4 Syntax
The syntax of Sephardic La‘az outside of translations of sacred texts does
not appear to have diverged much from that used by neighboring Christians.
However, the evidence may be misleading, since our knowledge is based on
very few surviving texts, and those, apparently, were by writers familiar with
and heavily influenced by literary Christian Spanish of the period.
One syntactic difference between the Old Sephardic La‘az verbal system and
that of contemporaneous Old Spanish is the use of ser ‘to be’ plus a borrowed

402 bunis
Hebrew participle to create periphrastic or analytic verbs, e.g., ‫ סיר מוסר‬ser

moser ‘to denounce’ (cf. Hebrew m.sg. participle ‫ מוסר‬moser ‘denouncing’) and
‫ סיר מוחל‬ser mohel ‘to forgive’ (cf. Hebrew m.sg. participle ‫ מוחל‬moḥel ‘forgiv-
ing’). Analytic constructions with other auxiliary verbs and a Hebrew-Aramaic
noun are documented as well, e.g., ‫ פֿאזיר שבועה‬fazer shevuá ‘to swear’ (cf.
Hebrew ‫ שבועה‬šəḇuʿa ‘oath’). Such constructions continued to play a significant
role in Judezmo, especially rabbinical Judezmo, into the modern era, although
Ottoman influence caused a significant structural change (Bunis 2009).
The morphology, lexicon, and especially syntax of pre-expulsion sacred-text
calque translations diverged considerably from the contemporaneous Spanish
of Christians, as well as from the everyday language of the Jews themselves.
The Jewish translations were extremely literal. For example, in the translation
of Deut. 6:4 (‫ ְשַׁ֖מע ִיְשׂ ָר ֵ ֑אל ְיה ָ֥וה ֱאֹל ֵ֖הינוּ ְיה ָ֥וה׀ ֶא ָֽחד‬šəmaʿ yiśrāʾēl ʾădōnāy ʾĕlōhēnū
ʾădōnāy ʾɛḥāḏ, lit. ‘hear Israel, yhwh our God, yhwh one’), the copula is omit-
ted; we find ‫ אוליי ישראל יי נואישטרו דייו יי אונו‬oye Yisrael, Aḏonay nuestro Dio,
Aḏonay uno in the 15th-century women’s siddur (Lazar 1995: 36), as well as (with
minor spelling variations) in the 1547 Constantinople Pentateuch (Lazar 1988)
and in later Bible translations.
Other examples of the literalness of the language of sacred-text translations
include the positioning of the demonstrative adjective after the noun, as in
16th-century ‫ לה נוֿגי אישטה‬la noche esta ‘the night this’ (i.e., ‘this night’ or
‘tonight’), reflecting Hebrew ‫ הלילה הזה‬hal-layla haz-ze (e.g., Ex. 12:42 in the 1547
Constantinople Pentateuch). In later texts we find the even more literal ‫לה נוֿגי‬
‫ לה איסטה‬la noche la esta, lit. ‘the night the this’. Both options contrast with the
expected phrase ‫ איסטה נוֿגי‬esta noche, used in spoken Judezmo (and in writings
other than translations of biblical texts) and in Spanish.
Also in these biblical translations, a Hebrew infinitive absolute followed by
a finite verb was rendered with a parallel construction. For example, the phrase
‫ ַא ֵ֣בּד ְ֠תַּאְבּדוּן‬ʾabbēḏ təʾabbəḏūn ‘you shall utterly destroy’ (Deut. 12:2) is translated
as ‫ דיפירדיר דיפירדיריש‬deperder deperderésh in the 1547 Pentateuch, a syntactic
structure unknown in ordinary Judezmo usage or in Spanish.
Some post-biblical expressions that are found in such literal sacred-text
translations entered the popular language, e.g., ‫ ליבֿייאנדאֿד די קאבֿיסה‬livian-
daḏ de kavesa ‘frivolity’ (< ‫ קלות ראש‬qallut roš, lit. ‘lightness of head’) and
‫ אגואס פוסטיראס‬aḡuas posteras ‘ritual hand-washing after a meal’ (< ‫מים אחרונים‬
mayim ʾaḥaronim, lit. ‘last waters’). Some loan translations from Hebrew were
also incorporated into the everyday language of the Jews, adding to its diver-
gence from non-Jewish syntax. An example is [–] ‫ קאֿדה ]–[ אי‬kaḏa [noun] i
[noun], e.g., ‫ אין קאֿדה אנייו אי אנייו‬en kaḏa anyo i anyo ‘in each (and every) year’,
still used in modern Judezmo (Nehama 1977: 259), which is based on Hebrew

[–] -‫ כל ]–[ ו‬kol [noun] wə-[noun] ‘each (and every)’. Some such phrases ac-
quired ironic use; for example, the phrase ‫ אל אנייו איל בֿיינין‬al anyo el vinién ‘next
year’ (lit. ‘to the year the coming’, from the Hebrew phrase ‫ לשנה הבאה‬laš-šana
hab-baʾa in the Passover Haggadah) is used in the sense of ‘never’ (Nehama 1977:
41).
To a minor extent in the Early Middle Judezmo phase, and significantly
more so from the Late Middle Judezmo phase, syntactic innovations developed
under the influence of local contact languages. Modern French and Italian have
been suggested as the source of several Modern Judezmo constructions having
parallels in those languages; but early Middle Judezmo texts reveal that some
of those constructions were already known in popular 16th-century Judezmo,
and thus their sources are more likely to have been varieties of Ibero-Romance,
or early influence on Ibero-Romance by other influential Romance languages.
Some features which occurred as variants in Old Spanish and other medieval
Hispanic regional varieties, but which were rejected in later Spanish, are at-
tested in pre-expulsion Sephardic La‘az and in later regional varieties of
Judezmo. For example, the insertion of an object or reflexive pronoun between
a preposition and an infinitive enjoyed widespread use in the modern dialect
of Thessalonika and neighboring communities, e.g., ‫ די לו דאר‬de lo dar ‘to give
it’ (cf. Spanish de darlo) and ‫ פור לי פֿאזיר‬por le fazer ‘to do for him’ (cf. Spanish
por hacerle). See Bunis (1999a) for further examples.
Another noteworthy feature vis-à-vis Spanish is the expression of the apo-
dosis in conditional expressions with an imperfect instead of a conditional
verb, e.g., ‫ סי סינטייראש סו אבֿלה … דאבֿאש קרידיטו‬si sintiérash su avla … dávash
krédito ‘if you heard his talk […] you would believe him’. The imperfect may
also be used in the protasis, instead of the subjunctive, e.g., ‫סי לו סאבֿיאמוס לוס‬
‫ מאטאבֿאמוס‬si lo savíamos, los matávamos ‘if we knew it, we would have killed
them’ (cf. Spanish si lo hubiéramos sabido, los habríamos matado ‘if we had
known, we would have killed them’).
Also in contrast to Spanish, Judezmo employs the past participle after verbs
of ‘necessity’ or ‘want’ such as ‫ קאליר‬kaler ‘to be necessary’ and kerer ‫‘ קיריר‬to
want’, e.g., ‫ נו קאלי דיֿגו‬no kale dicho ‘it is unnecessary to say’ (cf. Spanish no hay
que decir, Catalan no cal dir).
Unlike normative Spanish, which prefers third-person singular forms of exis-
tential haber ‘to have, exist’, regardless of the number of the subject, analogous
Judezmo ‫ אבֿיר‬aver shows number agreement, e.g., ‫אבֿיאן בוטיקאס די סאראפֿיס‬
avían butikas de sarafes ‘there were shops of money-changers’, and ‫קואנדו נו‬
‫ אובֿיירון נביאים‬kuando no uvieron neviim ‘when there were no prophets’.
Judezmo possesses a noteworthy adjectival construction consisting of defi-
nite article + adjective + de + definite noun, e.g., ‫ איל רשע די פרעה‬el rashá de Paró

404 bunis
‘the evil Pharoah’, and ‫ איל בואינו דיל לאבֿוראֿדור‬el bueno del lavoraḏor ‘the good
worker’.
Unlike standard Spanish, from the Late Middle Judezmo phase, and espe-
cially during the Modern Judezmo period, the negative particle ‫ נו‬no is often
used after a negative element, e.g., ‫ נינגונו נו קונוסיאה לה ֿגוייה‬ninguno no konosía
la djoya ‘no one knew the jewel’ (cf. Spanish nadie lo conocía), ‫דינגונו נו סי קישו‬
dinguno no se keshó ‘no one complained’ (cf. Spanish nadie se quejó), and ‫נונקה‬
‫ נו מי בֿו בורלאר די לוס ריפֿלאנים‬nunka no me vo burlar de los riflanim ‘I’ll never
make fun of the proverbs’ (cf. Spanish nunca voy a burlarme).
With respect to prepositions, in representations of language from at least
the early 17th century, the ‘personal a’ which in Spanish obligatorily precedes a
human direct object is frequently absent in Judezmo, e.g., ‫בֿיֿדו רבי חייה און ֿגוֿדייו‬
‫ די בבל‬viḏo Ribí Hiyá un djuḏió de Bavel ‘Rabbi Ḥiyya saw a Jew from Babylonia’,
and ‫ נו חארבֿין לוס תלמידים‬no harven los talmiḏim ‘they should not beat the
pupils’. In the literal sacred-text translations, however, a slavishly translates the
Hebrew direct object marker ‫ֵֶאת־‬/‫ ֵאת‬ʾēṯ/ʾɛṯ-, as in ‫אי האבלו אלאש פאלאבראש‬
‫ אישטאש‬y havló a-las palavras estas ‘and he spoke these words’ (from the 1547
Constantinople Pentateuch, translating ‫ ַו ְי ַד ֵ֛בּר ֶאת־ַה ְדָּב ִ֥רים ָה ֵ֖אֶלּה‬way-yǝḏabbēr
ʾɛṯ-had-dǝḇārīm hā-ʾēllɛ, Deut. 31:1).
As seen already in an example just above (‫ נונקה נו מי בֿו בורלאר‬nunka no me
vo burlar), there is frequent omission of a between ir ‘to go’ and the infinitive
in analytic future constructions. This especially occurs when there is a vowel at
the end of the form of ‫ איר‬ir and/or at the beginning of the following infinitive.
Other examples are ‫ לו בֿאן אטאגאנטאר אין קאזה‬lo van ataḡantar en kaza ‘they’ll
annoy him at home’, and ‫ בֿאש אינגלינייארבֿוס אלגונוס דיאס‬vash enḡlenyarvos
alḡunos días ‘you are going to enjoy yourselves a few days’.
Judezmo preserves some pre-16th century uses of prepositions with various
verbs, which fell into disuse in later Spanish, e.g., ‫ טיניר די‬tener de ‘to have to’, in
contrast with Spanish tener que.
The syntax of Late Modern Judezmo was strongly influenced by French and
Italian, leading to fundamental innovations. One outstanding example is the
use of the historically plural possessive adjective ‫ סוס‬sus to denote ‘their’ even
when preceding a singular noun (e.g., ‫ סוס אקטיבֿיטאֿד‬sus aktivitaḏ ‘their action’),
and ‫ אוֿגו סיבֿדאֿדיס … דיסטרויירון פור דינה סוס אירמאנה‬ocho sivdaḏes … destruyeron
por Diná sus ermana ‘Eight cities … they destroyed for Dinah their sister’
(cf. Spanish su actividad ‘his/her/their action’, sus actividades ‘his/her/their
actions’). This is apparently under the influence of French leur and/or Italian
loro ‘their’ (cf. French leur activité, Italian la loro attività ‘their activity’ vs. son
activité, la sua attività ‘his/her activity’). Another example from the 19th century
is the marking of gender on adjectives that traditionally did not mark such a

distinction, e.g., la avla vera gramatikala ‘the true, grammatical language’ (cf.
Spanish m./f.sg. gramatical; French m.sg grammatical, f.sg grammaticale).
3.5 Lexicon
3.5.1 Ibero-Romance Component
When compared with Spanish, the lexicon of the Ibero-Romance component
of Judezmo is distinctive in several ways. The differences became increasingly
pronounced in the centuries after the expulsions.
Judezmo texts contain numerous lexical elements and variants which were
known in Old Spanish but did not survive into the modern standard language,
although some are still encountered in regional varieties. Among those still
current in Modern Judezmo are substantives, e.g., ‫ ביירבֿו‬biervo ‘word’ (cf. Old
Spanish v-/bierbo/-vo; Modern Spanish verbo ‘verb’, palabra ‘word’), ‫סולומברה‬
solombra ‘shadow’ (cf. Old Spanish solombra/sombra; Modern Spanish som-
bra), ‫ ֿגאפיאו‬chapeo ‘hat’ (cf. Old Spanish chapeo, Portuguese chapéu; Modern
Spanish sombrero); verbs, e.g., ‫ מוֿגיגואר‬muchiḡuar ‘to multiply’ (cf. Old Span-
ish multiplicar/mulchiguar; Modern Spanish multiplicar); and adjectives, e.g.,
‫ גולורייוזו‬ḡoloriozo ‘fragrant’ (cf. Spanish oloroso); ‫ פריטו‬preto ‘black’ (cf. Old
Spanish pr(i)eto; Spanish negro ‘black’, prieto ‘dark (person)’). We also find var-
ious verb variants with [ʒ], where Old Spanish vacillated between [z] and [ʒ],
yielding later normative -s-: e.g., ‫ בֿי ֿזיטאר‬vijitar ‘to visit’ (cf. Old Spanish vis-
/vigitar; Modern Spanish visitar).
Some Judezmo lexical items retained meanings known in Old Spanish, while
their counterparts in later forms of Spanish underwent semantic shifts, e.g., ‫ניגרו‬
neḡro ‘bad; unfortunate’ (cf. Old Spanish negro ‘black; bad’; Modern Spanish
negro ‘black’; Judezmo ‫ פריטו‬preto ‘black’); ‫ אימבאראסאֿדו‬embarasaḏo ‘busy’ (cf.
Spanish embarazado ‘pregnant’, ocupado ‘busy’); ‫ פֿראגואר‬fraḡuar ‘to build’ (cf.
Old Spanish fraḡuar ‘to forge; to build’; Modern Spanish fraguar ‘to forge’,
construir ‘to build’); ‫ דימאנדאר‬demandar ‘[primarily] to ask (a question)’ (cf.
Old Spanish ‘to claim; to ask’; Modern Spanish demandar ‘to claim’, preguntar
‘to ask’); ‫ סינטיר‬sentir ‘[primarily] to hear’ (cf. Old Spanish ‘to feel, to be sorry;
to hear’; Modern Spanish sentir ‘[primarily] to feel; to be sorry’, oír ‘to hear’).
Some lexical items documented in Judezmo texts from the 16th century into
the modern phase exist in contemporary Spanish but are classified as popu-
lar, regional, or otherwise nonstandard. Such forms include ‫ מירינֿגינה‬meren-
djena ‘eggplant’ (cf. Spanish berenjena); ‫ מאנפאראר‬manparar ‘to protect’ (cf.
Old Spanish (m)amparar; Modern Spanish amparar, popular mamparar); and
numerous nouns and verbs with initial a-, e.g. ‫ ארינקון‬arinkón ‘corner’, ‫אמוסטראר‬
amostrar ‘to show’, and ‫ אליבֿאנטאר‬alevantar ‘to lift’, which in standard Modern
Spanish appear without the initial a- (rincón, mostrar, levantar).

406 bunis
Some Judezmo lexemes of Hispanic origin carried narrower primary mean-

ings than their counterparts in non-Jewish Ibero-Romance, often with specifi-
cally Jewish connotations, e.g., ‫ לה ליי‬la ley ‘the Torah, Jewish law’ (cf. Spanish
ley ‘law’), ‫ לוס מיֿדייאנוס‬los meḏianos ‘intermediate days of a Jewish holiday’ (cf.
Spanish mediano ‘middle’), ‫ קוראֿגה‬koracha ‘bag for prayer shawl and phylacter-
ies’ (cf. Spanish coracha ‘leather bag for tobacco, cacao, etc.’), ‫ לה נאסייון‬la nasión
‘the Jewish people’, plural ‫ לאס נאסייוניס‬las nasiones ‘the Gentiles’ (cf. Span-
ish nación ‘[non-specific] nation, people’), (‫ פֿולאר)יקו‬folar(iko) ‘Purim cake
in the form of a gallows’ (cf. Portuguese folar ‘Easter cake’), and ‫בי)ר(מואילו‬
bi(r)muelo ‘kind of donut or fritter, especially for Purim’ (cf. Spanish buñuelo
‘[non-specific] donut, fritter’). On the other hand, some lexemes underwent
broadening of meaning. For example, in Late Middle Judezmo ‫ מילדאר‬meldar,
a common Judeo-Romance verb of ultimate Greek origin that originally meant
‘to study, reflect on (especially Jewish texts)’, came to denote ‘to read’ in gen-
eral, eventually displacing the Hispanic-origin verb ‫ ליאיר‬leer. Some lexemes
underwent various other semantic changes, e.g., ‫ איסקאפאר‬eskapar ‘[primar-
ily] to finish’ (cf. Spanish escapar ‘to escape’).
Some lexemes agreed with the meanings found in Hispanic varieties other
than Castilian, such as Aragonese, Galician, Catalan, and Portuguese. Such
forms include ‫ ביסו‬beso ‘lip’ (cf. Aragonese beizo ‘lip’ vs. Spanish beso ‘kiss’;
Spanish labio ‘lip’); ‫ פֿרונייה‬fronya ‘pillow case’ (cf. Portuguese and Galician
fronha vs. Spanish funda [de almohada]); and ‫ מישיליקאר‬meshelikar ‘to gossip,
tell secrets’ (cf. Portuguese mexericar vs. Spanish cotillear/chismear).
Note that some similarities between Judezmo and varieties of Ibero-
Romance other than Castilian may in fact be the result of parallel developments
rather than shared ones. For example, ‫ לונסו‬lonso ‘bear’ was created by metanal-
ysis of the definite article (cf. Old Spanish el onso ‘the bear’; Modern Spanish
el oso); Aragonese lonso may have developed independently from the same
metanalysis. Similar examples of metanalysis can be found in post-expulsion
Judezmo (e.g., ‫ ליבריק‬librik ‘ewer’ < Turkish ibrik), as well as in other varieties of
Ibero-Romance.
Finally, innovative lexemes created from the native Hispanic lexical stock
were coined in Judezmo, many as analogues for Hebrew and Aramaic lexemes
in sacred texts, some of which lacked counterparts in Castilian and other His-
panic languages. Examples are ‫ אבֿליזמו‬avlezmo ‘speech’, ‫ פרובֿיֿדיזמו‬proveḏezmo
‘providence’, ‫ נובֿייֿדאֿד‬novieḏaḏ ‘marriage’, and ‫ מימבראסייון‬membrasión ‘memo-
rial’.

3.5.2 Hebrew-Aramaic Component

To judge by some of the pre-expulsion texts, as well as texts meant for the
popular reader which were produced in the Ottoman Empire and Italy in
the 16th century, elements of Hebrew and Aramaic origin were probably used
quite liberally in the natural speech of the average Medieval Spanish Jew. (For
a historical introduction to the Hebrew and Aramaic elements used by the
Sephardim before and after the Expulsion, as well as for documentation of the
lexical items discussed in this section, see Bunis 1993a.)
Such elements were not likely to be understood if heard by a non-Jew.
But the mundane meanings carried by many of the Hebraisms found in the
pre-expulsion texts suggest that their use was probably more a habitual part of
everyday speaking and writing than a deliberate attempt to maintain a secret
code.
The writing of religious scholars was especially rich in elements belonging
to this category, but all genres of text and speech use some words of Hebrew-
Aramaic origin. Many such words found in pre-expulsion and 16th-century
texts were common nouns which can perhaps be subsumed under the category
of religious terminology, e.g., names of holidays and concepts relating to the
calendar like ‫ שבת‬shabaḏ ‘Sabbath’, ‫ פסח‬pésah ‘Passover’, and ‫ חול‬hol ‘interme-
diate days of a Jewish festival’; names of institutions like ‫ מדרש‬miḏrash ‘study
hall’ and ‫ בית דין‬be(ḏ) din ‘religious court’; religious practices, items, and con-
cepts, like ‫ תפילה‬tefilá ‘prayer’, ‫ מצוות‬misvoḏ ‘religious commandments’, ‫תענית‬
taní(ḏ) ‘fast’, ‫ עברה‬averá ‘sin’, ‫ צדיק‬sadik ‘righteous man’, ‫ צדקה‬seḏaká ‘charity’,
‫ יצר‬yéser ‘(esp. evil) impulse’, ‫ רשע‬rashá(h) ‘evil-doer’, and ‫ שופר‬shofar ‘cere-
monial ram’s horn’; vocabulary relating to biblical study and prayer like ‫פרשה‬
perashá ‘Bible portion’, ‫ פסוק‬pasuk ‘Bible verse’, and ‫ קדיש‬kadísh ‘memorial
prayer’; points of the compass like ‫ מזרח‬miz(d)rah ‘east’, ‫ מערב‬ma(a)rav ‘west’,
and ‫ צפון‬safón ‘north’; social and professional terminology like ‫ רבי‬rebí ‘Jew-
ish religious scholar’ and ‫ סופרים‬soferim ‘scribes’; the Messiah and afterlife,
e.g., ‫ משיח‬mashíah ‘Messiah’, ‫ גהינם‬geinam ‘hell’; and blessings added after the
names of the dead like ‫ עליו השלום‬alav ashalom ‘peace upon him’.
Some texts, such as personal correspondence, business contracts, commu-
nal regulations, and the women’s prayer books (Lazar 1995; Schwarzwald 2012)
include vocabulary of a more abstract nature, whose connection to Jewish
religious practice is more tenuous, e.g., nouns such as ‫ כלל‬kelal ‘rule, prin-
ciple’, ‫ מלכות‬malhuḏ ‘kingdom’, ‫ סבות‬siboḏ ‘reasons’, ‫ פרטים‬peratim ‘details’,
‫ הספקה‬aspaká ‘financial stipend’, ‫ שוחד‬shóhaḏ ‘bribe’; and adverbs such as
‫ אפילו‬afilú ‘even’ and ‫ בעולם‬baolam ‘(not) ever’. Certain borrowings acquired
more specialized semantic senses than their Hebrew etyma, e.g., ‫ קהל‬ka[a]l
‘synagogue’ (< Hebrew ‘(Jewish) congregation, community’), ‫ יחיד‬yahiḏ ‘lay

408 bunis
member of a congregation’ (< Hebrew ‘individual, singular member’), ‫היכל‬

ehal ‘synagogue ark in which Torah scrolls are kept’ (< Hebrew ‘palace; tem-
ple’).
Hebrew, rather than Ibero-Romance, was typically the preferred source of
masculine personal names, e.g., ‫ שם טוב‬Shem Tov, ‫ יום טוב‬Yom Tov, and ‫סימן טוב‬
Simán Tov, as well as many female names, e.g., ‫ שמחה‬Simhá and ‫ מזל טוב‬Mazal
Tov. Numerous family names were also of Hebrew origin, e.g., ‫ חסון‬Hasón, ‫ברוך‬
Baruh, and ‫ שלם‬Shalem. Many of the Hebrew-Aramaic lexical items used by the
Jews of medieval Iberia continued to play a vital role in Judezmo from the 16th
century into the modern period. The great majority of such elements that are
found in pre-expulsion Jewish Ibero-Romance texts are also documented for
the middle and modern phases of the language (Bunis 1993a). As the language
grew increasingly independent from Spanish, its Hebrew-Aramaic component
evolved quantitatively and qualitatively.
Already in the 16th century, Hebrew was also an important source of termi-
nology for emotive fields, such as expressions of psychological state, e.g., ‫צער‬
sáar ‘sorrow’; the loathsome, e.g., ‫ חזיר‬hazir ‘pig’, ‫ צואה‬soá ‘feces’; the ominous,
e.g., ‫ איל שטן‬el satán ‘the Devil’, ‫ בית החיים‬beḏ ahaim / beḏahé ‘cemetery’ (lit.
‘house of the living’); the ridiculed and taboo, e.g., ‫ חנף‬hanef ‘flatterer’, ‫רשע‬
rashá(h) ‘evil person’, ‫ זנות‬zenuḏ ‘prostitution’, and ‫ רמאי‬ramay ‘swindler’; other
religions or religious conversion, including ‫ גוי‬goy ‘Gentile (especially Muslim)’,
‫ גלחים‬galahim ‘Christian priests’, ‫ שמד‬shemaḏ ‘forced conversion’, and ‫משומדים‬
meshumaḏim ‘converts’. Also borrowed were some anatomical terms, e.g., ‫קנה‬
kané ‘windpipe’, ‫ ריאה‬reá ‘lung’, ‫ זרע‬zera ‘semen’; terms relating to medicine,
folk-healing, and the occult, e.g., ‫ רפואה‬refuá ‘medical remedy’, ‫ קמעה‬kemeá
‘amulet’, and ‫ שד‬sheḏ ‘evil spirit’; terms relating to family, e.g., ‫ דור‬dor ‘genera-
tion’, and ‫ משפחות‬mishpahoḏ ‘families’; commercial terminology, e.g., ‫ שכר‬sehar
‘wages’ and ‫ מעות‬maoḏ ‘coins, money’; and other abstract concepts, e.g., ‫עיקר‬
ikar ‘essential part’, ‫ רשות‬reshuḏ ‘permission’, ‫ תנאי‬tenáy ‘(on) condition’, and
‫ זמן‬zemán ‘time’.
The 16th-century texts reveal the distinctive vocalisms of some of their
Hebraisms still found in Judezmo today. Certain construct and plural forms
display a popular reduction in allomorphic variation, with stems lacking the
vowel shifts dictated by normative Hebrew, e.g., ‫ ָלשון הקודש‬lashón akóḏesh
‘Holy Tongue (i.e., Hebrew)’ (vs. Hebrew ‫ ְלשון הקודש‬lǝšon haq-qodeš), plural
‫ ָפסוקים‬pasukim ‘Bible verses’ (vs. Hebrew ‫ ְפסוקים‬pǝsuqim), and plural ‫ָכשרים‬
kasherim ‘fit for Jewish consumption’ (vs. Hebrew ‫ ְכשרים‬kǝšerim).
Borrowed Hebrew nouns sometimes occur with the native Judezmo plural
morpheme -(e)s, e.g., ‫ גארוניס‬garónes ‘throats’ (sg. ‫ גרון‬garón ‘throat’ < Hebrew
‫ גרון‬garon, pl. ‫ גרונות‬gǝronot). Conversely, one finds substantives not of Hebrew

origin sometimes paired with the Hebrew plural markers ‫ים‬- -im/-ín and ‫ות‬-
-oḏ, hinting at the deep-level merger of the language’s diverse components
by this period. Examples are ‫ ריפֿראנין‬refranín ‘proverbs’ (sg. ‫ ריפֿראן‬refrán; <
Spanish refrán). Finally, there are tautological plurals displaying suffixes of
both Hispanic and Hebrew origin, e.g., ‫ סיבֿארוֿדיס‬sevaroḏes ‘speculations’ (sg.
‫ סברה‬sevará; < Hebrew ‫ סברה‬sǝḇara, pl. ‫ סברות‬sǝḇarot), and rebisim ‘religious
elementary-school teachers’ (sg. ‫ רבי‬rebí; < Hebrew ‫ רבי‬rabbi/rebbi, pl. ‫רבנים‬
rabbanim).
Some nouns of Hebrew origin in Middle Judezmo displayed a gender diver-
gence from Hebrew, due to a tendency to assign feminine gender to substan-
tives ending in -a, e.g., ‫ לה שמע‬la shemá(h) ‘the Shema prayer’, and masculine
gender to those ending in a consonant, e.g., ‫ איל גלות‬el galuḏ ‘the exile’, ‫איל לשון‬
el lashón ‘the language’, and ‫ איל חצר‬el haser ‘the courtyard’.
Middle Judezmo sources are rich in analytic verbs incorporating an auxil-
iary and a Hebrew verbal participle. In Early Middle Judezmo, the participles
employed in such constructions agreed in number and gender with the sub-
ject; e.g., ‫ סון מתירים‬son matirim ‘they allow’ (< Spanish son ‘they are’ + Hebrew
m.pl. ‫ מתירים‬mattirim ‘are allowing’). From Late Middle Judezmo, probably
under the influence of Turkish analytic verbs with an invariant Arabic (m.sg.)
participle, the Hebrew participles used in such constructions tended to be
consistently masculine singular, showing no agreement with the subject, e.g.,
‫ סון מתיר‬son matir ‘they allow’. On these constructions, see further in Bunis
(2009).
Old Sephardic La‘az texts also contain synthetic verbs constructed of
Hebrew bases and Hispanic verbal morphology, e.g., ‫ אינחירימאר‬enheremar
‘to excommunicate’ (Hebrew ‫ חרם‬ḥerem ‘ban’ + Spanish verbalizing en- -ar),
‫ מאלשינאר‬malsinar ‘to inform against’ (Hebrew ‫ מלשין‬malšin ‘informs’ + Spanish
verbalizing -ar). In Early Middle Judezmo texts there was a rise in the number of
synthetic verbs, now including ‫ באֿדקאר‬baḏkar ‘to search, examine’ (< Hebrew
‫ בדק‬bdq ‘examine’), ‫ כשראר‬kaserar ‘to render fit for Jewish use’ (< Hebrew ‫כשר‬
kašer ‘ritually fit’), ‫ דארשאר‬darsar ‘to preach’ (< Hebrew ‫ דרש‬drš ‘preach’),
and ‫( )א(שוחאדיאר‬a)sohaḏear ‘to bribe’ (< ‫ שוחד‬shóhaḏ ‘bribe’). Documented
in Late Middle Judezmo are ‫ דיסחאמיסיאר‬des·hamesear ‘to get rid of leavened
food before Passover’ (< Spanish privative des- + Hebrew ‫ חמץ‬hamés ‘leavened
food’) and ‫( )א(חאמינאר‬a)haminar ‘to hardboil (esp. eggs in the Sabbath stew)’
(< Hebrew ‫ חמין‬hamín ‘Sabbath stew’).
Inflectional and derivational morphemes of Hispanic origin affixed to stems
of Hebrew origin also created fusion forms such as the plural noun ‫איסקאמאס‬
eskamás ‘rabbinical approbations’ (Hebrew ‫ הסכמה‬haskama + Spanish plu-
ral suffix -s), ‫ טריפֿאנו‬trefano ‘unfit for Jewish use’ (Hebrew ‫ טרפה‬ṭərep̄ a ‘non-

410 bunis
kosher food’ + Spanish adjectival suffix -ano), ‫ דיזמאזאלאֿדו‬dezmazalaḏo ‘luck-

less’ (Hebrew ‫ מזל‬mazzal ‘luck’ + Spanish privative adjectival affix des- -ado),
‫ גאוינטו‬gavento (later, ‫ גאבֿיינטו‬gaviento) ‘haughty’ (Hebrew ‫ גאוה‬gaʾawa ‘hau-
teur’ + Hispanic adjectival suffix -[i]ento), ‫ חאנינו‬hanino ‘graceful’ (< Hebrew
‫ חן‬ḥen ‘grace’ + Hispanic adjectival suffix -ino), ‫ ראחמאנוזו‬rahmanozo ‘mer-
ciful’ (Hebrew ‫ רחמן‬raḥman ‘merciful’ + Hispanic adjectival suffix -oso), and
‫ קאסיינטו‬kasiento ‘quick to anger’ (< Hebrew ‫ כעס‬kaʿas ‘anger’ + Hispanic adjec-
tival suffix -[i]ento). Occasionally, we find the opposite, that is, words with
a Hispanic lexical base and Hebrew derivational morphology, e.g., ‫חאראגאנוֿד‬
haraḡanuḏ ‘laziness’ (cf. Hispanic haragán ‘lazy’+ Hebrew abstracting ‫ות‬-
-ut).
Adverbs and adverbial phrases of Hebrew origin include ‫ ממש‬mamásh
‘really’, ‫ בין השמשות‬ben ashemashoḏ ‘at twilight’, and the innovative ‫מעלה מטה‬
ma(ḡ)la mata ‘approximately’ (in Hebrew lit. ‘upwards downwards’), perhaps a
calque of the synonymous Turkish aşağı yukarı (lit. ‘downwards upwards’). Bor-
rowed exclamations include ‫ חס ושלום‬has veshalom ‘Heaven forbid!’ and ‫בלא נדר‬
beló néḏer ‘without (committing oneself by making) a vow!’.
Late Middle Judezmo texts document a growing use of fusion nouns, exhibit-
ing Hebrew-origin stems and Hispanic-origin derivational suffixes, such as -isa,
indicating the wife of a male officiant, such as, e.g., ‫ רוביסה‬rubisa ‘rabbi’s wife’
(← ‫ רבי‬rubí ‘rabbi, scholar’, a variant of rebí); and the agentive suffixes -ḏor (f.
-ḏera) e.g., ‫ באֿדקאֿדור‬baḏkaḏor ‘ritual inspector (of cattle slaughtered for food)’
(← baḏkar ‘to examine’ < Hebrew ‫ בדק‬bdq), and ‫ טיבֿילאֿדירה‬tevilaḏera ‘woman
in charge of a (Jewish) ritual pool’ (← ‫ טבילה‬tevilá ‘ritual immersion’). Some
other derivational suffixes of Hispanic origin attracted to Hebrew-origin stems
are -ero, e.g., ‫ חאמינירו‬haminero ‘pot used for preparing the Sabbath stew’ (←
‫ חמין‬hamín ‘Sabbath stew’) and -ansa, e.g., ‫ חאבֿיראנסה‬haveransa ‘partnership’
(← ‫ חבר‬haver ‘partner, friend’).
Throughout the Middle Judezmo period, numerous Hebraisms alternated
with Hispanic near-synonyms, demonstrating that Hebraisms were not only
used when synonyms of other origins were unknown to speakers, but also
out of a desire specifically to use the Hebrew-origin terms. Such lexical vari-
ants included terms relating to Judaism, e.g., Hebrew-origin ‫ מצוה‬misvá vs.
Hispanic ‫ מאנדאֿדו‬mandaḏo (Modern Judezmo ‫ מאנדאמיינטו‬mandamiento) ‘reli-
gious commandment’, as well as more general terms, e.g., Hebrew ‫ אפילו‬afilú
vs. Hispanic ‫ אאון‬aún ‘even (if)’. Sometimes the word of Hebrew origin car-
ried a more specialized meaning, whereas the Hispanic equivalent was more
neutral, e.g., Hebrew ‫ כונה‬kavaná ‘religious intention’ vs. Hispanic ‫אינטינסיון‬
entinsión (Modern Judezmo ‫ אינטיסייון‬entisión) ‘(general or religious) inten-
tion’.

Numerous lexicalized neologisms arose, some originally citations from

sacred texts, e.g., ‫ מאשימיחה‬mashemeha ‘Ashkenazic Jew’ (< Hebrew ‫ מה שמך‬ma
šəmeḵa ‘what is your name?’ [found in Gen. 32.28]), and the derived sarcastic
adjective ‫ מאשימיחיסקו‬mashemehesko ‘Ashkenazi(c); Yiddish language’.
In the modern period, pressure from those who identified with the Jewish
Enlightenment movement to Europeanize or Romanize Judezmo led to the
replacement of many words of Hebrew-Aramaic origin. In an issue of his Istan-
bul Judezmo periodical El Djuḡetón from 1928, the humorist Eliá R. Karmona
published a list of lexical items that he argued were falling into disuse; with the
exception of two Balkanisms, all of the words were of Hebrew-Aramaic origin.
Some of these denoted religious practices evidently being neglected, e.g., ‫הבדלה‬
avdalá ‘ceremony marking the conclusion of the Sabbath’, ‫ נטילה‬netilá ‘ritual
hand-washing’, and ‫ טבילה‬tevilá ‘ritual immersion (esp. after menstruation)’.
Others on his list were ‫ ספק‬safek ‘doubt’, ‫ סך הכל‬sah akol ‘the sum total’, ‫ודאי‬
vadáy ‘certainly’, ‫ אפילו‬afilú ‘even’, and ‫ וכולי‬vehulé ‘et cetera’. Even Hebraisms
denoting concepts central to Judaism were often replaced by borrowings from
Italian and French; e.g., ‫ חכם‬haham > rabino ‘rabbi’ (< Italian rabbino), ‫ קהל‬kal
> sinagoga ‘synagogue’ (< Italian sinagoga), ‫ כולל‬kolel > komunitá ‘Jewish com-
munity (council)’ (< Italian comunità). In the early 20th century, journalists also
noted the growing preference for European and Turkish personal names over
the traditional Hebrew-origin ones, e.g., ‫ אברהם‬Avraam > Albert(o).
Moreover, the influence of Ashkenazi Hebrew teachers from Western Europe
and the Land of Israel led to the gradual replacement of traditional Whole and
Merged Hebrew phonology by what would become Modern Israeli phonology,
e.g., the realization of ‫ צ‬ṣadi as ts instead of s, and of syllable-final unpointed ‫ת‬
taw as [t] instead of [ð/θ]. The “civilization”, “Europeanization”, and Ashkenazi-
dominated Hebrew education to which Judezmo speakers were exposed during
the Modern phase dealt the language’s Hebrew-Aramaic component a blow
from which it seems unlikely to recover.
3.5.3 (Judeo-)Arabic Component

Another quantitatively and semantically significant source of borrowings in
the pre-expulsion Sephardic La‘az lexicon was Arabic, especially the Judeo-
Arabic which many Iberian Jews had spoken during the occupation of large
regions of Iberia by Muslims from North Africa beginning in 711 and ending,
in Granada, in 1492. The Ibero-Romance of Christian Spaniards under Muslim
domination underwent enrichment through borrowings from Arabic, too, and
many of the same Arabisms were incorporated in the Ibero-Romance adopted
or re-adopted by the Jews in areas re-taken by the Christians during the Recon-
quista (on the Arabic contribution to Castilian see Lapesa 1981: 129–156; Sola-
Solé 1983).

412 bunis
But medieval Sephardic La‘az also contained some Arabisms absent from,
or absorbed differently in, the language of Christian Spaniards. (For discussion
of the distinctive Arabic component of pre-expulsion Sephardic La‘az, see
Wagner 1920; Marcus 1962; Wexler 1996). For example, in Sephardic La‘az (as
still in Judezmo) the Jews called ‘Sunday’ ‫ אלחאד‬alhaḏ, from the North African
dialectal form of Arabic ‫ اﻻﺣﺪ‬al-ʾaḥad, literally meaning ‘the first (day)’, so as
to avoid using Castilian domingo (from Latin [dies] dominicus) meaning
‘[day of the] Lord’, which they correctly understood as a reference to Jesus
(cf. ‫ דיאה די אלחאד‬día de alhad in the 15th-century women’s siddur; Lazar 1995:
207). Alḥad was used to denote ‘Sunday’ among Spanish Muslims as well, out
of similar ideological motivations (Bunis 2015: 118).
Some of the loans from Arabic in pre-expulsion Sephardic La‘az included
lexemes which came to acquire a certain Jewish significance, e.g., ‫ טאליגה‬taleḡa
‘special bag in which prayer articles are held’ (< Arabic ‫ ﺗﻌﻠﯿﻘﺔ‬taʿlīqa ‘bag’), and
‫ זיארה‬ziara ‘ritual visit/pilgrimage to the burial places of major rabbis and
relatives before Jewish holidays and at other fixed times’ (< Arabic ‫ ز󰈍رة‬ziyāra
‘visit’).
Some Judezmo nouns contain the Arabic definite article -‫ ال‬al- and Hebrew
stems, which must be preservations in Sephardic La‘az from Jewish Ibero-
Arabic. Examples are (‫ אלבידי)ן‬albedí(n) ‘Jewish religious court’ (< Hebrew ‫בית‬
‫ דין‬bet din) and ‫ אלמדרש‬almiḏrás ‘Jewish study hall’ (< Hebrew ‫[ ]בית[ מדרש‬bet]
midraš).
Up to the modern era, the Sephardim of North Africa and the former Otto-
man regions continued to use numerous personal names of Arabic origin,
especially those used for women, e.g., ‫ ֿגאמילה‬Djamila (< Arabic 󰏨‫ ﲨﯿ‬jamīla
‘beautiful’) and ‫ סולטאנה‬Sultana (< Arabic ‫ ﺳﻮﻟﻄﺎﻧﺔ‬sulṭāna ‘sultaness’); and fam-
ily names, e.g., (‫ אלטאבי)בֿ‬Altabé[v] (< Arabic ‫ اﻟﻄﺒﯿﺐ‬al-ṭabīb ‘the physician’)
and ‫ חביב‬Habib (< Arabic ‫ ﺣﺒﯿﺐ‬ḥabīb ‘beloved’). We also find surnames derived
from Arabic forms of Iberian toponyms, not found among Christian speakers
of Ibero-Romance, such as ‫ סאראגוסי‬Saragosí (← Zaragoza) and ‫אלגראנ)א(טי‬
Algran(a)tí (← Granada). Moreover, to this day, the very word for ‘surname’ in
Judezmo is ‫ אלקונייה‬alkunya, from Arabic ‫ اﻟﻜﻨﯿﺔ‬al-kunya (in Arabic usually refer-
ring to a teknonym).
In Ḥaketía, local Arabic was the most fertile source of local borrowings,
although some Berber elements were incorporated as well. Borrowings from
Arabic included substantives for local flora and fauna (e.g., ‫ חלוף‬ḥalluf ‘pig’
< ‫ ﺣﻠﻮف‬ḥallūf ); vocations and professions (e.g., ‫ חדאם‬xaddam ‘laborer’ < ‫ﺧﺪام‬
xaddām); government and administration (e.g. ‫ חקאם‬ḥkam ‘authority’ < ‫ﺣﲂ‬
ḥakam); material culture and the arts (e.g., ‫ ֿגילאבייה‬jillabía ‘kind of long gar-
ment’ < ‫ ﺟﻼﺑﯿﺔ‬jalābīya; and ‫ עוד‬ʿud ‘kind of lute’ < ‫ ﻋﻮد‬ʿūd); the general surround-

ings (e.g., ‫ חארה‬ḥara ‘street; quarter’ < ‫ ﺣﺎرة‬ḥāra); and abstractions (e.g., ‫ פֿאל‬fal
‘luck’ < ‫ ﻓﺎٔل‬faʾl). Some Arabic roots were incorporated into the Ḥaketía verbal
system (e.g., ‫ קאריאר‬qarear ‘to read; pray’ < ‫ ﻗﺮٔا‬qrʾ).
In Judezmo, many words of ultimate Arabic origin were borrowed via Turk-
ish, in most cases probably with no awareness of this fact by speakers.
3.5.4 Turkish Component

From the beginnings of Sephardic settlement in the Ottoman Empire, intensive
interaction with neighbors speaking Turkish, Greek, South Slavic, and other
local languages led to substantial adaptation and borrowing, often resulting
in unique Jewish reflexes. The major donor language was Turkish, which was
the administrative language of the Ottoman Empire, the native language of
many residents of the cities in which Jews resided, and the principal language
of communication between the empire’s diverse ethnic groups.
As to be expected, most of the borrowings were substantives relating to
the local natural and cultural environment, e.g., ‫ בֿישנה‬vishna ‘morello cherry’
(< Turkish vişne) and ‫ חושאפ‬hoshap ‘fruit compote’ (< Turkish hoşaf ). How-
ever, other borrowings expressed more abstract concepts, relating, for exam-
ple, to behavior, thought, and emotion, e.g., ‫ שימאטה‬shematá ‘tumult’ (< Turk-
ish şemata), and (‫ זיפֿק)י‬zefk[e] ‘pleasure’ (< Turkish zevk). Some borrowings
expressed objects with which the Sephardim became familiar only after arriv-
ing in the empire, e.g., ‫ קאבֿי‬kavé ‘coffee’ (< Turkish kahve), and derived ‫קאבֿאני‬
kavané ‘coffee house’ (< Turkish kahvehane) and ‫ קאבֿיֿגי‬kavedjí ‘coffee-house
keeper’ (< Turkish kahveci). Other borrowings competed with, and in some
cases ultimately supplanted, lexemes of Hispanic origin that had been in use
in Spain, e.g., ‫ מיימון‬maimón/maimún ‘monkey’ (< Turkish maymun), replacing
earlier ‫ סימייה‬simia.
Adjectives borrowed from Turkish include ‫ קולאיי‬kolay ‘easy’ (< Turkish
kolay), ‫ זאבֿאלי‬zavalí ‘poor (thing)’ (< Turkish zavallı), ‫ מושטיריק‬mushterek
‘shared, common’ (< Turkish müşterek), and ‫ סאפֿי‬safí ‘pure, net’ (< Turkish safi).
Most adjectives of Turkish origin not exhibiting derivational suffixes did not
show overt gender distinction. For example, the aforementioned adjectives can
be both masculine and feminine.
Borrowings from other word classes include adverbs, e.g., ‫ קאסטין‬kasten
‘deliberately’ (< Turkish kasden); conjunctions, e.g., ‫ אנֿגאק‬andjak and ‫ אמה‬amá
‘but’ (< Turkish ancak and ama); exclamations, e.g., ‫ נה‬na! ‘here!’ (< Turkish
na), ‫ ברי‬bre! ‘come on!’ (< Turkish bire); and expletives, e.g., ‫ נאליט ֿגאנינה‬nalet
djaniná! ‘damn your soul!’ (< colloquial Turkish nalet canına).
Turkish material is also often integrated into Judezmo morphosyntactic
structure by means of Hispanic and, to a lesser extent, Hebrew derivational

414 bunis
morphemes. For example, the verb ‫ אימזאליאר‬emzalear ‘to sign (officially),

authorize in writing’ (< Turkish imzala- ‘signed’) and ‫ אינגליניארסי‬enḡlenearse
‘to enjoy oneself; pass time’ (< Turkish eğlen- ‘fun’) contain Turkish elements
with Hispanic verbal morphology.
Derived lexemes belonging to other grammatical categories were also cre-
ated through the use of native Judezmo derivational morphology, such as the
femininizing suffix -esa, e.g. ‫ נאזיריסה‬naziresa ‘female superintendent (e.g., of a
pious organization)’ (← ‫ נאזיר‬nazir ‘superintendent’ < Turkish nazır); agentive
-ero and -ḏor, e.g., ‫ חאראֿגירו‬haradjero ‘tax collector or payer’ (← ‫ חאראֿג‬haradj
‘tax’ < Turkish haraç); language-name denoting -esko, e.g., ‫ פֿילאחיסקו‬felahesko
‘language of peasant agriculturists’ (< Turkish fellah); and the abstract nominal
suffix -aḏa, e.g., ‫ טוייאקאֿדה‬toyakaḏa ‘cudgel blow’ (< Turkish toy[a]ka ‘cudgel’).
In addition to outright incorporations of etymologically Turkish lexemes,
Judezmo speakers also absorbed Turkish material in the form of calques, trans-
lating Turkish phrases using lexemes of Hispanic and Hebrew-Aramaic origin,
e.g., ‫ די קי‬de ke? ‘why’, lit. ‘from what?’ (cf. Turkish neden, lit. ‘from what?’ vs.
Spanish porqué, lit. ‘for what’); ‫ סובֿרי מי קאבֿיסה‬sovre mi kavesa ‘I swear’, lit.
‘upon my head’ (cf. Turkish başım üstüne, lit. ‘on my head’ vs. Spanish por
mi vida, lit. ‘for my life’); and ‫ פוקו מונֿגו‬poko muncho ‘more or less’, lit. ‘little
much’ (cf. Turkish az çok, lit. ‘little much’ vs. Spanish más o menos, lit. ‘more
or less’).
Some idioms were incorporated in partial or complete translation: e.g., ‫די טי‬
‫ אה מי נו איי טיקליף‬de ti a mi no ay teklif ‘there is no need for formality between
us’ (lit. ‘between you and me there is no formality’) (cf. Turkish aramızda teklif
yok, lit. ‘between you and me formality not’).
From the 16th-century onwards, everyday contact with Turkish in commer-
cial and social settings acquainted the Jews not only with individual words and
phrases, but also Turkish derivational morphemes. This acquaintance led to
the productive use of these bound morphemes with bases of non-Turkish ori-
gin in Judezmo. For example, the adjectivizing suffix -lí (< Turkish -li) was used
in the creation of hybrid adjectives like ‫ בֿיֿדרולי‬veḏrolí ‘greenish’ (← Judezmo
‫ בֿיֿדרי‬veḏre ‘green’; cf. Spanish verde), ‫ סיקאנאלי‬sekanalí ‘dangerous’ (← Judezmo
‫ סכנה‬sekaná ‘danger’ < Hebrew ‫ סכנה‬sakkana). Similarly, the profession- and
character-denoting suffix -djí (< Turkish -ci) served as the basis for lexemes
such as ‫ פיזמונֿגי‬pizmondjí ‘singer of religious hymns’ (← ‫ פזמון‬pizmón ‘hymn’
< Hebrew ‫ פזמון‬pizmon) and ‫ פלייטיֿגי‬pleytedjí ‘quarrelsome person’ (< Judezmo
‫ פלייטו‬pleito ‘quarrel’; cf. Spanish pleito). These suffixes also developed feminine
analogues such as -djía (with the Judezmo feminine singular suffix -a), e.g., f.
‫ קיראֿגיאה‬kiradjía ← ‫ קיראֿגי‬kiradjí ‘tenant’ (< Turkish kiracı) and ‫ אוטילֿגיאה‬otel-
djía ← oteldjí ‘hotelier’ (< Turkish otelci).

Especially when dealing with Muslims, Jewish men often used Turkish per-
sonal names instead of their birth names, the latter usually of Hebrew or
Hispanic origin, e.g., ‫ אסלאן‬Aslán (cf. Turkish aslan ‘lion’), corresponding to
Hebrew ‫ אריה‬Aryé ‘lion’ or ‫ יאודה‬Yeuḏá ‘Judah’ (associated with the lion) and
Hispanic León. Many Ottoman Sephardic women were given personal names
of Turkish origin at birth, which were used within and outside of the Jewish
community, e.g., ‫ זימבול‬Zimbul (cf. Turkish colloquial zümbül ‘hyacinth’). Terms
of Turkish origin such as ‫ ֿגיליבי‬chelebí (< Turkish çelebi ‘gentleman’) were used
as respectful forms of address for men, and also as proper names; ‫ בולה‬bula and
‫ בוליסה‬bulisa (cf. regional Turkish bula ‘elder sister’; the latter form shows the
Hispanic feminine suffix -isa) were used with equivalent meaning for women.
With the proclamation of the Turkish Republic in 1923 and the increasing
shift to Turkish among young Jews there, the vowels ı, ö, ü began to replace i,
(y)o, (y)u in Judezmo words of Turkish origin used in Turkey, so, for example,
earlier ‫ קייושי‬kyushé ‘corner’ (< Turkish köşe) came to be pronounced köshé.
State education in the Turkish Republic and in the other nation-states created
from parts of the Ottoman Empire and Austro-Hungary, and a rising sense
of urgency to master their official languages, led to increased local-language
borrowing throughout the region, and a more intensive bifurcation of Judezmo
into regional varieties which differed from one another more and more at all
linguistic levels.
3.5.5 Greek Component

Through interaction with their Jewish and Christian Greek-speaking neighbors,
Ottoman Sephardim incorporated elements from their language as well. A
few borrowings from Greek penetrated the language in all regions, including
culinary terms and other terms of material culture, e.g., ‫ פיטה‬pita ‘kind of
flat bread’ (< Greek πίτα), ‫ פֿילאס‬filas ‘phyllo (thin pastry) dough’ (< Greek
φύλλο, originally ‘leaf’), ‫ פירון‬pirón ‘fork’ (< Greek πιρούνι), ‫ פאנירי‬paneri ‘basket’
(< Greek πανέρι), and ‫ איסקולאריֿגה‬eskularecha ‘earring’ (< Greek σκουλαρίκι);
family relations, e.g., ‫ מאנה‬maná ‘mom’ (< Greek μάνα), ‫ פאפו‬papú ‘grandfather’
(< Greek παππούς), and ‫ בֿאבֿה‬vavá ‘grandmother’ (< Greek γιαγιά); architectural
terms, e.g., ‫ פאטימו‬pátimo and diminutive ‫ פאטימיקו‬patimiko ‘door step’ (<
Greek πάτημα); flora and fauna, e.g., ‫ טראנדאפֿילה‬trandafilá ‘rose’ (< Greek
τριαντάφυλλο); and emotive elements such as ‫ מאקארי‬makari/-e ‘if only’ (<
Greek μακάρι), ‫ פיזמה‬pizma ‘obstinacy; resentment’ (< Greek πείσμα ‘spite’), and
derived ‫ פיזמוזו‬pizmozo ‘resentful’ (with the Hispanic morpheme -oso).
Under influence of the Greek-speaking Romaniote Jewish community, some
masculine names attracted Greek-origin hypocoristic -achi (< Greek -άκι), e.g.,
‫ אבֿראמאֿגי‬Avramachi (← ‫ אברהם‬Avram), ‫ חיימאֿגי‬Haimachi (← ‫ חיים‬Haim), and

416 bunis
some feminine names attracted -ula (< Greek -ούλα), e.g., ‫ שרולה‬Sarula (← ‫שרה‬
Sará), ‫ שמחולה‬Simhula (← ‫ שמחה‬Simhá), and ‫ רוזולה‬Rozula (← ‫ רוזה‬Roza). On
analogy with the standard Judezmo suffixes -o (masculine) and -a (feminine),
Judezmo speakers also began to use innovative -ulo with certain masculine
names, e.g., ‫ שבתולו‬Shabatulo (given to a boy born on the Sabbath, < Hebrew
‫ שבת‬šabbat ‘Sabbath’); cf. the analogous feminine ‫ שבתולה‬Shabatula. Similarly,
Sephardi women were sometimes given Greek-origin personal names, e.g.,
‫ קאלומירה‬Kalomera (cf. Greek καλό μέρα ‘good day’).
3.5.6 South Slavic Component

Some South Slavisms have penetrated Judezmo, most likely via Turkish, e.g.,
‫ קלוֿג)ק(ה‬kloch(k)a ‘broody hen; incubator’ (< Bulgarian клочка kločka; Turk-
ish kuluçka). Elements borrowed into Judezmo directly from South Slavic were
primarily limited to the regions of direct contact between Judezmo and Slavic
speakers, such as ‫ פאנדורי‬panduri ‘guard’ (< Serbian пандур pandur ‘police-
man’) and ‫ בראנייאר‬braniar ‘to defend, guard oneself against’ (< Serbian бра-
нити braniti ‘to defend’).
17th-century responsa also document the use of hypocoristic suffixes derived
from South Slavic, e.g., -i/-e (cf. Serbian -e) in masculine ‫ מושי‬Mósi/-e (or Móshi/-
e) (← ‫ משה‬Moshé ‘Moses’); -u/-o (cf. Serbian -o) in ‫ ייאקו‬Yáku/-o (← ‫ יעקב‬Ya(a)kov
‘Jacob’); -a (Serbian -a) in feminine ‫ ריקה‬Ríka (← ‫ רבקה‬Rivká ‘Rebecca’).
3.5.7 Italian, French, and Spanish Influence

The influence of Italian and French on Judezmo in the 19th century was primar-
ily lexical, and it led to a massive relexification that continued into the contem-
porary language. Many terms were introduced in Šaʿare Mizraḥ (Izmir, 1845–
1846), the earliest Judezmo periodical that has survived. Italian and French
borrowings (it is not always possible to distinguish the source language) in
Šaʿare Mizraḥ often replaced earlier lexemes of local origin, and many are still
used today. These reflected spheres of influence such as the western educa-
tional system (e.g., ‫( )אי(סקולה‬e)skola ‘school’ < Italian scuola; ‫ קלאסה‬klasa
‘class’ < French classe or Italian classe), modern medical practice (e.g., ‫לאזאריטו‬
lazareto ‘sick room, hospital’ < Italian lazaretto), commercial activity (e.g.,
‫ איספורטאסייון‬esportasión ‘export’ < Italian esportazione; ‫ ריקולטה‬rekolta ‘crop;
profits’ < French récolte or Italian raccolta; ‫ ליבֿרה‬livra ‘pound’ < French livre [cf.
also Italian libbra]), law (e.g., ‫ דיריטו‬dirito ‘right’ < Italian diritto), and the com-
mercial adaptation of the Gregorian calendar (e.g, ‫ דיֿגימברי‬dichembre ‘Decem-
ber’ < Italian dicembre); but they also included more abstract elements such as
‫ בלו‬blu ‘blue’ (< Italian blu or French bleu, replacing earlier ‫ מאבֿי‬maví < Turkish
mavi), ‫ סוקסיס‬suksés ‘success’ (< French succés), and ‫ קורא ֿזי‬kuraje ‘courage’ (<

French courage). Non-substantive elements included ‫ קואלונקי‬kualunke ‘any’ (<

Italian qualunque), ‫ טאנטו‬tanto ‘so’ (< Italian tanto), ‫ מיזו‬mezo ‘by means of’ (<
Italian mezzo), ‫ ריאושיר‬reushir ‘to succeed’ (< Italian riuscire, French réussir),
‫ אינקורא ֿזאר‬enkurajar ‘to encourage’ (< French encourager), and ‫ קורא ֿזוזו‬kura-
jozo ‘courageous’ (< French courageux or Italian coraggioso).
As Italian and French borrowings became an integral part of the language,
they attracted native derivational morphology, e.g., diminutive ‫קומוניטאאיקה‬
komunitaíka ‘little community’ ← ‫ קומוניטה‬komunitá (< Italian comunità).
Although the language of a few individual writers exhibited obvious Span-
ish influence, Spanish—which, unlike French and Italian, enjoyed no special
importance in the Ottoman Empire—made little impact on the language of
the majority of Judezmo speakers until the early 20th century; two examples are
the use of ‫ בֿירדאֿד‬verdá(ḏ) ‘truth, true’ (cf. Spanish verdad) and ‫ סיאודאֿד‬siudaḏ
‘city’ (cf. Spanish ciudad), instead of traditional ‫ בֿיֿדראֿד‬veḏrá(ḏ) and ‫ סיבֿדאֿד‬siv-
daḏ. The rare Castilianism in Judezmo periodicals like Šaʿare Mizraḥ and later
texts was usually glossed by a Judezmo counterpart, e.g., ‫קומאדרי ֿזה … נוזוטרוס‬
‫ לו ייאמאנוס איריזו‬komadreja … nozotros lo yamanos erizo ‘[Spanish] comadreja
[‘weasel’] … we call it erizo’ (Šaʿaré Mizraḥ). But through some direct contact
with Spanish speakers and especially written Spanish, the years since World
War I have seen a few incorporations used by a small number of writers, such
as the use of ‫ אוסטיֿד‬usteḏ for the polite 2sg. pronoun and ‫ אאורה‬aora ‘now’
(instead of ‫ אגורה‬aḡora) ‘now’, even by avowed ‘anti-Castilianists’ like Ḥizqiyya
Franco (Bunis 2012b).
3.6 Dialects
Throughout the Ottoman Empire and North Africa, several discrete geograph-
ical dialect regions developed in the centuries following the expulsion from
Spain. The major divide was between Judezmo (mainly in the Ottoman Empire)
and the Ḥaketía (North African) dialects. Although, in both regions, writers
often attempted to use something approximating a supraregional literary style,
regional features can usually be discerned in all periods. Isoglosses or divergent
linguistic phenomena separating these two main regions include:
(1) Phonetic features such as the reflection of the medieval sequence fue as
fue or hue in the Ottoman Empire vs. fe in North Africa, e.g., Judezmo
‫אחואירה‬/‫ אפֿואירה‬afuera/ahuera vs. Ḥaketía ‫ אפֿירה‬afera ‘outside’, and the
preservation of the allophones [ʤ] and [ʒ] of the medieval Sephardic
La‘az Judezmo phoneme /ʤ/ as such in Judezmo (in the 16th century
they became distinct /ʤ/ and /ʒ/ phonemes) vs. their collapse as [ʒ] in
Ḥaketía, e.g., Judezmo ‫ ֿגוראר‬djurar, ‫ מו ֿזיר‬mujer vs. Ḥaketía ‫ ֿגוראר‬jurar ‘to
swear’, ‫ מוֿגיר‬mujer ‘woman’.

418 bunis
(2) Grammatical features such as the preference for -iko as the default dimin-
utive marker in Judezmo vs. widespread use of -ito (replacing earlier -iko)
in Ḥaketía.
(3) Semantic divergences in some of the shared vocabulary. For example, the
verb ‫ מילדאר‬meldar in Ḥaketía means only ‘to study or recite a religious
text’, while in Judezmo it is the general verb ‘to read’. In Ḥaketía ‫ֿגודיזמו‬
juḏezmo means ‘Judaism’, while in Judezmo, ‫ ֿגוֿדיזמו‬djuḏezmo is used both
in that sense and for the name of the language.
(4) A somewhat different realization of elements derived from Hebrew. For
example, in all of the Judezmo dialects except those of the Arab countries
of the Middle East, the Hebrew letter ‫ ח‬ḥet is pronounced [χ], identical
with ‫ כ‬ḵap̄ , and ‫ ע‬ʿayin has no overt realization in syllable initial position,
whereas in North Africa ḥet and ʿayin are realized as the pharyngeal frica-
tives [ḥ] and [ʿ], respectively, e.g., Judezmo ‫ חכם‬haham [χaˈχam] ‘Jewish
scholar’ and ‫ מערה‬meará ‘cave’ vs. Ḥaketía ḥaham [ḥaˈχam] and meʿará.
Similarly, Ḥaketía exhibits the collapse (under post-medieval Spanish
influence) of ‫ בּ‬bet and ‫ ב‬vet, both realized as either [b] or [β], accord-
ing to the phonological environment, as opposed to Judezmo [b] vs. [v],
e.g., Ḥaketía ‫ כתובה‬ketuβá ‘marriage contract’ vs. Judezmo ketubá.
(5) Different sources of loan material. Turkish contributed a large number of
loans to Judezmo in the Ottomon territories, with smaller numbers from
Greek and Slavic. In North Africa, local Arabic was the most influential
source of loans. Cf. Judezmo ‫ זארזאבֿאט‬zarzavá(t) ‘vegetables’ (< Turkish
zerzevat) vs. Ḥaketía ‫ כֿודרה‬xodra (< North African Arabic ‫ ﺧﺬرة‬xodra).
Both Judezmo and Ḥaketía can be further divided into subdialects. Judezmo
may be subdivided into two major geographic regions: Southeastern (Turkey,
eastern Bulgaria, and Italy) and Northwestern (Yugoslavia, Rumania, western
Bulgaria, and Austria) subdialects, while Thessalonika constitutes a transition
area, agreeing with the Southeastern dialects in some features, and with the
Northwestern dialects in others. Isoglosses dividing these subdialects include:
(1) Numerous phonetic features, such as the preservation of etymological

unstressed e and o in Southeastern vs. their raising to i and u in Northwest-
ern Judezmo, e.g., Southeast ‫ דיינטי‬diente ‘tooth’ and ‫ מאנו‬mano ‘hand’ vs.
Northwest ‫ דיינטי‬dienti and ‫ מאנו‬manu; the preservation of Latin f- as f-
in the Northwest, e.g., Northwest ‫ פֿיגאדו‬fígadu ‘liver’ vs. Southeast ‫איגאֿדו‬
íḡaḏo ‘liver’; the maintenance of the historical phonemes /d/ vs. /ð/ and
[g] vs. /γ/ in the Southeast versus their collapse as [d] and [g] respectively
in the Northwest, e.g., Southeast ‫ פאגאר‬paḡar [paˈγar] ‘to pay’ and ‫נאֿדאר‬

naḏar [naˈðar] ‘to swim’ vs. Northwest ‫[ פאגאר‬paˈgar], ‫[ נאדאר‬naˈdar]; the

preservation of -rd- in the Northwest vs. its metathesis as -ðr- in the South-
east, e.g., Northwest ‫ גוארדה‬guarda ‘watch!’ vs. Southeast ‫ גואֿדרה‬ḡuaḏra;
and a greater tendency toward other kinds of metathesis in the Northwest,
e.g., Northwest ‫ פאדיר‬pader ‘wall’ vs. Southeast ‫ פאריֿד‬pareḏ (cf. Spanish
pared).
(2) Distinct terms of Iberian origin, such as Southeastern ‫ קאלי‬kale ‘one must’
vs. Northwest ‫ פרימי‬premi; and borrowings from divergent local and inter-
national languages, namely Greek and French in the Southeast vs. Slavic
and German in the Northwest, e.g., Southeast ‫ שימין די פֿיר‬shemén de fer
‘railroad’ (< French chemin de fer) vs. Northwest ‫ אייזינבאן‬áizinban (< Ger-
man Eisenbahn).
(3) Distinct morphological and syntactic forms, such as the placement of
object and reflexive pronouns before an infinitive when they follow a
preposition in Thessalonika and its vicinity, e.g., ‫ פארה טי טופאר‬para te
topar ‘to find you’ vs. ‫ פארה טופארטי‬para toparte in Istanbul.
The Southeastern and Northwestern Ottoman dialects can themselves be

divided into smaller subdialects. For example, word-final etymological non-
stressed -a is pronounced as -e in the region of Bitola (in Macedonia), e.g. vizine
‘female neighbor’ (cf. ‫ בֿיזינה‬vizina elsewhere). The common word for ‘much’
is ‫ מונֿגו‬muncho in dialects centered around Istanbul, but ‫ מוֿגו‬mucho in those
centered around Thessalonika. For discussion of Judezmo dialects, see Quin-
tana (2006a); for Thessalonika, see Crews (1979a), Symeonidis (2002), and Soler
(2009); for Istanbul, Wagner (1914), Varol-Bornes (2008), and Romero (2012).
The major subdialects of Ḥaketía center around Tangier, Tétouan, and Alca-
zarquivir, which differ in features of their phonology and lexicon. For example,
word-final -s is preserved in Tangier, but lost in Tétouan; cf. Tangier ‫ פאאיס‬país,
Tétouan ‫ פאאי‬paí ‘country’. A ‘rolling pin’ for baking is called ‫ בֿה אי בֿין‬va i
ven in Alcazarquivir, but ‫ פֿוזלירו‬fuzlero in Tangier and Tétouan (Benoliel 1977:
61).
Emigration to new population centers such as Jerusalem, Vienna, New York,
and Paris in the late 19th and early 20th centuries brought Sephardim from
diverse dialect regions into close contact. As a result, new Sephardi koiné
varieties arose, combining features from several dialects. In New York, the
prevailing dialect most closely resembles the traditional Southeastern dialects;
the Jerusalem dialect, on the other hand, exhibits much in common with the
traditional Northwestern dialects.
In addition to its regional dialects, Judezmo also has distinct social-level
dialects or registers (corresponding to factors such as the age and gender group,

420 bunis
educational level and type, and political orientation of the speakers), and
spoken and written literary registers (relating to factors such as the subject
of discourse and language ideology of the speaker), all of which diverged over
time, as did the regional dialects. Illustrations of these registers will be found
in the sample texts in section 4 below.
4 Text Samples
4.1 Djuḏezmo de enlaḏinar (Sacred-Text Calque-Translation Judezmo)

Following is a translation of Genesis 12:1–7, as published in Yisraʾel Beḵar
Ḥayyim’s edition called ‫ספר ארבעה ועשרים … והוא חמשה חומשי תורה … ותרגום‬
‫ לאדינו‬Sep̄ er ʾArbaʿa Wǝ-ʿeśrim … wǝ-hu ḥamiša ḥumše tora … wǝ-targum ladino
(Vienna, 1813).
‫ אנדה אה טי די טו טיירה אי די טו נאסימיינטו אי די‬:‫( אי דיֿשו ה׳ אה אברם‬1) .‫יב‬

‫( אי אזיריטיאי פור ֿגינטי גראנדי‬2) .‫ אלה טיירה קי טי אמוסטרארי‬,‫קאזה די טו פאדרי‬
‫( אי בינדיזירי טוס‬3) .‫ אי סיי בינדיסייון‬,‫אי בינדיזירטיאי אי אינגראנדיסירי טו נומברי‬
‫ אי סיראן בינדיֿגוס קון טי טודוס לינא ֿזיס‬,‫בינדיזיינטיס אי טוס מאלדיזיינטיס מאלדיזירי‬
‫ אי‬,‫( אי אנדובֿו אברם קומו אבֿלו אה איל ה׳ אי אנדובֿו קון איל לוט‬4) .‫די לה טיירה‬
‫( אי טומו אברם‬5) .‫אברם די אידאד די סיטינטה אי סינקו אנייוס אין סו סאליר די חרן‬
‫ אי אה טודו סו גאנאנסייה קי גאנארון‬,‫אה שרי סו מו ֿזיר אי אה לוט אי ֿזו די סו אירמאנו‬
‫ אי סאליירון פור אנדאר אה טיירה די כנען אי בֿיניירון‬,‫אי אלה אלמה קי איזיירון אין חרן‬
‫( אי פאסו אברם אין לה טיירה אסטה לוגאר די שכם אסטה אינזינו‬6) .‫אה טיירה די כנען‬
‫( אי אפאריסייוסי ה׳ אה אברם אי‬7) .‫ אי איל כנעני איסטונסיס אין לה טיירה‬,‫די מורה‬
‫ אה טו סימין דארי אה לה טיירה לה איסטה; אי פֿראגואו אליי ארה פארה ה׳ איל‬,‫דיֿשו‬
.‫אפאריסיינסי אה איל‬
12. (1) I disho A[monay] a Avram: “Anda a ti de tu tiera i de tu nasimiento i de

kaza de tu paḏre, a-la tiera ke te amostraré. (2) I azerteé por djente ḡrande i
bendezirteé i enḡrandeseré tu nombre, i sey bendisión. (3) I bendeziré tus
bendizientes i tus maldizientes maldeziré, i serán bendichos kon ti toḏos
linajes de la tiera.” (4) I anduvo Avram komo avló a el A[monay] i anduvo
kon el Lot, i Avram de eḏaḏ de setenta i sinko anyos en su salir de Harán.
(5) I tomó Avram a Saráy su mujer i a Lot, ijo de su ermano, i a toḏo su
ḡanansia ke ḡanaron i a-la alma ke izieron en Harán, i salieron por andar
a tiera de Kenaan i vinieron a tiera de Kenaan. (6) I pasó Avram en la tiera
asta luḡar de Shehem asta Enzino de Moré, i el kenaaní estonses en la tiera.
(7) I aparesióse A[monay] a Avram i disho, “A tu semen daré a la tiera la
esta;” i fraḡuó ayí ara para A[monay] el aparesiénse a el.

12. (1) And the Lord said to Abram, “Go out of your country, and from your
birth[place], and from your father’s house, to the land that I will show
you. (2) And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and
make your name great; and be a blessing. (3) And I will bless those that
bless you, and those that curse you I will curse; and all the families of the
earth will be blessed with you.” (4) And Abram went, as the Lord had
spoken to him; and Lot went with him; and Abram was seventy-five years
old when he departed out of Haran. (5) And Abram took Sarai his wife, and
Lot his brother’s son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and
the souls that they had made in Haran; and they went out to go to the land
of Canaan; and they came to the land of Canaan. (6) And Abram passed
through the land up to the place of Shechem, until the terebinth of Moreh.
And the Canaanite was then in the land. (7) And the Lord appeared to
Abram, and said: “To your seed I will give this land;” and he built there an
altar to the Lord, who appeared unto him.
4.2 Djuḏezmo de hahamim (Rabbinical Judezmo)

This is a letter from Rabbi Yaʿaqoḇ Aḇigǝdor of Istanbul to his secretary,
Yǝḥezqel Gabbay, editor of the ‫ ֿגורנאל ישראלית‬Djornal Yisreeliḏ (Istanbul, 17 Jan-
uary, 1861), p. 1.
5621 ‫ שבט‬6 ‫קושטא‬

‫נוטה די לה קארטה קי מאנדה סו איקסילינסייה עט״ר הר׳ מוה״ר אביגדור איפֿינדי‬
:‫נר״ו אל גאזיטירו‬
,‫ סי׳ יחזקאל גבאי נר״ו‬,‫ מי סיקריטארייו‬,‫ידיד נפשי שאר בשרי חמדת לבי‬
‫ אפאריסיינדוסי גואיסטרו‬,‫אחרי השלום סיפאֿש מי קיריֿדו קי לה סימאנה פאסאֿדה‬
‫לוזייו ֿגורנאל אין איל קואל דאטיֿש אה אינטינדיר אה מואיסטרה נאסייון לה אמיסטאֿד‬
‫די מואיסטרו סולטאן יר״ה אה טוֿדוס לוס פואיבֿלוס קי טוֿדו סו פינסירייו איס אה‬
‫קי טינגאמוס אמור אונוס קון אוטרוס אפילו קי סיאה אוטרה אומה אי טראאיֿש‬
‫פור פריבֿה די מואיסטרה ליי סאנטה קי סומוס חייבים די טיניר אמיסטאֿד אונוס קון‬
‫״ אי דאֿש אבֿיזו קי איל אובֿליגו איסטה‬.‫אוטרוס וכמאמר הכתוב ״ואהבת לרעך כמוך‬
‫אין מואיסטרוס סינייוריס די אינֿגיר לוס אולייֿדוס דיל פואיבֿלו קומו מוס אובֿליגארון‬
‫ פור קי איסטו ייה איס סאבֿיֿדו‬,‫רבותינו ז״ל די טיניר אמיסטאֿד אה טוֿדאס לאס אומות‬
…
1 ,(1861 ‫ ֿגינאייו‬17 ,‫ ֿגורנאל ישראלית )קושטא‬,‫ר׳ יעקב אביגדור‬
Kosta 6 Shevat 5621

Nota de la karta ke manda su ekselensia, at[éreḏ] ro[shenu], ara[v],
mo[renu] a[rav] ri[bí] Aviḡeḏor efendi, na[tré] ra[hamaná] u[ farkí] al
gazetero:

422 bunis
Yeḏiḏ nafshí, shear besarí, hemdaḏ libí, mi sekretario, si[nyor] Yehezkel

Gabay, na[tré] ra[hamaná] u[ farkí],
Aharé ashalom, sepásh mi keriḏo, ke la semana pasaḏa, aparesiéndose
ḡuestro luzio djornal en el kual dátesh a entender a muestra nasión la
amistaḏ de muestro sultán, yaru[m] o[ḏó], a toḏos los puevlos, ke toḏo su
penserio es a ke tengamos amor unos kon otros, afilú ke sea otra umá, i
traésh por preva de muestra ley santa ke somos hayavim de tener amistaḏ
unos kon otros, vekamaamar akatuv, “Veaavtá lereahá kamoha.” I dash
avizo ke el ovliḡo está en muestros sinyores de inchir los oyiḏos del puevlo
komo mos ovliḡaron rabotenu, zi[hronam]li[vrahá], de tener amistaḏ a
toḏas las umoḏ, por ke esto ya es saviḏo …
Constantinople, 6 Shevat 5621 [= 17 January, 1861]

Copy of the letter which his excellency, the crown of our head, the
rabbi, our master, Rabbi Avigedor Effendi, may the Merciful One guard
him and deliver him, sends to the editor [of the Djornal Yisreeliḏ]:
Friend of my soul, my kinsman, delight of my heart, my secretary, Mr.
Yǝḥezqel Gabbay, may the Merciful One guard him and deliver him,
After greetings of peace, know my dear, that last week, with the appear-
ance of your illuminating periodical, in which you conveyed to our nation
the friendship of our exalted sultan toward all of the peoples [of the
Ottoman Empire], for all of his thoughts are aimed at our having love for
one another, even if the other belongs to a different nation, and you bring
as proof [of the validity of this desire the commandment] from our Torah
that we are obligated to be friendly with one another, and as the Torah
verse states, “And thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” And you inform
us that our [rabbinical] leaders are obligated to make the people hear how
our sages, of blessed memory, obligated us to be on friendly terms with all
of the nations, for this is well known …
4.3 Djuḏezmo kabá (Popular Judezmo)

Members of the first generations of Judezmo speakers educated in western-
style schools often ridiculed the traditional lifestyle and the institutions main-
tained by Judezmo speakers who had not accepted westernization. In the fol-
lowing fictional dialogue, a traditional elementary religious-school teacher and
his pupils are made to illustrate the kinds of absurd questions and answers
which secularized, western-oriented humorists imagined to constitute a typ-
ical lesson in such a school. It appeared in ‫ איל מיסיריט‬El Meseret 25/51 (Izmir,
1921), p. 8.

‫ דימאנדאס אי ריפואיסטאס‬:‫אינטרי חכם אי תלמידים‬

‫ פארה קואלו איס קי איזו איל דייו איל דיאה אי לה‬,‫ יצחקיטו‬,‫ דימי בֿירי‬:‫איל חכם‬
?‫נוֿגי? פארה קואלו סי קי ֿזו לה נוֿגי‬
.‫ פארה קי ביבֿה ראקי מי סינייור‬:‫איל תלמיד‬
?‫ פורקי לו קיטארון אה אדם הראשון די גן עדן‬,‫ יוספֿיקו‬,‫ דימי בֿירי‬:‫איל חכם‬
.‫ פורקי דיבֿיאה מונֿגה קיירה‬:‫איל תלמיד‬
‫ פורקי ראזון סי ליבֿאנטו אברהם אבינו דימאנייאניקה‬,‫ רוביניקו‬,‫ דימי בֿירי‬:‫איל חכם‬
?‫אי סי פֿואי קון יצחק‬
.‫ פארה נו דיזיר תפילה‬:‫איל תלמיד‬
‫ פורקי סי אראבֿייו יעקב אבינו קון לוס אי ֿזוס קואנדו לי‬,‫ בכוריקו‬,‫ דימי בֿירי‬:‫איל חכם‬
?‫דישירון קי לו בֿינדיירון אה יוסף‬
.‫ פורקי לו בֿינדיירון מויי באראטו‬:‫איל תלמיד‬
‫ טו דימאנדאס‬,‫ קואנדו אזיס אוראסייון‬,‫ פורקי ראזון‬,‫ אבֿראמיקו‬,‫ דימי בֿירי‬:‫איל חכם‬
?‫דיל דייו דיאה די קאֿדה דיאה פורקי טי די סולו איל פאן די אקיל דיאה‬
… ‫ פורקי סי אזי באייאט‬:‫איל תלמיד‬
.‫ אפֿירין; איינאראח קי נו בֿוס קאייגה‬,‫ בראבֿו אי ֿזו; בראבֿו מיס אי ֿזוס‬:‫איל חכם‬
‫פו ֿזאֿדה אי ]נו[ אמינגואדה איסטה סינסייה בֿואיסטרה אין בֿיֿדה די פאֿדרי אי‬
.‫מאֿדרי‬
Entre haham i talmiḏim: Demandas i repuestas

El haham: “Dime veré, Is·hakito, para kualo es ke izo el Dio el día i la
noche? Para kualo se kijo la noche?”
El talmiḏ: “Para ke beva rakí mi sinyor.”
El haham: “Dime veré, Yusefiko, porké lo kitaron a Aḏam Arishón de Gan
Eḏen?”
El talmiḏ: “Porke devía muncha kyirá.”
El haham: “Dime veré, Rubeniko, porké razón se levantó Avram Avinu
demanyanika i se fue kon Is·hak?”
El talmiḏ: “Para no dezir tefilá.”
El haham: “Dime veré, Bohoriko, porké se aravió Yakov Avinu kon los ijos
kuando le disheron ke lo vendieron a Yusef?”
El talmiḏ: “Porke lo vendieron muy barato.”
El haham: “Dime veré, Avramiko, porké razón, kuando azes orasión, tu
demandas del Dio día de kaḏa día porke te de solo el pan de akel día?”
El talmiḏ: “Porke se aze bayat …”
El haham: “Bravo, ijo; bravo, mis ijos, aferín; ainarah ke no vos kaiḡa.
Pujaḏa i [no] amenguaḏa esta sensia vuestra en viḏa de paḏre i
maḏre.”

424 bunis
Between teacher and pupils [in the religious elementary school]:

Questions and answers
Teacher: “Tell me, let’s see, Is·hakito, why is it that God made the day
and the night? Why was the night needed?”
Pupil: “So that my father could drink arak.”
Teacher: “Tell me, let’s see, Yusefiko, why did they drive Adam the First
Man out of the Garden of Eden?”
Pupil: “Because he owed a lot of back rent.”
Teacher: “Tell me, let’s see, Rubeniko, why did Abraham our Forefather
get up in the wee hours of the morning and go off with Isaac?”
Pupil: “So they wouldn’t have to say the morning prayers.”
Teacher: “Tell me, let’s see, Bohoriko, why did Jacob our Forefather get
angry at his sons when they told him they’d sold Joseph?”
Pupil: “Because they sold him very cheap.”
Teacher: “Tell me, let’s see, Avramiko, for what reason, when you pray, do
you ask God each day to give you only the bread of that day?”
Pupil: “Because otherwise it gets stale …”
Teacher: “Bravo, my boy; bravo, my boys, congratulations! May no evil
eye befall you! May this wisdom of yours always increase and never
decrease during the lifetime of your fathers and mothers!”
4.4 Djuḏezmo frankeaḏo (Western Europeanized Judezmo)

The rise of the linguistically innovative Judezmo press at the middle of the 19th
century was accompanied by a heightened linguistic self-consciousness. One of
its manifestations was a preoccupation with the etymologies of characteristic
Judezmo words and expressions and speculations concerning the contexts
in which they arose. The following text focuses on one such expression. It
appeared in ‫ איל אינסטרוקטור‬El Enstruktor 1/18 (Istanbul, 9 August, 1888), p. 171.
‫איסטאר אין סוס טריֿגי‬

‫ ״איסטה‬:‫ דיזין‬,‫ אין סוס דימאנדאס‬,‫פור דיזיר קי אונה פירסונה פירסיסטי אין סו אידיאה‬
‫״ נו איס סולאמינטי אונדי לוס ֿגוֿדייוס איספאנייוליס קי אימפליאן איסטי‬.‫אין סוס טריֿגי‬
‫ אונדי לוס אלמאנוס‬,‫ מה טאמביין אין לוס קריסטייאנוס דילה איאורופה‬,‫אדאֿגייו‬
.‫פארטיקולארמינטי‬
‫אונו די נואיסטרוס אמיגוס טופו אין און ליבֿרו אלמאנו לה איקספליקאסייון די‬
‫ סומיטיאן אלאס‬.‫ אילייה סיריאה דיל טיימפו דילה אינקואיזיסייון‬.‫איסטה פֿראזי‬
.‫טורטוראס לה פירסונה קי קיריאן אזיר קונבֿירטיר פור פֿואירסה אל קריסטייאניסמו‬
,‫מונֿגוס די נואיסטרוס קוריליֿגייונארייוס קאאיאן אין פוֿדיר די איסטוס פֿאנאטיקוס‬
‫קי לוס אזיאן סופֿריר מיל טורטוראס פור פֿורסארלוס אה אב ֿזוראר סוס ריליֿגייון אי‬
‫ לוס ֿגוֿדייוס‬,‫ מאלגראדו סוס אטרוסיס סופֿרימיינטוס‬.‫אבראסאר איל קריסטייאניסמו‬

‫אנסי טורטוראֿדוס פירסיסטיאן אין סוס ריפֿוזו די קונבֿירטירסין אי דיקלאראבֿאן‬

.([‫קריאיר אלוס טריֿגי ארטיקולוס דילה פֿיי ֿגוֿדיאה )לוס טריֿגי עיקרים ]די הרמב״ם‬
‫ ״איל איסטה אין סיס טריֿגי״ אי קי אירה מיניסטיר‬:‫לוס אינקואיזיטוריס דיזיאן אלורה‬
.‫די אזירלו סופֿריר מאס‬
‫איס די אינטונסיס קי ריסטו איסטה פֿראזי פור איקספרימיר לה אופינייאטריֿדאֿד‬
.‫)אינאד( די אונה פירסונה קי פירסיסטי אין סוס אידיאס‬
Está en sus tredje

Por dezir ke una persona persiste en su idea, en sus demandas, dizen: “Está
en sus tredje.” No es solamente onde los djuḏiós espanyoles ke emplean
este adadjio, ma también en los kristianos dela Europa, onde los almanos
partikolarmente.
Uno de nuestros amiḡos topó en un livro almano la eksplikasión de esta
fraze. Eya sería del tiempo dela Enkuizisión. Sometían alas torturas la per-
sona ke kerían azer konvertir por fuersa al kristianismo. Munchos de nue-
stros korelidjionarios kaían en poḏer de estos fanátikos, ke los azían sufrir
mil torturas por forsarlos a abjurar sus relidjión i abrasar el kristianismo.
Malḡraḏo sus atroses sufrimientos, los djuḏiós ansí torturaḏos persistían en
sus refuzo de konvertirsen i deklaravan kreer alos tredje artíkolos dela fey
djuḏía (los Tredje Ikarim [de Arambam]). Los enkuizitores dezían alora: “El
está en sus tredje” i ke era menester de azerlo sufrir mas.
Es de entonses ke restó esta fraze por eksprimir la opinyatreḏaḏ (inad) de
una persona ke persiste en sus ideas.
He’s keeping to his thirteen

To say that a person persists in maintaining his idea, or his demands, they
say: “He’s keeping to his thirteen.” It is not only among the Spanish Jews
that they use this adage, but also among the Christians of Europe, and par-
ticularly among the Germans. One of our friends found the explanantion
for this phrase in a German book.
It would seem to be from the time of the Inquisition. They used to
subject to torture a [Jewish] person whom they wanted to convert by
force to Christianity. Many of our co-religionists used to fall into the
hands of these fanatics, who made them suffer a thousand tortures to
force them to abjure their religion and embrace Christianity. Despite their
atrocious suffering, the Jews thus tortured persisted in their refusal to
convert and declared their belief in the thirteen articles of the Jewish faith
(the Thirteen Principles of Faith [of Maimonides]). The Inquisitors then
said, “He’s keeping to his thirteen”, and that it was necessary to make him
suffer more.

426 bunis
It is from then that this phrase has remained to express the implaca-
bility (stubbornness) of a person who persists in his ideas.
5 Further Study
Judezmo language and literature have drawn the attention of scholars since
the late 19th century, with the result that there is an extensive research litera-
ture on these subjects. Studemund (1975), Sala (1976), and Bunis (1981) provide
bibliographical details through their years of publication; subsequent updates
have appeared in various sources, such as the MLA International Bibliography
and as the journal Sefarad. Schwarzwald (2002) offered a précis of the develop-
ment of the field. A useful bibliography of Sephardi studies, including Judezmo
language, linguistics, and literature, can be found at www.proyectos.cchs.csic
.es/sefardiweb/bibliografiasefardi/. Due to space limitations, only some of the
major contributions in areas likely to be of interest to those wishing to deepen
their knowledge of Judezmo will be noted here.
5.1 Introductions to the Language

Book-length overviews of the language have been made by Marcus (1965),
Renard (1966), Sephiha (1986), Harris (1994), and Gabinskij (2011). Significant
article-length sketches include Lazar (1971), Bunis (1992), Hassán (1994), Lleal
(2004), and Schmid (2006).
5.2 Textbooks and Grammars

Bunis (1975b) provides an introduction to Judezmo text reading in the Square,
Rashi, Soletreo, and Latin-letter writing systems. Bunis (1999b) is a university-
level textbook of Ottoman Judezmo in the Hebrew alphabet, focusing on texts
from diverse sources by native writers. Academic textbooks of contemporary
Judezmo in the Latin alphabet include Varol (1998), Koén-Sarano (1999a,
1999b), Hetzer (2001), and Markova (2008). Marín Ramos (2014) provides a suc-
cinct grammar. Overviews of grammar are also provided in the major descrip-
tions of regional dialects, such as those focusing on Istanbul, e.g., Wagner
(1914) and Varol-Bornes (2008); Bosnia, e.g., Baruch (1930) and Romano (1933);
Bitola (formerly, Monastir), e.g., Luria (1930); Izmir, e.g., Lida (1952); Kastoria,
e.g., Zacharia (1958); Sofia, e.g., Kunchev (1974); and Thessalonika, e.g., Crews
(1979a), Symeonidis (2002), and Soler (2009). Regional variation in grammar
and lexicon receive detailed synchronic and diachronic treatment in Quintana
(2006a).

5.3 Dictionaries and Lexicography

From the late 19th century, native speakers began to publish brief, practical
bilingual dictionaries meant to introduce Judezmo speakers to foreign lan-
guages. For example, Cherezli (1899) provided French glosses of Judezmo lex-
emes for pupils of the Alliance Israélite Universelle schools; Mefanov (1896)
and Pipano (1913) introduced pupils to Bulgarian (on this work see Mancheva
2009); and Moše (1934) introduced Modern Hebrew to Sephardim planning to
immigrate to the Land of Israel. From the 1930s, academically-oriented dictio-
naries began to provide coverage mostly of a particular regional dialect; for
Bosnia, see Romano (1933); for Thessalonika, Nehama (1977); for Sofia, Moskona
(1985, 1987, 1988, 1991, 1995); for Izmir, Koen-Sarano (2009); for Istanbul, Per-
ahya and Perahya (1998) and Perahya (2012). The most significant dictionary of
Ḥaketía is Bendayan de Bendelac (1995), mostly derived from Benoliel (1977).
The treatments of the regional and stylistic varieties of the language gen-
erally include discussion of the component structure, especially the Ibero-
Romance component. There are also individual treatments of the non-
Hispanic components, including the Hebrew-Aramaic component, e.g., Molho
(1948), Crews (1962), Bunis (1981, 1993a [providing extensive coverage of the
Hebrew-Aramaic component of Modern Judezmo, with full documentation of
sources], 1997b, 1999c, 2005c, 2006–2007, 2009, 2013e, 2013f), Benveniste (1984),
Schwarzwald (1985, 2008 [cataloguing the lexicon of Judezmo calque trans-
lations of the Passover Haggadot); and elements derived from Turkish, e.g.,
Danon (1903–1904), Varol-Bornes (1996), Bunis (2008c); and Greek, e.g., Danon
(1922); South Slavic, e.g., Stankiewicz (1964), Bunis (2001), Papo (2007a), and
Mancheva (2008).
Bunis (2013a) analyzed the incorporation of linguistic terminology in the
Judezmo press. Perez and Pimienta (2007) provide extensive lexical coverage
(with Hebrew glosses), deriving from research lexicons and primary data culled
from Modern Judezmo sources representing various dialects and literary styles,
but without documentation of the sources. Lexicographic materials developed
by Cynthia M. Crews constitute part of the database of the Corpus Histó-
rico Judeoespañol (CSIC CORHIJE), available online (161.111.47.143/corhije/),
directed by Aitor García Moreno at the Consejo Superior de Investigaciones
Científicas of Madrid. The conference proceedings published by Busse and
Studemund-Halevy (2011) include diverse studies of Judezmo lexicon and lexi-
cography.
5.4 Stylistic Variation

The language and particularly the syntax and lexicon of the archaizing, highly
literal calque translations of Hebrew-Aramaic sacred texts have been stud-

428 bunis
ied in considerable detail; classic full-length examples are Sephiha (1973) and
Schwarzwald (1989, 2008a); Bunis (1996a) summarizes the salient features of
the translation language. Studies of the Europeanized language of the press
include Sephiha (1976), Bunis (1993b), and García Moreno (2013a). García
Moreno (2004) analyzed features of the language of rabbinical Judezmo in the
18th century. Bunis (1982, 2012c) dealt with social-level and other types of vari-
ation in Judezmo as reflected in journalistic representations; Bunis (2013g) ana-
lyzed characteristics of ‘Jewish’ style; and Bunis and Adar-Bunis (2011) described
representations of spoken Judezmo in written texts from the 18th century.
5.5 History of the Language

Attempts to demarcate and describe the historical phases of the language in its
entirety include those by Révah (1961), Bunis (1992, 1996b, 2013h), and Minervini
(2006). Treatments of what might be termed the popular ‘Judezmist movement’
include Bunis (2010b, 2011a, 2011f, 2012b) and Bürki (2010).
5.6 Texts and their Linguistic and Literary Analysis

Samples of the diverse historical and stylistic varieties of Judezmo, often
accompanied by linguistic or literary analysis, are offered in many publications,
including the anthologies by Grünbaum (1896), Molho (1960), Lazar (1999a),
and Studemund-Halévy (2003). There are also book-length collections illus-
trating the language of texts from particular periods or places, or in diverse
stylistic genres. For example, Moreno-Koch (1978) and Minervini (1992) focus
on the pre-expulsion language; Sephiha (1973) and Lazar (1988, 1992, 2000a)
present and analyze biblical texts; Schwarzwald (1989) illustrates the language
of Passover Haggadot; and Lazar (1993a, 1995a, 1995b) and Schwarzwald (2012)
illustrate early prayer books for women. Romeu (1998, 2007) presents a travel
journal and an anti-Christian tract from the 16th century; Benaim (2011) col-
lects Judezmo passages in rabbinical responsa; and Díaz Mas (1994) and Díaz
Mas and Sánchez Pérez (2013) assemble poetic texts. Attias and Scholem (1947)
collect Judezmo songs of the followers of Shabbetai Zvi, while Wagner (1914),
Luria (1930), and Crews (1935) illustrate the language of popular speech based
on work with informants. Romero (1979, 1991, 2003, 2008b) discusses the lan-
guage of dramatic works; Romero (1991, 2003) illustrate the language of rhymed
couplets; and Bunis (1999a) and Sánchez Pérez (2014) illustrate the language of
the folk press of Thessalonika. See García Moreno (2004) on an 18th-century
volume of the Me-ʿam Loʿez; see García Moreno (2013a) and Šmid (2012) on a
19th-century rabbinical text. Barquín López (1997), Von Schmädel (2007), and
García Moreno (2013a) discuss the language of novels, while Papo (2012) dis-
cusses the language of satirical Haggadot. Rodrigue, Stein, and Jerusalmi (2012)

reproduce and analyze the memoirs of the Thessalonica Judezmo journalist

and poet Saʿadi Ha-Levi Aškǝnazi. Rieder-Zelenko (2013) focuses on the lan-
guage of newspaper reportage. See Lévy (1989) for a collection of Judezmo
poetry from the Holocaust. Lazar (1990a, 1999b, 1993b, 1998, 2000b) and Romero
(1998, 2001, 2008a, 2008b, 2009) present texts representing the language of
diverse types of writing in Hebrew-letter sources. Martínez Ruiz (1963) presents
texts collected from native speakers of Ḥaketía; Lévy (1992) offers a literary
reconstruction of modern Ḥaketía; and Pimienta and Pimienta (2010) repro-
duce and analyze a 19th-century Hebrew-letter vernacular minute book from
Tangier.
Significant bibliographies of Judezmo publications, mostly in the Hebrew
alphabet, include Yaari (1934, 1967), Besso (1963), Gaon (1965, on the Judezmo
press), Studemund-Halévy and Collin (2007), and the online Bibliography of
the Hebrew Book (available through web.nli.org.il/sites/NLI/English). There are
also extensive collections of folk texts illustrating genres such as the proverb,
e.g., Saporta y Beja (1957), Kolonomos (1978), Moskona (1981), and Alexander-
Frizer and Bentolila (2008); the folktale, story, and legend, e.g., Moskona (1985a)
and Koen-Sarano (1986, 1994); the ballad, e.g., Attias (1961) and Armistead and
Silverman (1971a); the folksong, e.g., Attias (1972) and Hemsi (1995). Collections
representing sung genres, several accompanied by sound recordings, were pub-
lished by Weich-Shahak (2001, 2006, 2010, 2012, 2013).
5.7 Online Resources

A range of digitized Judezmo texts, including written texts printed in Hebrew,
Latin, or Cyrillic characters, and Romanized transcriptions of materials col-
lected from the oral tradition, as well as some sound recordings of Judezmo
speech and song, can be found online. The Autoridad Nasionala del Ladino i su
Kultura site (www.ladino-authority.com) contains a wide variety of Judezmo
materials, including issues of the periodical Aki Yerushalayim. For the lat-
ter, see also www.aki-yerushalayim.co.il/ay/. Folk Literature of the Sephardic
Jews (www.sephardifolklit.org/flsj/OLSJ), created by the late Samuel G. Armis-
tead, contains numerous resources on Judezmo ballads and other oral liter-
ature. The National Sound Archives of the Jewish National and University
Library, Jerusalem (jnul.huji.ac.il/eng/music.html) has a collection of Judezmo
songs, which is mostly the work of Susana Weich-Shahak. PHP-KWIC de tek-
stos en Djudeo-Espanyol (lingua2.cc.sophia.ac.jp/diksionaryo-LK/kwic/), man-
aged by Antonio Ruiz Tinoco, contains diverse Judezmo texts in Romanization.
The Sephardi Studies Project (web.stanford.edu/group/mediterranean/seph
_project/jerusalmi_texts.html), managed by Isaac Jerusalmi, contains a num-
ber of Judezmo texts from different genres. The Institut Sépharade Européen

430 bunis
(www.sefarad.org) contains various resources on Sephardi culture. Osmanlı-

Türk Sefarad Kültürü Araştırma Merkezi (www.istanbulsephardiccenter.com),
managed by Karen Gerşon Şarhon, contains various resources including issues
of the periodical El Amaneser; for the latter see also sephardiccenter.wordpress
.com/el-ameneser/. Collections de Corpus Oraux Numériques (Cocoon)
(cocoon.huma-num.fr/exist/crdo/meta/crdo-COLLECTION_JSFA), the Judez-
mo section of which is managed by Pandelis Mavrogianni, contains record-
ings by Judezmo speakers on various topics. There is also an online Judezmo
community group, called Ladino-komunita (groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/
Ladinokomunita/info). Contemporary Judezmo materials in the Hebrew
alphabet are uploaded regularly to Ladino: Language and Culture (www.ladino
.org.il); a Romanized version of the site can be found at www.myladino.com.
Digitized historical publications in Hebrew-letter Judezmo, mostly of religious
orientation, are also to be found on the Society for Preservation of Hebrew
Books site (www.hebrewbooks.org). Present-day texts in Romanized Ḥaketía
are included in the site Voces de Haquetía (www.vocesdehaquetia.com), man-
aged by Alicia Sisso Raz.
6 Bibliography
Alexander-Frizer, Tamar. 2008. The Heart is a Mirror: The Sephardic Folktale. Detroit:
Wayne State University Press.
Alexander-Frizer, Tamar, and Yaacov Bentolila. 2008. La palabra en su hora es oro: El
refrán judeo-español del Norte de Marruecos. Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute.
Almosino, Moses ben Baruch. 1998. Crónica de los Reyes Otomanos. Ed. Pilar Romeu
Ferré. Barcelona: Tirocinio.
Altabev Mary. 2003. Judeo-Spanish in the Turkish Social Context: Language Death, Swan
Song, Revival or New Arrival? Istanbul: Isis.
Armistead, Samuel G., and Joseph H. Silverman. 1971a. The Judeo-Spanish Ballad Chap-
books of Yacob Abraham Yoná. Berkeley: University of California Press.
. 1971b. Judeo-Spanish Ballads from Bosnia. Philadelphia: University of Pennsyl-
vania Press.
. 1979. Tres calas en el romancero sefardí (Rodas, Jerusalén, Estados Unidos).
Madrid: Castalia.
. 1986. Judeo-Spanish Ballads from Oral Tradition. I. Epic Ballads. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
. 1994. Judeo-Spanish Ballads from Oral Tradition. II. Carolingian Ballads (1):
Roncesvalles. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Armistead, Samuel G., Joseph H. Silverman, and I.M. Hassán. 1981. Seis romancerillos de
cordel sefardíes. Madrid: Castalia.

Armistead, Samuel G., Joseph H. Silverman, and Israel J. Katz. 2005. Judeo-Spanish
Ballads from Oral Tradition. IV. Carolingian Ballads (3): Gaiferos. Newark, DE: Juan
de la Cuesta.
. 2008. Judeo-Spanish Ballads from Oral Tradition. III. Carolingian Ballads (2):
Conde Claros. Newark, DE: Juan de la Cuesta.
Arnold, Rafael. 2006. Spracharkaden: Die Sprache der sephardischen Juden in Italien im
16. und 17. Jahrhundert. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Winter.
Attias, Moshe. 1961. Romancero sefaradi. Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute.
. 1972. Cancionero sefaradi. Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute.
Attias, Moshe, and Gershom Scholem. 1947. ‫[ ספר שירות ותשבחות של השבתאים‬The Book
of Poems and Praises of the Sabbateans]. Tel Aviv: Dvir.
Barquín López, Amelia 1997. Edición y estudio de doce novelas aljamiadas sefardíes de
principios del siglo XX. Bilbao: Universidad del País Vasco.
Baruch, Kalmi. 1930. El judeo-español de Bosnia. Revista de filología española 17:113–
154.
Benaim, Annette. 2011. 16th-Century Judeo-Spanish Testimonies. Leiden: Brill.
Benardete, M.J. 1953. Hispanic Culture and Character of the Sephardic Jews. New York:
Hispanic Institute in the United States.
Benchimol, Maymon, and Matilda Koén-Sarano. 1999. Vokabulario Djudeo-Espanyol
(Ladino)—Ebreo, Ebreo—Djudeo-Espanyol (Ladino). Beersheba: Merkaz Eliachar,
Ben-Gurion University.
Bendayan de Bendelac, Alegría. 1995. Diccionario del judeoespañol de los sefardíes del
Norte de Marruecos. Caracas: Centro de Estudios Sefardíes de Caracas.
Ben Naeh, Yaron. 2001. Hebrew Printing Houses in the Ottoman Empire. In Jewish
Journalism and Printing Houses in the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, ed. Gad
Nassi, pp. 73–96. Istanbul: Isis.
Benoliel, José. 1977. Dialecto judeo-hispano-marroquí o hakitía. Madrid. Reprinted from
Boletín de la Real Academia Española, 1926–1952.
Bentolila, Yaakov. 1985. Le composant hébraïque dans le judéo-espagnol marocain.
In Judeo-Romance Languages, ed. Isaac Benabu and Joseph Sermoneta, pp. 27–40.
Jerusalem: Misgav Yerushalayim.
. 2007. Ḥaketía. In Encyclopedia Judaica, 2nd edn., ed. M. Berenbaum and
F. Skolnik, vol. 8, pp. 243–244. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA.
Benvenisti, David. 1984. ‫יהודית‬-‫[ מלים עבריות בספרדית‬Hebrew Words in Judeo-Spanish].
Jerusalem: Moreshet.
Berenguer Amador, Ángel. 1993. Las oraciones relativas en la “Parasa vaerá” del “Me’am
lo’ez” de “Éxodo””. In Proyección histórica de España en sus tres culturas, vol. 2,
pp. 19–26. Valladolid: Junta de Castilla y León.
. 1994. El uso de los pronombres en Lel šimurim. In History and Creativity in
the Sephardi and Oriental Jewish Communities: Proceedings of Misgav Yerushalayim’s

432 bunis
Third International Congress, 1988, ed. T. Alexander et al., pp. *51–59. Jerusalem:
Misgav Yerushalayim.
. 1999. Aspectos lingüísticos del libro de David M. Atias “La guerta de oro”
(Liorna. 1778). In Jewish Studies at the Turn of the Twentieth Century, ed. Judit Tar-
garona Borrás and Angel Sáenz Badillos, vol. 2, pp. 464–468. Leiden: Brill.
. 2002. Rasgos sintácticos y morfológicos del verbo en dos obras de la lengua
clásica sefardí. In Judaísmo Hispano. Estudios en memoria de José Luis Lacave Riaño,
pp. 311–318. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas.
. 2014. 18-‫[ דרכי הפועל בלאדינו של המאה ה‬The Verbal Moods in 18th-Century
Judeo-Spanish] Massorot 16:87–112.
Besso, Henry V. 1963. Ladino Books in the Library of Congress. Washington, DC: U.S. Gov-
ernment Printing Office.
Borovaya, Olga. 2012. Modern Ladino Culture: Press, Belles Lettres, and Theatre in the Late
Ottoman Empire. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Borovaya, Olga, and Matthias Lehmann. 2010. Judeo-Spanish Literature. In Encyclope-
dia of Jews in the Islamic World, ed. Norman A. Stillman, vol. 3, pp. 76–80. Leiden:
Brill.
Bossong, Georg. 1987. Sprachmischung und Sprachausbau im Judenspanischen. Ibero-
romania 25:1–21.
. 1990. El uso de los tiempos verbales en judeoespañol. In La descripción del
verbo español, ed. Gerd Wotjak and Aleixandre Veiga, pp. 71–96. Santiago de Com-
postela: Anejos Verba.
Bradley, Travis G. 2007a. Constraints on the Metathesis of Sonorant Consonants in
Judeo-Spanish. Probus 19:171–207.
. 2007b. Prosodically-Conditioned Sibilant Voicing in Balkan Judeo-Spanish.
In Proceedings of the Thirty-Fourth Western Conference on Linguistics, WECOL 2006,
vol. 17, ed. Erin Bainbridge and Brian Agbayani, pp. 48–73. Fresno: Department of
Linguistics, California State University.
. 2009. On the Syllabification of Prevocalic /w/ in Judeo-Spanish. In Romance
Linguistics 2007. Selected Papers from the 37th Linguistic Symposium on Romance Lan-
guages (LSRL), Pittsburgh, 15–18 March 2007, ed. Pascual José Masullo, Erin O’Rourk,
and Chia-Hui Huang, pp. 51–87. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bradley, Travis G., and Jason Smith. 2011. The Phonology-Morphology Interface in
Judeo-Spanish Diminutive Formation: A Lexical Ordering and Subcategorization
Approach. Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 4:247–300.
Bunis, David M. 1974. The Historical Development of Judezmo Orthography: A Brief
Sketch. Working Papers in Yiddish and East European Jewish Studies 2. New York:
YIVO.
. 1975a. Toward a Linguistic and Cultural Geography of Judezmo. M.A. thesis,
Columbia University.

. 1975b. A Guide to Reading and Writing Judezmo. Brooklyn: The Judezmo Soci-
ety.
. 1981a. Sephardic Studies: A Research Bibliography. New York: Garland.
. 1981b. A Comparative Linguistic Analysis of Judezmo and Yiddish. Interna-
tional Journal of the Sociology of Language 30:49–70.
. 1981c. A Phonological and Morphological Analysis of the Hebrew and Aramaic
Component of Modern Judezmo. Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University.
. 1982a. Judezmo Language and Literature: An Experiment at Columbia Univer-
sity. In Sephardi and Oriental Jewish Heritage, vol. 2, ed. Issachar Ben-Ami, pp. 383–
402. Jerusalem: Misgav Yerushalayim.
. 1982b. Types of Non-Regional Variation in Early Modern Eastern Spoken
Judezmo. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 37:41–70.
. 1984a. Toward a Linguistic Geography of Judezmo. In Hispania Judaica: Studies
on the History, Language, and Literature of the Jews in the Hispanic World, vol. 3, ed.
J.M. Sola-Solé, Samuel G. Armistead, and Joseph H. Silverman, pp. 11–36. Barcelona:
Puvill.
. 1984b. ‫טוב פאפו‬-‫מונחי מאכלים ומנהגי אכילה בס׳ דמשק אליעזר לר׳ אליעזר בן שם‬
[Food Terms and Culinary Customs in Rabbi Eliʿezer ben Šem Ṭov Papo’s Sep̄ er
Dameśśeq ʾEliʿezer: Judezmo Rabbinical Literature as a Folkloristic and Linguistic
Resource]. Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Folklore 5–6:151–195.
. 1985. Plural Formation in Modern East Judezmo. In Judeo-Romance Lan-
guages, ed. Isaac Benabu and Joseph Sermoneta, pp. 41–67. Jerusalem: Misgav
Yerushalayim.
. 1988. The Dialect of the Old Yišuv Sephardic Community in Jerusalem: A
Preliminary Linguistic Analysis. In ‫[ מחקרים בלשונות היהודים‬Studies in Jewish Lan-
guages], ed. Moshe Bar-Asher, pp. *1–*40. Jerusalem: Misgav Yerushalayim.
. 1992a. The Language of the Sephardic Jews: A Historical Overview. In Moreshet
Sefarad, vol. 2, ed. Haim Beinart, pp. 395–422. Jerusalem: Magnes.
. 1992b. Una introdución a la lengua de los sefardíes a través de refranes en
judezmo. Neue Romania 12/Judenspanisch 1:7–36.
. 1993a. A Lexicon of the Hebrew and Aramaic Elements in Modern Judezmo.
Jerusalem: Magnes.
. 1993b. The Earliest Judezmo Newspapers: Sociolinguistic Reflections. Mediter-
ranean Language Review 6–7:5–66.
. 1993c. Le judezmo: Autres cadres, autres rôles. In La société juive à travers
l’histoire, ed. Shmuel Trigano, vol. 4, pp. 532–554, 715–716. Paris: Fayard.
. 1994. Tres formas de ladinar la Biblia en Italia en los siglos XVI–XVII. In Intro-
ducción a la Biblia de Ferrara, ed. Iacob M. Hassán and Angel Berenguer Amador,
. 1995. Pyesa di Yaakov Avinu kun sus ižus (Bucharest, 1862): The First Judezmo
Play? Revue des études juives 154:387–428.

434 bunis
. 1996a. Translating from the Head and from the Heart: The Essentially Oral
Nature of the Ladino Bible-Translation Tradition. In Hommage à Haïm Vidal
Sephiha, ed. Winfried Busse and Marie-Christine Varol-Bornes, pp. 337–357. Bern:
Peter Lang.
. 1996b. The Ottoman Sephardic Jews and the ‘Language Question’. In Sephardi
and Middle Eastern Jewries: History and Culture in the Modern Era, ed. Harvey
E. Goldberg, pp. 226–239. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
. 1996c. Yisrael Haim of Belgrade and the History of Judezmo Linguistics. His-
toire Épistémologie Langage 18:151–166.
. 1997a. Phonological Characteristics of Ibero-Romance Elements in the First
Printed Ladino Bible Glossary (Sefer Hešeq Šelomo, Venice, 1587/88). In Hispano-
Jewish Civilization after 1492, ed. Michel Abitbol, Galit Hasan-Rokem, and Yom-Tov
Assis, pp. 203–252. Jerusalem: Misgav Yerushalayim.
. 1997b. ‫[ השימוש ביסודות עבריים וארמיים ביצירת סטירה בקרב דוברי ג׳ודזמו‬The Use
of Hebrew and Aramaic Elements in the Creation of Satire by Speakers of Judezmo].
Massorot 9–10–11:319–333.
. 1999a. Voices from Jewish Salonika. Jerusalem–Thessalonika: Misgav Yerusha-
layim–Etz Ahaim Foundation.
. 1999b. ‫ מבוא ללשונם של היהודים הספרדים באימפריה העות׳מאנית‬:‫לשון ג׳ודזמו‬
[Judezmo: An Introduction to the Language of the Ottoman Sephardim]. Jerusalem:
Magnes.
. 1999c. Hebrew Elements in Sefer Ḥešeq Šelomo. In Vena Hebraica in Judaeorum
Linguis: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on the Hebrew and Aramaic
Elements in Jewish Languages (Milan, October 23–26, 1995), ed. Shelomo Morag,
Moshe Bar-Asher, and Maria Mayer-Modena, pp. 153–181. Milan: Università degli
Studi di Milano.
. 2001. On the Incorporation of Slavisms in the Grammatical System of Yugosla-
vian Judezmo. Jews and Slavs 9:325–337.
. 2003. Modernization of Judezmo and Hakitia (Judeo-Spanish). In The Jews
of the Middle East and North Africa in Modern Times, ed. Reeva S. Simon, Michael
M. Laskier, and Sara Reguer, pp. 116–128. New York: Columbia University.
. 2004a. Distinctive Characteristics of Jewish Ibero-Romance, circa 1492. His-
pania Judaica Bulletin 4:105–137.
. 2004b. Ottoman Judezmo Diminutives and Other Hypocoristics. In Linguis-
tique des langues juives et linguistique générale, ed. Frank Alvarez-Péreyre and Jean
Baumgarten, pp. 193–246. Paris: CNRS.
. 2005a. ‫ על התפתחות כתיבת הג׳ודזמו‬:‫לאומית‬-‫[ כתב כסמל זהות דתית‬Writing as a
National-Religious Symbol: On the Development of Judezmo Writing]. Peʿamim:
Studies in Oriental Jewry 101–102:111–171.
. 2005b. Judeo-Spanish Culture in Medieval and Modern Times. In Sephardic

and Mizrahi Jewry: From the Golden Age of Spain to Modern Times, ed. Zion Zohar,
pp. 55–76. New York: New York University Press.
. 2005c. A Theory of Hebrew-Based Fusion Lexemes in Jewish Languages as
Illustrated by Animate Nouns in Judezmo and Yiddish. Mediterranean Language
Review 16:1–115.
. 2006. Les langues juives du Moyen-Orient et d’Afrique du Nord. In Le monde
sépharade, vol. 2, ed. Shmuel Trigano, pp. 537–564. Paris: Editions du Seuil.
. 2006–2007. Judezmo Inanimate Fusion Nouns with Non-Romance Affixes.
Yod. Revue des études hébraiques et juives 11–12:359–410.
. 2007. Judezmo and Haketia Inanimate Nouns with Hebrew-Origin Bases and
Romance-Origin Affixes. In Sha‘arei Lashon: Studies in Hebrew, Aramaic and Jewish
Languages Presented to Moshe Bar-Asher, ed. A. Maman, S.E. Fassberg, and Y. Breuer,
vol. 3, pp. *40–63. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute.
. 2008a. The Names of Jewish Languages: A Taxonomy. In Il mio cuore è a Oriente:
Studi di linguistica storica, filologia e cultura ebraica dedicati a Maria Luisa Mayer
Modena, ed. Francesco Aspesi et al., pp. 415–433. Milan: Cisalpino.
. 2008b. Jewish Ibero-Romance in Livorno. Italia 18:7–64.
. 2008c. The Differential Impact of Arabic on Ḥaketía and Turkish on Judezmo.
El Presente 2:177–207.
. 2009. Judezmo Analytic Verbs with a Hebrew-Origin Participle: Evidence of
Ottoman Influence. In Languages and Literatures of Sephardic and Oriental Jewry,
ed. David M. Bunis, pp. 94–166. Jerusalem: Misgav Yerushalayim and Bialik Institute.
. 2010a. ‫[ לשונם המסורתית של היהודים הספרדים‬The Traditional Language of the
Sephardic Jews (in the Turkish Republic)]. In Jewish Communities in the East in
the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries: Turkey, ed. Yaron Ben-Naeh, pp. 177–192.
Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute.
. 2010b. Echoes of Yiddishism in Judezmism. Jews and Slavs 22:232–250.
. 2011a. Native Designations of Judezmo as a ‘Jewish Language’. In Studies in
Language, Literature and History Presented to Joseph Chetrit, ed. Yosef Tobi and
Dennis Kurzon, pp. *41–81. Haifa–Jerusalem: Haifa University–Karmel.
. 2011b. The Changing Faces of Sephardic Identity as Reflected in Judezmo
Sources. Judenspanisch 13:43–71.
. 2011c. The East-West Sephardic Láʿaź (Judeo-Spanish) Dialect Dichotomy as
Reflected in Three Editions of Séfer dat yehudit by Abraham Laredo and Yiŝḥac
Haleví. In Estudios sefardíes dedicados a la memoria de Iacob M. Hassán (z”l), ed.
Elena Romero, with Aitor García Moreno, pp. 157–190. Madrid: Consejo Superior de
Investigaciones Científicas.
. 2011d. Judezmo Glossaries and Dictionaries by Native Speakers and the Lan-
guage Ideologies behind Them. In Lexicología y lexicografía judeoespañolas, ed.
Winfried Busse and Michael Studemund-Halévy, pp. 353–446. Bern: Peter Lang.

436 bunis
. 2011e. Judezmo: The Jewish Language of the Ottoman Sephardim. European

Judaism 44:22–35.
. 2011f. A Doctrine of Popular Judezmism as Extrapolated from the Judezmo
Press, c. 1845–1948. In Satirical Texts in Judeo-Spanish by and about the Jews of Thes-
saloniki, ed. Rena Molho, Hilary Pomeroy, and Elena Romero, pp. 244–268. Thessa-
lonika: Ets Ahaim Foundation.
. 2012a. The Judezmo/Ḥaketía Phonological Divide as Reflected in Two Editions
of Sefer dat yĕhudit (Livorno 1827/Jerusalem 1878). In Studies in Modern Hebrew and
Jewish Languages Presented to Ora (Rodrigue) Schwarzwald, ed. Malka Muchnik and
Tsvi Sadan (Tsuguya Sasaki), pp. 670–696. Jerusalem: Karmel.
. 2012b. The Anti-Castilianist Credo of Judezmo Journalist Hizkia M. Franco
(1875–1953). In Homenaje a Elena Romero, ed. Aitor García Moreno, pp. 63–97 (www
.ehumanista.ucsb.edu/volumes/volume_20).
. 2012c. ‘Recordings’ of Judezmo Linguistic Variation in the Early 20th-Century
Judezmo Press. In Lengua, Llengua, Llingua, Lingua, Langue—Encuentros filológicos
(ibero)románicos: Estudios en homenaje a la Profesora Beatrice Schmid, ed. Yvette
Bürki, Manuela Cimeli, and Rosa Sánchez, pp. 92–114. Munich: Peniope.
. 2013a. The Judezmo Press as a Forum for Modern Linguistic Discourse. In
La presse judéo-espagnole, support et vecteur de la modernité, ed. Rosa Sánchez and
Marie-Christine Bornes-Varol, pp. 143–179. Istanbul: Libra.
. 2013b. Spanish, Hebrew Loanwords in. In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language
and Linguistics, ed. Geoffrey Khan et al., vol. 3, pp. 601–605. Leiden: Brill.
. 2013c. Judeo-Spanish (Judezmo), Hebrew Component in. In Encyclopedia of
Hebrew Language and Linguistics, ed. Geoffrey Khan et al., vol. 2, pp. 421–427. Leiden:
Brill.
. 2013d. Shem Tov Semo, Yosef Kalwo, and Judezmo Fiction in Nineteenth-
Century Vienna. In Sefarad an der Donau: Lengua y literatura de los sefardíes en
tierras de los Habsburgo, ed. Michael Studemund-Halévy, Christian Liebl, and Ivana
Vučina, pp. 39–146. Barcelona: Tirocinio.
. 2013e. The Whole Hebrew Reading Tradition of Ottoman Judezmo Speakers:
The Medieval Iberian Roots. Hispania Judaica Bulletin 9:15–67.
. 2013f. ‘Whole Hebrew’: A Revised Definition. In A Touch of Grace: Presented
to Chava Turniansky, ed. Yisrael Bartal, et al., vol. 2, pp. *37–68. Jerusalem: Zalman
Shazar Center–Center for Research on Polish Jewry.
. 2013g. Writing More and Less ‘Jewishly’ in Judezmo and Yiddish. Journal of
Jewish Languages 1:9–75.
. 2013h. From Early Middle to Late Middle Judezmo: The Ottoman Component
as a Demarcating Factor. El Prezente 7/Menorah 3:115–163.
. 2013i. ‫יהודית; לאדינו( בפי יהודי יוון‬-‫[ לשון ג׳ודזמו )ספרדית‬Judezmo (Judeo-Spanish;
Ladino) As Spoken by Greek Jews]. In Greece, ed. Eyal Ginio, pp. 311–324. Jerusalem:
Ben-Zvi Institute.

. 2014. Linguistic Conservatism versus Linguistic Pragmatism: Judezmo Speak-

ers on ‘Old’ and ‘New’ Language. In Around the Point: The Literatures of Jews in Jewish
and Non-Jewish Languages, ed. Hillel Weiss, Roman Katsman, and Dov-Ber Kotler-
man, pp. 135–182. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars.
. 2015. Jewish and Arab Medieval Ibero-Romance: Toward a Comparative Study.
In In the Iberian Peninsula and Beyond, ed. José Alberto R.S. Tavim, Maria Filomena
Lopes de Barro, and Lúcia Liba Mucznik, vol. 2, pp. 64–148. Cambridge: Cambridge
Scholars.
Bunis, David M., and Mattat Adar-Bunis. 2011. ‫ ספר מעם לועז‬:‫ג׳ודזמו מדוברת בג׳ודזמו כתובה‬
‫[ לרבי יצחק מאגריסו‬Spoken Judezmo in Written Judezmo: Dialogues in Sefer Me-ʿam
Loʿez on Leviticus and Numbers (Istanbul 1753–1764) by Rabbi Yiṣḥaq Magriso].
Peʿamim: Studies in Oriental Jewry 125–127:412–505.
Bunis, David M., and Yaakov Bentolila. 2010. Judeo-Spanish. In Encyclopedia of Jews in
the Islamic World, ed. Norman A. Stillman, vol. 3, pp. 69–76. Leiden: Brill.
Bürki, Yvette. 2006. El discurso periodístico en la prensa judeoespañola del siglo xix.
Revista iberoamericana de lingüística 4:77–97.
. 2010. “La cuestión de la lingua” y la defensa del judeoespañol en la prensa
sefardí de Salónica (1901–1902). Spanish in Context 7:78–99.
. 2012. Mecanismos de cohesión gramatical en judeoespañol moderno. In
Tiempo y espacio y relaciones espacio-temporales en judeoespañol, ed. Yvette Bürki
and Carsten Sinner, pp. 125–140. Munich: Peniope.
. 2013. The Status of Judeo-Spanish in the Ottoman Empire. In A Political
History of Spanish, ed. José del Valle, pp. 335–349. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
. 2014. La elaboración textual en la prensa judeoespañola: las necrologías. In La
lengua sefardi. Aspectos linguisticos, literarios y culturales, ed. Yvette Bürki and Elena
Romero, pp. 35–57. Berlin: Frank & Timme.
Bürki, Yvette, and Beatrice Schmid. 2006. El tiempo futuro en judeoespañol: Apuntes
para su estudio. In Proceedings of the Thirteenth British Conference on Judeo-Spanish
Studies (7–9 September, 2003), ed. Hilary Pomeroy, pp. 27–41. London: Department
of Hispanic Studies, Queen Mary, University of London.
Bürki, Yvette, and Carsten Sinner, eds. 2012. Tiempo y espacio y relaciones espacio-
temporales en judeoespañol. Munich: Peniope.
Bürki, Yvette, and Elena Romero, eds. 2014. La lengua sefardi. Aspectos linguisticos,
literarios y culturales. Berlin: Frank & Timme.
Busse, Winfried, and Michael Studemund-Halevy, eds. 2011. Lexicología y lexicografía
judeoespañolas. Bern: Peter Lang.
Carpenter, Dwayne E. 1993. Text and Concordance of the Tratado del Alborayque, Bib-
lioteca Nacional de Madrid MS. 17567. Madison, WI: Hispanic Seminary of Medieval
Studies.

438 bunis
Cherezli, Salomon Israel. 1899. ‫איספאנייול–פֿראנסיס‬-‫[ נואיבֿו ֿגיקו דיקסייונארייו ֿזודיאו‬New

Little Judeo-Spanish–French Dictionary]. Jerusalem: Avraham Moshe Lunz.
Corominas, Joan, with J.A. Pascual. 1980–1991. Diccionario crítico etimológico castellano
e hispánico. 6 vols. Madrid: Gredos.
Corré, Alan D. 1957. The Spanish Haftara for the Ninth of Ab. Jewish Quarterly Review
48:13–34.
Correa Calderón, Evaristo. 1963. Jud.-esp. i ‘también’. Revista de filología española
46:149–161.
Crews, Cynthia M. 1935. Recherches sur le judéo-espagnol dans les pays balkaniques.
Paris: E. Droz.
. 1962. The Vulgar Pronunciation of Hebrew in the Judaeo-Spanish of Salonica.
Journal of Jewish Studies 13:83–95.
. 1967. One Hundred Medical Recipes in Judeo-Spanish of ca. 1600. Revue des
études juives 126:203–263.
. 1979a. Textos judeo-españoles de Salónica y Sarajevo con comentarios lingüís-
ticos y glosario. Estudios Sefardíes 2:91–258.
. 1979b. Some Linguistic Comments on Oriental and Moroccan Judeo-Spanish.
Estudios Sefardíes 2:3–20.
Dankoff, Robert. 1991. An Evliya Çelebi Glossary: Unusual, Dialectal and Foreign Words
in the Seyahat-name. Cambridge, MA: Department of Near Eastern Languages and
Civilizations, Harvard University.
Danon, Abraham. 1903–1904. Essai sur les vocables turcs dans le judéo-espagnol. Keleti
Szemle 4 (1903):215–229; 5 (1904):111–126.
. 1922. Les éléments grecs dans le judéo-espagnol. Revue des études juives 75:211–
216.
Díaz Mas, Paloma. 1992. Sephardim: The Jews from Spain. Trans. George K. Zucker.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
. 1993. Un género casi perdido de la poesía castellana medieval: La clerecía
rabínica. Boletín de la Real Academia Española 73:329–346.
. 1994. Poesía oral sefardí. Ferrol: Esquío.
Díaz Mas, Paloma, and María Sánchez Pérez. 2010. Los sefardíes ante los retos del mundo
contemporáneo: Identidad y mentalidades. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investiga-
ciones Científicas.
. 2013. Los sefardíes y la poesía tradicional hispánica del siglo XVIII: El Can-
cionero de Abraham Israel (Gibraltar, 1761–1770). Madrid: Consejo Superior de Inves-
tigaciones Científicas.
Finci, Avraham Moše, ed. and trans. 1859. ‫[ ספר לקט הזוהר אין לאדינו‬Selections from the
Zohar in Ladino]. Belgrade.
Franco, Hizkiá. 1923. La kuestión del judeo-espanyol. El Tiempo 51/53:428–429. Revised
in his Impresiones i refleksiones, Izmir: Meşrutiyet, 1924, pp. 63–69.

Friedman, Victor A., and Brian D. Joseph. 2014. Lessons from Judezmo about the Balkan
Sprachbund and Contact Linguistics. International Journal of the Sociology of Lan-
guage 226:3–23.
Gabinskij, Mark A. 1996. Die sephardische Sprache aus balkanologischer Sicht. Zeit-
schrift für romanische Philologie 112:438–457.
. 2011. Die sefardische Sprache. Trans. Heinreich Kohring. Tübingen: Stauffen-
burg.
Gaon, Moshe David. 1965. ‫ ביבליוגרפיה‬,‫[ העיתונות בלאדינו‬A Bibliography of the Judeo-
Spanish (Ladino) Press]. Ed. Moshe Catane. Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute.
Garbell, Irene. 1954. The Pronunciation of Hebrew in Medieval Spain. In Homenaje a
Millás Vallicrosa, vol. 1, pp. 647–696. Barcelona: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones
Científicas.
García Moreno, Aitor. 2003. La deixis personal en el Me‘am Lo‘ez de Éxodo (1733–
46): Configuración y usos especiales del sistema pronominal judeoespañol. Res
Diachronicae 2:127–134.
. 2004. Relatos del pueblo ladinán (Me‘am lo‘ez de Éxodo). Madrid: Consejo
Superior de Investigaciones Científicas.
. 2006. Innovación y arcaísmo en la morfosintaxis del judeoespañol clásico.
Revista internacional de lingüística iberoamericana 4:2:35–51.
. 2011. Towards a New Style in Nineteenth Century Judeo-Spanish Prose: Two
Judeo-Spanish Versions of the German Novel Der Rabbi und der Minister. European
Judaism 44:9–21.
. 2012a. De la pervivencia (o no) de algunas innovaciones morfosintácticas del
judeoespañol castizo. Cuadernos dieciochistas 13: 229–247.
, ed. 2012b. Homenaje a Elena Romero (= Sección monográfica de eHumanista
20) (www.ehumanista.ucsb.edu/volumes/volume_20/index.shtml).
. 2013a. Der Rabbi und der Minister. Dos versiones judeoespañolas de la novela
alemana. Edición y estudio filológico. Barcelona: Tirocinio.
. 2013b. Glosas de andar por casa en los cuentos sefardíes tradicionales recogi-
dos por Cynthia Crews en Salónica a principios del siglo XX. Ladinar 7–8:95–112.
Ginio, Alisa Meyuhas. 2007. The Meam Loez: History and Structure. In Il Giudeo-
Spagnolo (Ladino): Cultura e tradizione sefardita tra presente, passato e futuro, ed.
Silvia Guastalla, pp. 155–164. Livorno: Salomone Belforte.
Gitlitz, David M., and Linda Kay Davidson. 1999. A Drizzle of Honey: The Lives and
Recipes of Spain’s Secret Jews. New York: St. Martin’s.
Gomel, Nivi. 2006a. –1823 ‫יהודית באימפריה העות׳מאנית‬-‫ספרי לימוד להוראת עברית בספרדית‬
‫ שיטות ומגמות‬:1935 [Judeo-Spanish Textbooks for Teaching Hebrew in the Ottoman
Empire 1823–1935: Methods and Trends]. Ph.D. dissertation, Bar-Ilan University.
. 2006b. Judeo-Spanish Textbooks for Teaching Hebrew. In Proceedings of the
Thirteenth British Conference on Judeo-Spanish Studies, ed. Hilary Pomeroy, pp. 53–

440 bunis
61. London: Department of Hispanic Studies, Queen Mary, University of Lon-

don.
Grünbaum, Max. 1896. Jüdisch-Spanische Chrestomathie. Frankfurt: J. Kauffmann.
Guastalla, Silvia, ed. 2007. Il Giudeo-Spagnolo (Ladino): Cultura e tradizione sefardita
tra presente, passato e futuro. Livorno: Salomone Belforte.
Gutwirth, Eliezer. 1985. A Judeo-Spanish Letter from the Genizah. In Judeo-Romance
Languages, ed. Isaac Benabu and Joseph Sermoneta, pp. 127–138. Jerusalem: Misgav
Yerushalayim.
Harris, Tracy K. 1982. Editor’s Note: The Name of the Language of the Eastern Sephar-
dim. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 37:5.
. 1994. Death of a Language. Newark: University of Delaware Press.
Hassán, Iacob M. 1966. El estudio del periodismo sefardí. Sefarad 26:229–236.
. 1968. De los restos dejados por el judeoespañol en el español de los judíos
del Norte de Africa. In Actas del XI Congreso Internacional Lingüística y Filología
Románicas, vol. 4, ed. Antonio Quilis, Ramón B. Carril, and Margarita Cantarero,
. 1971. Problemas de transcripción del judeoespañol. In Actele celui de-al XII-lea
congres internaţional de lingvistică şi filologie romanică, ed. Alexandru Rosetti and
S. Reinheimer-Rîpeanu, vol. 2, pp. 1235–1263. Bucharest: Editure Academiei Repub-
licii Socialiste România.
. 1978. Transcripción normalizada de textos judeoespañoles. Estudios Sefardíes
1:147–150.
. 1982. Visión panorámica de la literatura sefardí. In Hispania Judaica, vol. 2, ed.
J.M. Solà-Solé, Samuel G. Armistead, and Joseph H. Silverman, pp. 25–44. Barcelona:
Puvill.
. 1994. El español sefardí (judeoespañol, ladino). In La lengua española, hoy, ed.
Manuel Seco and Gregorio Salvador, pp. 117–140. Madrid: Fundación Juan March.
Hassán, Iacob M., María Teresa Rubiato, and Elena Romero, eds. 1970. Actas del I
Simposio de Estudios Sefardíes. Vol. 1. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones
Científicas.
Hauptmann, O.H. 1952–1953. Additional Notes on the Lexicon of Old Judaeo-Spanish
Bible Translations. Romance Philology 5:163–165.
Hemsi, Alberto. 1995. Cancionero sefardí. Ed. Edwin Seroussi, et al. Jerusalem: The
Jewish Music Research Center, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Hetzer, Armin. 2001. Sephardisch. Judeo-español, Djudezmo: Einführung in die Umgangs-
sprache der südoesteuropäischen Juden. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Hualde, José I., and Mahir Şaul. 2011. Istanbul Judeo-Spanish. Journal of the Interna-
tional Phonetics Association 41:89–110.
Kahane, Henry R., and Sol Saporta. 1953. The Verbal Categories of Judeo-Spanish.
Hispanic Review 21:193–214, 322–336.

Kayserling, Meyer. 1890. Biblioteca española-portugueza-judaica: Dictionnaire biblio-

graphique. Strassburg: Trübner.
. 1904. Judaeo-Spanish Language (Ladino) and Literature. In Jewish Encyclope-
dia, vol. 7, pp. 324–326. New York and London: Funk and Wagnalls.
Koén-Sarano, Matilda, ed. 1986. Kuentos del folklore de la famiya djudeo-espanyola.
Jerusalem: Kana.
, ed. 1994. Konsejas i konsejikas del mundo djudeo-espanyol. Jerusalem: Kana.
. 1999a. Kurso de Djudeo-Espanyol (Ladino) para prinsipiantes. 2nd edn. Beer-
sheba: Merkaz Eliachar, Ben-Gurion University.
. 1999b. Kurso de Djudeo-Espanyol (Ladino) para adelantados. Beersheba:
Merkaz Eliachar, Ben-Gurion University.
. 2009. Diksionario Ladino—Ebreo/Ebreo—Ladino. Jerusalem: S. Zack.
Kohen, Elli, and Dahlia Kohen-Gordon. 2000. Ladino-English/English-Ladino Concise
Encyclopedic Dictionary. New York: Hippocrene.
Kolonomos, Žamila. 1962. Les parlers judéo-espagnols de Bitola (Monastir) et Skopje
(Üsküb). Ph.D. dissertation, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University.
. 1968. Observations sur les différences entre les parlers judéo-espagnols de
Bitola (Monastir) et Skopje (Üsküb). Actas del I Congreso Internacional de Lingüística
y Filología Románicas, vol. 4, pp. 2145–2149. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investiga-
ciones Científicas.
. 1978. Proverbs, Sayings and Tales of the Sephardi Jews of Macedonia. Belgrade:
Federation of Jewish Communities in Yugoslavia.
Kunchev. Ivan. 1974. On Some Problems of the Bulgarian-Sefaradic Language Contacts.
Annual [of the Social, Cultural, and Educational Association of the Jews in the People’s
Republic of Bulgaria] 9:153–166.
Lapesa, Rafael. 1981. Historia de la lengua española, 9th edn. Madrid: Gredos.
Lazar, Moshe. 1964. ‫ אחרי גירוש ספרד‬:‫[ תרגומי המקרא בלאדינו‬The Judeo-Spanish Transla-
tions of the Bible: After the Explusion from Spain]. Sefunot 8:335–375.
. 1971. Ladino. In Encyclopedia Judaica, vol. 10, cols. 1342–1353. Jerusalem: Keter.
. 2007. Ladino. In Encyclopedia Judaica, 2nd edn., ed. M. Berenbaum and F. Skol-
nik, vol. 12, pp. 427–435. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA.
, ed. 1988. Ladino Pentateuch (Constantinople, 1547). Culver City, CA: Laby-
rinthos.
, ed. 1990a. Joseph and his Brethren: Three Ladino Versions. Culver City, CA:
Labyrinthos.
, ed. 1990b. Book of the Kuzari. A Book of Proof and Argument in Defense of a
Despised Faith: A 15th Century Ladino Translation [Ms. 17812, B.N. Madrid]. Culver City,
CA: Labyrinthos.
, ed. 1992. The Ladino Bible of Ferrara: A Critical Edition. Culver City, CA: Laby-
rinthos.

442 bunis
, ed. 1993a. The Ladino Maḥzor of Ferrara (1553): A Critical Edition. Culver City,
CA: Labyrinthos.
, ed. 1993b. Sēfer Tĕšuḇāh [Book on Repentance]. A Ladino Compendium of Jewish
Law and Ethics: A Critical Edition. Culver City, CA: Labyrinthos.
. 1994. Ladinando la Biblia entre los sefardíes mediterraneos: Italia, Impe-
rio Otomano y Viena. In Introducción a la Biblia de Ferrara, ed. Iacob M. Hassán,
, ed. 1995a. Siddur Tefillot: A Woman’s Ladino Prayer Book (Paris B.N., Esp. 668;
15th c.). Culver City, CA: Labyrinthos.
, ed. 1995b. Libro de oracyones. Ferrara Ladino Siddur [1552]. Lancaster, CA:
Labyrinthos.
, ed. 1998. Sēfer ha-Yāšār. First Ladino Translation [Haverford College, Ms. Hebr.
18]: A Critical Edition. Lancaster, CA: Labyrinthos.
, ed. 1999a. Sefarad in my Heart: A Ladino Reader. Lancaster, CA: Labyrinthos.
, ed. 1999b. Livro de Salmos [Candela a Tamar]: Psalms in Hebrew, Ladino, and
English. Lancaster, CA: Labyrinthos.
, ed. 2000a. The Ladino Scriptures: Constantinople-Salonica [1540–1572]. 2 vols.
Lancaster, CA: Labyrinthos.
, ed. 2000b. Sēfer Ben Guriōn (Yōsipōn): First Ladino Translation by Aḇraham Asa
[1753]. Lancaster, CA: Labyrinthos.
Lehmann, Matthias B. 2005. Ladino Rabbinic Literature and Ottoman Sephardic Culture.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Lévy, Isaac Jack. 1989. And the World Stood Silent: The Sephardic Poetry of the Holocaust.
Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Levy, Solly. 1992. Yahasrá: Escenas ḥaquetiescas. Montreal: Institut de la culture sépha-
rade de la Communauté sépharade du Québec.
. 2008. El libro de Selomó. Madrid: Hebraica.
. 2012. La vida en Haketía: Para que no se pierda. Barcelona: Riopiedras.
. 2014. El segundo libro de Selomó : De Tá nger a Montreal. Barcelona: Tirocinio.
Lida, Dena. 1952. La pronunciación del sefardí esmirniano de Nueva York. Nueva revista
de filología hispánica 6:277–281.
Lleal, Coloma. 1992. El judezmo: El dialecto sefardí y su historia. Barcelona: Departa-
mento de Filología.
. 1993. El sefardí y la norma escrita. In Actes del Simposi Internacional sobre
Cultura Sefardita, ed. Josep Riera, pp. 107–117. Barcelona: Facultat de Filologia.
. 2004. El judeoespañol. In Historia de la lengua española, ed. Rafael Cano,
pp. 1139–167. Barcelona: Ariel.
Luria, Max A. 1930. A Study of the Monastir Dialect of Judeo-Spanish Based on Oral
Material Collected in Monastir, Yugo-Slavia. New York: Instituto de las Españas en
los Estados Unidos.

Malinowski, Arlene. 1982. A Report on the Status of Judeo-Spanish in Turkey. Interna-

tional Journal of the Sociology of Language 37:7–23.
Mancheva, Dora. 2008. Los rastros del búlgaro en la parte judeoespañola de un dic-
cionario trilingüe francés-búlgaro-sefardí. Cuadernos del Instituto Historia de la
Lengua 1:75–86.
. 2009. El Diccionario judeoespañol-búlgaro de Albert Pipano: edición y estudio.
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Geneva.
Marcus, Simon. 1962. A-t-il existé en Espagne un dialecte judéo-espagnol? Sefarad
22:129–149.
. 1965. ‫יהודית‬-‫[ השפה הספרדית‬The Judeo-Spanish Language]. Jerusalem: Kiryat
Sefer.
Marín Ramos, Ferrán. 2014. Gramática básica de djudeo-espanyol. Villaviciosa: Camelot.
Markova, Alla. 2008. Beginner’s Ladino. New York: Hippocrene.
Martínez Ruiz, Juan. 1963. Textos judeo-españoles de Alcazarquivir (Marruecos): 1948–
1951. Revista de dialectología y tradiciones populares 19:78–115.
Mefanov, Daniel. 1896. Малко словарче на френско-българско-евреиски язикъ
[Short French-Bulgarian-Judezmo Dictionary]. Sofia: Nadežda.
Mergruen, Erika, ed. 2007. Danza general de la muerte. Mexico City.
Minervini, Laura. 1992a. Testi giudeospagnoli medievali (Castiglia e Aragona). 2 vols.
Naples: Liguori.
. 1992. Trace della desinenza de 3° pers. sing. in testi aljamiadi giudeo-spagnoli
(con particolare riferimento al giudeonavarro). In Actes du XX Congrès International
de Linguistique et Philologie Romanes, vol. 2, ed. George Hilty, pp. 489–502. Tübingen:
Francke.
. 1994. “Llevaron de acá nuestra lengua”. Gli usi linguistici degli ebrei spagnoli
in Italia. Medioevo Romanzo 19:133–192.
. 1998. Review of Siddur Tefillot: A Woman’s Ladino Prayer Book, by Moshe Lazar.
Romance Philology 31:404–419.
. 1999a. The Formation of the Judeo-Spanish Koiné: Dialect Convergence in the
16th Century. In Proceedings of the Tenth British Conference on Judeo-Spanish Studies,
ed. Annette Benaim, pp. 41–52. London: Department of Hispanic Studies, Queen
Mary, University of London.
. 1999b. The Development of a Norm in the Aljamiado Graphic System in
Medieval Spain. In From Iberia to Diaspora: Studies in Sephardic History and Culture,
ed. Yedida K. Stillman and Norman A. Stillman, pp. 416–431. Leiden: Brill.
. 2006. El desarrollo histórico del judeoespañol. Revista internacional de
lingüística iberoamericana 2:13–34.
. 2008a. Formación de la lengua sefardí. In Sefardíes: Literatura y lengua de
una nación dispersa. XV curso de cultura hispanojudía y sefardí de la Universidad de
Castilla-La Mancha. In memoriam Ana Riaño y Iacob M. Hassán, ed. Iacob M. Hassán,

444 bunis
Ricardo Izquierdo Benito, and Elena Romero, pp. 25–49. Cuenca: Ediciones de la
Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha.
. 2008b. Gli italianismi nel giudeoespagnolo del Cinquecento. In Il mio cuore è
a Oriente: Studi di linguistica storica, filologia e cultura ebraica dedicati a Maria Luisa
Mayer Modena, ed. Francesco Aspesi et al., pp. 511–526. Milano: Cisalpino.
. 2014. El léxico de origen italiano en el judeoespañol de Oriente. In La lengua
de los sefardíes: Tres contribuciones a su historia, ed. Winfried Busse, pp. 65–104.
Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
Molho, Michael. 1948. ‫יהודית‬-‫[ מלים עבריות בשפה הספרדית‬Hebrew Words in the Judeo-
Spanish Language]. ʿEdot 3:77–88.
. 1960. Literatura sefardita de Oriente. Madrid-Barcelona: Consejo Superior de
Montoliu, César, and Johan van der Auwera. 2004. On Judeo-Spanish Conditionals. In
Balkan Syntax and Semantics, ed. Olga Mišeska Tomić, pp. 461–474. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins.
Moreno-Koch, Yolanda. 1978. The Takkanot of Valladolid of 1432. The American Sephardi
9:58–145.
Moše, Menaḥem. 1934. ‫עברי‬-‫[ מילון כיס יהודי ספרדי‬Judeo-Spanish–Hebrew Pocket Dic-
tionary]. Thessalonika: Aksión.
Moskona, Isaac. 1971. About One of the Components of the Language ‘Djudezmo’.
Annual [of the Social, Cultural, and Educational Association of the Jews in the People’s
Republic of Bulgaria] 6:179–220.
. 1981. ‫[ פניני ספרד‬Pearls from Sefarad]. Ed. and trans. Moshe Giora-Elimelech.
Tel Aviv: Maariv.
. 1985a. ‫[ סיפורי ספרד‬Stories from Sefarad]. Trans. Rivka and Yoel Shalom Peretz.
Tel Aviv: Maariv.
. 1985b. Pages from the Judeo-Spanish-Hebrew Language. Annual [of the Social,
Cultural and Educational Association of the Jews in the People’s Republic of Bulgaria]
20:145–168.
. 1987. Diccionario Judeo-Espanol (Aa-Ag). Annual [of the Social, Cultural and
Educational Association of the Jews in the People’s Republic of Bulgaria] 22:81–93.
. 1988. Pages from Ladino (Ag-An). Annual [of the Social, Cultural and Educa-
tional Association of the Jews in the People’s Republic of Bulgaria] 23:111–131.
. 1991. Extracto del Diccionario Judeo-espanol-bulgaro /C/. Annual [of the
Social, Cultural and Educational Association of the Jews in the People’s Republic of Bul-
garia] 26:56–80.
. 1995. Excerpts from the Judeo-Espanol-Bulgarian Dictionary (Con-Crem) [of]
Isaac Moscona (1904–1985). Annual [of the Social, Cultural and Educational Associa-
tion of the Jews in the People’s Republic of Bulgaria] 28:316–327.
Nehama, Joseph. 1977. Dictionnaire du judéo-espagnol. Madrid: Consejo Superior de

Papo, Eliezer. 1997. ‫[ אוצר המלים השאולות מלאדינו בשולחן ערוך‬Loan Words from Ladino
in the Shulḥan Arukh]. Peʿamim: Studies in Oriental Jewry 70:68–99.
. 2007a. Slavic Influences on Bosnian Judeo-Spanish as Reflected in the Lit-
erature of the ‘Sephardic Circle’. In La memoria de Sefarad: Historia y cultura de
los sefardíes, ed. Pedro M. Piñero Ramírez, pp. 267–286. Seville: Fundación Sevilla
NODO & Fundación Machado.
. 2007b. ‫היהודית הבוסנית בעת החדשה‬-‫ הספרדית‬:‫[ לשון אתנית בעדן הלאומיות‬Ethnic
Language in the Era of Nationalism: Bosnian Judeo-Spanish in Modern Times].
Peʿamim: Studies in Oriental Jewry 113:9–49.
. 2009. ‫ בהקשרה ההיסטורי והחברתי‬,‫ בוכוריטה‬,‫[ משנתה הלשונית של לאורה פאפו‬The
Language Policy of Laura Papo (“Bohoreta”) in its Historical and Cultural Context].
Peʿamim: Studies in Oriental Jewry 118:125–175.
. 2012. ‫יהודיות על ההגדה של פסח‬-‫ פרודיות ספרדיות‬:‫[ והיתלת לבנך ביום ההוא‬And Thou
Shalt Jest with Thy Son: Judeo-Spanish Parodies on the Passover Haggadah]. 2 vols.
Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute.
Pascual Recuero, Pascual. 1988. Ortografía del ladino: Soluciones y evolución. Granada:
Universidad de Granada.
Penny, Ralph J. 1992–1993. Dialect Contact and Social Networks in Judeo-Spanish.
Romance Philology 46:125–140.
. 2000. Variation and Change in Spanish. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
. 2002. A History of the Spanish Language. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Perahya, Klara, and Elie Perahya. 1998. Dictionnaire français-judeo-espagnol. Paris:
Langues et monde.
Perahya, Klara. 2012. Diksyonaryo Judeo-Espanyol-Turko. Ladino-Türkçe sözlük. 2nd edn.,
ed. Karen Gerson Şarhon. Istanbul: Sefarad Kültürü Araştırma Merkezi–Gözlem.
Perez, Avner, and Gladys Pimienta. 2007. ‫ לשון מאספמיא‬:‫עברי‬-‫ המילון המקיף לאדינו‬/
Diksionario Amplio Djudeo-espanyol–Ebreo: Lashon me-Aspamia. Jerusalem–Maale
Adumim: La Autoridad Nasionala del Ladino i su Kultura–Sefarad: El Instituto
Maale-Adumim.
Pimienta, Gladys, and Sydney Salomon Pimienta, eds. 2010. Libro de actas de la Junta
Selecta de la Comunidad Hebrea de Tánger, 1860–1883: (Nacimiento y desarrollo de una
comunidad organizada). Paris–Jerusalem: JEM–Erez.
Pipano, Albert D. 1913. ‫בולגארו‬-‫איספאנייול‬-‫[ דיקסייונארייו ז׳ודיאו‬Judeo-Spanish-Bulgarian
Dictionary]. Sofia: Nadežda.
Pulido y Fernández, Ángel. 1905. Españoles sin patria y la raza sefardí. Madrid: Teo-
doro.
Quintana Rodríguez, Aldina. 2006a. Geografía lingüística del judeoespañol: Estudio sin-
crónico y diacrónico. Bern: Peter Lang.

446 bunis
. 2006b. La evolución del judeoespañol en el siglo XVII. Judenspanisch 10/Neue

Romania 35:157–181.
. 2006c. Las lenguas de los judíos de España: multilingüismo de la sociedad
sefardí. In Comunidades lingüísticas: Confines y trayectorias, ed. Elisa Cohen de
Chervonagura, pp. 39–59. Tucumán: Facultad de Filosofía y Letras de la Universidad.
. 2007. Responsa Testimonies and Letters Written in 16th-Century Spanish
Spoken by Sephardim. Hispania Judaica Bulletin 5:283–301.
. 2008. Las lenguas habladas por los judíos de España y su posición social.
In Lluís de Santàngel: Primer financier de América (America’s First Financier), ed.
Kathleen E. LeMieux, pp. 307–320. Valencia: Generalitat Valenciana.
. 2009. Aportación lingüística de los romances aragonés y portugués a la coiné
judeoespañola. In Languages and Literatures of Sephardic and Oriental Jews, ed.
David M. Bunis, pp. *221–255. Jerusalem: Misgav Yerushalayim and Bialik Institute.
. 2010. El judeoespañol, una lengua pluricéntrica al margen del español. In
Los sefardíes ante los retos del mundo contemporáneo. Identidad y mentalidades, ed.
Paloma Díaz-Mas and María Sánchez Pérez, pp. 31–52. Madrid: Consejo Superior de
. 2011. Geschichte und Soziolinguistik des Judenspanischen. Vom alten Glanz
zur virtuellen Sprachgemeinschaft. Europa Ethnica 3:88–96.
. 2012. From Linguistic Segregation outside the Common Framework of His-
panic Languages to a de facto Standard. In Studies in Modern Hebrew and Jewish
Languages Presented to Ora (Rodrigue) Schwarzwald, ed. Malka Muchnik and Tsvi
Sadan (Tsuguya Sasaki), pp. 697–714. Jerusalem: Karmel.
. 2014a. Séder Našim (c. 1500) del rabino Meir Benveniste: Variación en la lengua
de un miembro de la primera generación de hablantes nativos de Salónica. In La
lengua de los sefardíes: Tres contribuciones a su historia, ed. Winfried Busse, pp. 9–
63. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
. 2014b. Tierra Santa y Egipto: Lugares de encuentro y contacto lingüístico entre
los judíos ibéricos y los judíos arabófonos en los siglos XVI–XVII. In La lengua de los
sefardíes: Tres contribuciones a su historia, ed. Winfried Busse, pp. 105–143. Tübingen:
Stauffenburg.
Refael, Shmuel. 1997. ‫ עיון בסוגה ובפואטיקה‬:‫[ הימנונים ציוניים בלאדינו‬Zionist Hymns in
Ladino]. Peʿamim: Studies in Oriental Jewry 73:41–59.
. 2014. ‫ אפיון‬:(‫״גן עדן בואינו קי טינגה״—ספרות אבלים לדוברי ספרדית יהודית )לאדינו‬
‫“[ ראשוני של הסוגה‬Gan eden bueno que tenga”—Judeo-Spanish (Ladino) Mourning
Literature: A Preliminary Study of the Genre]. Massorot 16:219–238.
Renard, Raymond. 1966. Sépharad. Le monde et la langue judéo-espagnole des Séphar-
dim. Mons: Annales universitaires de Mons.
Révah, Israél S. 1961. Formation et évolution des parlers judéo-espagnols des Balkans.
Ibérida 6:173–196.

Rieder-Zelenko, Elena. 2013. Novedades de Esmirna: Edició n de noticias publicadas en el

perió dico judeoespañ ol “La Buena Esperanza” en 1905. Barcelona: Tirocinio.
Rodrigue, Aron, Sarah Abrevaya Stein, and Isaac Jerusalmi, eds. 2012. A Jewish Voice from
Ottoman Salonica: The Ladino Memoir of Saʿadi Besalel a-Levi. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
Romano, Samuel. 1933. Dictionnaire judéo-espagnol parlé-français-allemand, avec une
introduction sur la phonétique et sur la formation des mots dans le judéo-espagnol.
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Zagreb. Reprinted, Jerusalem: Misgav Yerushalayim,
1995.
Romero, Elena. 1979. El teatro de los sefardíes orientales. 3 vols. Madrid: Instituto Arias
Montano.
. 1991. Coplas sefardíes: Primera selección. Córdoba: El Almendro.
. 1992a. La creación literaria en lengua sefardí. Madrid: MAPFRE.
. 1992b. Bibliografía analítica de ediciones de coplas sefardíes. With Iacob M.
Hassán and Leonor Carracedo. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientí-
ficas.
. 1998. El libro del buen retajar: Textos judeoespañoles de circuncisión. Madrid:
Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas.
. 2001. Andanzas y prodigios de Ben-Sirá: Edición del texto judeoespañol y traduc-
ción del texto hebreo. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas.
. 2003. Seis coplas sefardíes de “castiguerio” de Hayim Yom-Tob Magula: Edición
crítica y estudio. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas.
. 2008a. Entre dos (o más) fuegos: Fuentes poéticas para la historia de los sefardíes
de los Balcanes. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas.
. 2008b. Y hubo luz y no fue tan buena: Las coplas sefardíes de Purim y los tiempos
modernos. Barcelona: Tirocinio.
. 2009. Dos colecciones de cuentos sefardíes de carácter mágico: Sipuré noraot y
Sipuré pelaot. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas.
Romero, Elena, Iacob M. Hassán, and R. Izquierdo Benito, eds. 2008. Sefardíes: Lite-
ratura y lengua de una nación dispersa. Cuenca: Ediciones de la Universidad de
Castilla-La Mancha.
Romero, Elena, and Aitor García Moreno, eds. 2011. Estudios sefardíes dedicados a la
memoria de Iacob M. Hassán (ź”l). Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones
Científicas.
Romero, Rey. 2012. Spanish in the Bosphorus: A Sociolinguistic Study on the Judeo-Spanish
Dialect Spoken in Istanbul. Istanbul: Libra.
Romeu, Pilar. 1998. Moisés Almosnino, Crónica de los reyes otomanos (edición crítica).
Barcelona: Tirocinio.
. 2007. Fuente clara (Salónica, 1595): Un converso sefardí a la defensa del judaísmo
y a la búsqueda de su propia fe. Barcelona: Tirocinio.

448 bunis
Sala, Marius. 1970. Estudios sobre el judeoespañol de Bucarest. Mexico City: Facultad de
Filosofía y Letras, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
. 1971. Phonétique et phonologie du judéo-espagnol de Bucarest. The Hague:
Mouton.
. 1976. Le judéoespagnol. The Hague: Mouton.
Sánchez, Rosa, and Marie-Christine Bornes-Varol, eds. 2013. La presse judéo-espagnole,
support et vecteur de la modernité. Istanbul: Libra.
Sánchez Pérez, María. 2014. Prensa sefardí de pasatiempo en Salónica. Barcelona: Tiroci-
nio.
Sanchis i Ferrer, Pau, and Nikola Vuletić. 2008. La construcció cali que + subjuntiu de
l’espanyol sefardita: de l’aragonés i el català als Balcans. Alazet 20:253–261.
Saporta y Beja, Enrique. 1957. Refranero sefardí. Madrid-Barcelona: Consejo Superior de
Şaul, Mahir. 2013. Judeo-Spanish in the Time of Clamoring Nationalisms. Istanbul: Libra.
Schmädel, Stephanie von. 2007. Shem Tov Semo. El Konde i el Djidyó. Judenspanisch
11/Neue Romania 37:177–353.
Schmid, Beatrice. 2006. Ladino (Judenspanisch)—eine Diasporasprache. Bern: Schweiz-
erische Akademie der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaften.
Schwadron, Abraham A. 1982–1983. Un Cavritico: The Sephardic Tradition. Journal of
Jewish Music and Liturgy 5:24–39.
Schwarzwald, Ora. 1985. The Fusion of the Hebrew-Aramaic Lexical Component in
Judeo-Spanish. In Judeo-Romance Languages, ed. Isaac Benabu and Joseph Sermon-
eta, pp. 139–159. Jerusalem: Misgav Yerushalayim.
. 1989. ‫[ תרגומי הלאדינו לפרקי אבות‬The Ladino Translations of the Sayings of the
Fathers]. Jerusalem: Magnes.
. 1993. Morphological Aspects in the Development of Judeo-Spanish. Folia
Linguistica 27:27–44.
. 1996. Linguistic Variation among Ladino Translations as Determined by Geo-
graphical, Temporal and Textual Factors. Folia Linguistica Historica 17:57–72.
. 1999. Language Choice and Language Varieties before and after the Expulsion.
In From Iberia to Diaspora: Studies in Sephardic History and Culture, ed. Yedida
K. Stillman and Norman A. Stillman, pp. 399–415. Leiden: Brill.
. 2002. Judaeo-Spanish Studies. In The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Studies, ed.
Martin Goodman, pp. 572–600. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
. 2005. ‫[ מסורות הכתב והכתיב בתרגומי הלדינו מן המאה הט״ו ואילך‬Spelling and
Orthography in Ladino Translations from the 16th Century On]. Peʿamim: Studies
in Oriental Jewry 101–102:173–185.
. 2008a. ‫[ מילון ההגדות של פסח בלאדינו‬A Dictionary of the Ladino Passover
Haggadot]. Jerusalem: Magnes.
. 2008b. Between East and West: Differences between Ottoman and North
African Judeo-Spanish Haggadoth. El Presente 2:223–241.

. 2010a. On the Jewish Nature of Medieval Spanish Biblical Translations: Lin-

guistic Differences between Medieval and Post-Exilic Spanish Translations of the
Bible. Sefarad 70:117–140.
. 2010b. Two Sixteenth Century Ladino Prayer Books for Women. European
Judaism 43:37–51.
. 2012. ‫ המאה השש עשרה‬,‫ סלוניקי‬,‫ סידור תפילות בלאדינו‬:‫[ סדר נשים‬Order of Women:
A Prayer Book in Ladino, Thessalonika, Sixteenth Century]. Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi
Institute.
. 2013a. Judeo-Spanish Influence on Hebrew. In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Lan-
guage and Linguistics, ed. Geoffrey Khan et al., vol. 2, pp. 427–430. Leiden: Brill.
. 2013b. Judeo-Spanish Loanwords. In Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and
Linguistics, ed. Geoffrey Khan et al., vol. 2, pp. 430–432. Leiden: Brill.
Sephiha, Haïm Vidal. 1973. Le ladino, judéo-espagnol calque: Deutéronome, versions de
Constantinople (1547) et de Ferrare (1553). París: Centre de Recherches Hispaniques.
. 1974. Problématique du judéo-espagnol. Bulletin de la Société Linguistique de
Paris 69:158–189.
. 1976. Le judéo-fragnol, dernier-né du djudezmo. Bulletin de la Société Linguis-
tique de Paris 71:31–36.
. 1979. Le ladino, judéo-espagnol calque: Structure et évolution d’une langue
liturgique. 2 vols. Paris: Association Vidas Largas.
. 1982. Le formant des manies en judéo-espagnol (-dero). Actes du colloque
“linguistique contrastive et traduction”, pp. 83–94. Paris: ADEC.
. 1986. Le judéo-espagnol. Paris: Entente.
. 1996–1998. Le judéo-espagnol de l’ex-Empire ottoman: musée de cinq cents
ans d’histoire. Problématique et programmatique. Ellenikē dialektologia 5:83–
112.
Shaul, Moshe. 1979. Es ke ay menester de una nueva ortografia para el djudeo-espaniol.
Aki Yerushalayim 1:3–4.
Šmid, Katja. 2012. El Séfer Méšec betí, de Eliézer Papo: Ritos y costumbres sabáticas de
los sefardíes de Bosnia. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas.
Sola-Solé, J.M. 1983. Sobre árabes, judíos y marranos y su impacto en la lengua y literatura
españolas. Barcelona: Puvill.
Sola-Solé, J.M., Samuel G. Armistead, and Joseph H. Silverman. 1980–1984. Hispania
Judaica: Studies on the History, Language, and Literature of the Jews in the Hispanic
World. 3 vols. Barcelona: Puvill.
Soler, Natividad Peramos. 2009. El judeo-español en Salónica: Influencias lingüísticas.
Ph.D. dissertation, Universidad de La Laguna.
Stankiewicz, Edward. 1964. Balkan and Slavic Elements in the Judeo-Spanish of Yugo-
slavia. In For Max Weinreich on His Seventieth Birthday, ed. Lucy S. Dawidowicz,
pp. 229–236. The Hague: Mouton.

450 bunis
Strolovitch, Devon. 1999. Passover in Medieval Iberia I: Seder Instructions in a Spanish

Maḥzor. Cornell Working Papers in Linguistics 17:42–49.
Studemund(-Halévy), Michael. (1975). Bibliographie zum Judenspanischen. Hamburg:
Helmut Buske.
. 2010. Abraham Galanté, Rinyu o el amor salvaje (edición crítica). Barcelona:
Tirocinio.
. 2003. Ladino kerido mio. Judenspanische Literatur im 20. Jahrhundert. Munich-
Hamburg: Dölling und Galitz Verlag.
Studemund-Halévy, Michael, and Gaelle Collin. 2007. Entre dos Mundos. Catálogo de
los impresos búlgaros en lengua sefardí (siglos XIX y XX). Barcelona: Tirocinio.
Subak, Julius. 1905. Das Verbum im Judenspanischen. In Bausteine zur romanischen
Philologie, Festgabe für Adolfo Mussafia, zum 15. Februar 1905, pp. 321–331. Halle: Max
Niemeyer.
. 1906. Zum Judenspanischen. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 30:129–185.
Symeonidis, Haralambos. 2002. Das Judenspanische von Thessaloniki. Bern: Peter Lang.
Varol-Bornes, Marie-Christine. 1996. Influencia del turco en el judeoespañol de
Turquía. In Hommage à Haïm Vidal Sephiha, ed. Winfried Busse and Marie-Christine
Varol-Bornes, pp. 213–236. Bern: Peter Lang.
. 1998. Manuel de judéo-espagnol. Langue et culture. Paris: L’Asiathèque.
. 2002. Les temps du passé en judéo-espagnol (Salonique et Istanbul), une
situation linguistique complexe. In Judeo Espaniol: A Jewish Language in Search of
Its People, ed. Raphael Gatenio, pp. 139–151. Thessalonika: Ets Ahaim Foundation.
. 2003–2004. L’autobiographie en judéo-espagnol: La difficile affirmation du
sujet entre tradition et modernité. Yod. Revue des études hébraiques et juives 9:231–
260.
. 2008a. Le judéo-espagnol vernaculaire d’Istanbul. Bern: Peter Lang.
. 2008b. Manual of Judeo-Spanish: Language and Culture. Trans. Ralph Tarica.
Bethesda: University Press of Maryland.
Varvaro, Alberto. 1987. Il giudeo-spagnolo prima dell’espulsione del 1492. Medioevo
Romanzo 12:154–172.
Varvaro, Alberto, and Laura Minervini. 2007. Orígenes del judeoespañol (I): Textos.
Revista de historia de la lengua española 2:147–172.
. 2008. Orígenes del judeoespañol (II): Comentario lingüístico. Revista de histo-
ria de la lengua española 3:149–195.
Wagner, Max L. 1914. Beiträge zur Kenntnis des Judenspanischen von Konstantinopel.
Vienna: Alfred Hölder.
. 1920. Judenspanisch-Arabisches. Zeitschrift für romanische Philologie 40:543–
549.
. 1930. Caracteres generales del judeo-español de Oriente. Madrid: Hernando.
. 1950. Espigueo judeo-español. Revista de filología española 34:9–196.

Weich-Shahak, Susana. 2001. Repertorio tradicional infantil sefardí: Retahilas, juegos,

canciones y romances de tradición oral. Madrid: Cultura Literaria.
. 2006. ‫ אין בואין סימן‬/ En buen simán: Panorama del repertorio sefardí. Haifa:
Pardes.
. 2007. La boda sefardí: Música, texto y contexto. Madrid: Alpuerto.
. 2010. Romancero sefardí de Oriente: Antología de tradición oral. Madrid:
Alpuerto.
. 2012. El ciclo de la vida en el repertorio musical de las comunidades sefardíes de
Oriente. Madrid: Alpuerto.
. 2013. Moroccan Sephardic Romancero: Anthology of an Oral Tradition. Trans.
Paloma Díaz Mas. Santa Fe, NM: Gaon.
Wexler, Paul. 1978. The Term ‘Sabbath Food’: A Challenge for Jewish Interlinguistics.
Journal of the American Oriental Society 98:461–465.
. 1982. Marrano Ibero-Romance: Classification and Research Tasks. Zeitschrift
für romanische Philologie 98:59–108.
. 1981. Terms for ‘Synagogue’ in Hebrew and Jewish Languages: Explorations in
Historical Jewish Interlinguistics. Revue des études juives 140:101–138.
. 1988. Three Heirs to a Judeo-Latin Legacy: Judeo-Ibero-Romance, Yiddish and
Rotwelsch. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
. 1989. Judeo-Romance Linguistics: A Bibliography (Latin, Italo-, Gallo-, Ibero-
and Rhaeto-Romance except Castilian). New York and London: Garland.
. 1996. The Non-Jewish Origins of the Sephardic Jews. Albany: State University of
New York Press.
Wiesner, Christa. 1981. Jüdisch-Spanisches Glossar zum Me‘am Lo‘ez des Iacob Kuli.
Hamburg: Helmut Buske.
Yaari, Abraham. 1934. ‫רשימת ספרי לאדינו הנמצאים בבית הספרים הלאומי והאוניברסיטאי‬
[Catalogue of Judaeo-Spanish Books in the Jewish National and University Library].
Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
. 1967. ‫[ הדפוס העברי בקושטא‬Hebrew Printing in Constantinople]. Jerusalem:
Magnes.
Zacharia, Joy. 1958. A Study of the Castorialí Dialect [of Judeo-Spanish]. B.A. honors
thesis, Brandeis University.

Judezmo Ladino

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Judezmo Ladino

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Handbook of Jewish Languages

Revised and Updated Edition

For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV

4 Jewish Berber 118

5 Jewish English 130

7 Jewish Georgian 178

9 Jewish Hungarian 226

10 Judeo-Iranian Languages 234

For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV

12 Judezmo (Ladino) 366

13 Karaim and Krymchak 452

14 Jewish Latin American Spanish 490

15 Jewish Malayalam 504

16 Judeo-Occitan (Judeo-Provençal) 518

18 Jewish Russian 594

20 Jewish Swedish 619

For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV

Epilogue: Other Jewish Languages, Past and Present 749

For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV

1 Historical Introduction 367

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2017 | doi: 10.1163/9789004359543_014

3.3.6.5 Infinitives 399

1.1 Origins of Judezmo: Sephardic La‘az in Medieval Iberia

For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV

For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV

For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV

1.2 Middle Judezmo and Ḥaketía

For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV

For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV

1.3 Modern Judezmo

For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV

For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV

For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV

2 Texts and Literature

There is extensive written documentation of traditional Jewish Ibero-Romance

For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV

which might collectively be called ‫ ֿגוֿדיזמו די חכמים‬djuḏezmo de hahamim or

For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV

ʿAṣat Haš-šem (Thessalonika, 1869) by N.R.H. Peraḥya, ‫ דרכי האדם‬Darḵe Ha-

For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV

3 Linguistic Profile of Judezmo

For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV

Vowels Semi-vowels Consonants

Thanks to lexical incorporations from Hebrew-Aramaic and Iberian Judeo-

For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV

For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV

Probably as a result of interaction with speakers of local languages lacking

For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV

For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV

For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV

For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV

finally, e.g., ‫ תענית‬ta(a)niḏ/-ṯ/-d/-t ‘fast (from food)’. Similar orthographic prin-

Graphemes of Modern Judezmo

IPA Israel Ladino Turkish- Serbo-Croatian- French- Cyrillic Rashí Merubá

[a] a a a a а ‫ה‬- ,‫)־(א־‬ ‫ה‬- ,‫)־(א־‬

For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV

IPA Israel Ladino Turkish Serbo-Croatian French Cyrillic Rashí Merubá

[u] u u, o u, o u, ou у ‫ו‬ ‫ו‬

IPA Israel Ladino Turkish Serbo-Croatian French Cyrillic Rashí Merubá

[b] b b b b б ‫ב‬ ‫ב‬

For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV

For use by the Author only | © 2017 Koninklijke Brill NV

forced to relocate’ < Turkish sürgün), and ‫ ֿגולאקה‬cholaka ‘armless woman’ (←