The Arabic Language

tafǝʿʿalǝt
, but adds that it is difficult 
to decide whether this is an instance of substratal influence or of interference as 
the result of prolonged bilingualism.
Of special interest are those phenomena in Yemenite Arabic dialects that are 
attributed to substratal influence from South Arabian. In this region, the evidence 
of the Modern South Arabian languages makes it relatively easy to determine 
substratal influence. Among the phenomena mentioned by Diem are the use of the 
k
- perfect and the plural patterns 
faʿawwil
/
faʿāwil
and 
fiʿwal
/
fuʿwal
(
fiʿyal
/
fuʿyal
). 
In some of the Yemenite dialects, the first- and the second-person singular of the 
perfect verb have a suffix 
-k-
, instead of Classical Arabic 
-t-
, for example, 
katab-k
‘I 
have written’. This feature, which they share with the South Semitic languages (cf. 
above, Chapter 2), occurs in the western mountains, where according to Classical 
sources the Ḥimyaritic language was spoken, that is, the area of the pre-Islamic 
immigrants in the South Arabian region (cf. above, Chapter 4; below, p. 196; see 
also Map 11.1).
The plural patterns 
faʿawwil
and 
fiʿwal
are used exclusively in some regions 
in Yemen: for 
faʿawwil
, Diem cites cases such as 
bilād
/
belawwid 
‘country’, 
kalām
/
kalawwim 
‘speech’, 
kitāb
/
kutawwib 
‘book’. These are related to a plural pattern 
that exists in Mehri (
qetōwel
< 
*qetawwel
), and it may reasonably be assumed that 
in this case the Arabic dialect borrowed the plural pattern from South Arabian 
during the early stages of settlement, perhaps even before the Islamic conquests. 
Likewise, the pattern 
fiʿwal
occurs in the mountainous regions of Yemen where 
the first settlement of Arab tribes took place; the dialects in this region present 
forms such as 
ṭarīg
/
ṭirwag
‘street’, 
šarīṭ
/
širwaṭ
‘rope’ that are related to Modern 
South Arabian plurals 
qetwōl
/
qetyōl
.
In the majority of cases, the interference that resulted from language contact 
may have consisted not in the emergence of new phenomena, but in the tipping 
of the balance towards one of two existing alternatives. In such cases, the learners 
of Arabic may have been influenced by their first language in the selection of one 
alternative. An interesting example is that of the position of the interrogatives in 
Egyptian dialects. In Egyptian Arabic, there is no fronting of interrogative words, 
which remain at their structural position in the sentence, as in (5) and (6):
(5) 
ʾult
i 
da 
li 
l-muʿallim
 
tell.PERF.2ms DEM 
to 
ART-teacher
‘You told the teacher this’

---

144
The Arabic Language
(6) 
ʾult
i 
ʾēh 
li 
l-muʿallim
 
tell.PERF.2ms what 
to 
ART-teacher
‘What did you tell the teacher?’
In other Arabic dialects, such a word order is also possible, but then it is highly 
marked (corresponding to English ‘you told the teacher whát!?’). Likewise, in 
Egyptian it is possible to say (7):
(7) 
ʾēh