Depends on which variety of Levantine Arabic you’re interested in learning but Younes’s Arabiyyat Al-Naas is one I’ve seen used

I can share the syllabus and slides with you once they’re finalized if you’re interested :)

In Arabic, their names are the equivalent of المملكة الأردنية الهاشمية "Hashemite Jordanian Kingdom" and المملكة العربية السعودية "Saudi Arabian Kingdom."

Since the structure is the same in Arabic, we could've easily had the Kingdom of Hashemite Jordan or the Saudi Kingdom of Arabia.

Source: digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/seetz...

The last insult is Tarihj. Unfortunately, I can't figure out what this means. If anyone has any ideas, especially if you're Syrian from this region, let me know!

The second insult is كلب ابن الكلب kalb ǝbn ǝl-kalb 'dog son of a dog.' In Arabic, calling someone a 'dog' is never a good thing, and you can increase the severity of it by adding 'son of a dog' to include the person's father as well.

He mentions three of them: Aib ala schuirrbak, Kelp ibn el Kelb, and Tarihj.

The first is عيب على شواربك ʕayb ʕala šwērb-ak meaning 'shame on you (lit. your mustache).' The ‹i› in mustache schuirrbak likely reflects vowel raising: so šwērǝb not šwārǝb.

Sources:

Chicago Assyrian Dictionary
Hämeen-Anttila, J. A Sketch of Neo-Assyrian Grammar
Huehnergard, J. A Grammar of Akkadian
Leslau, W. Comparative Dictionary of Ge‘ez
von Soden, W. Akk. Handwörterbuch

Through cultural influence, the Aramaic word entered Arabic and then Ge‘ez ምስኪን mǝskin and then spread to other languages, including Persian مسكين meskin and Spanish mezquino.

So when Aramaic speakers first encountered the word, they must have heard it pronounced with the ‹s›-sound rather than the ‹š›-sound. And so it entered into Aramaic.

It’s during this period that Akkadian terms begin to enter Aramaic, so a very likely source of the Aramaic miskēnâ is the Neo-Assyrian language.

As it happens, in Neo-Assyrian, old Akkadian ‹š› and ‹s› switched pronunciation such that ‹š› became ̇‹s› and vice versa

The most consequential contact between Akkadian and Aramaic speakers took place during an approximately 400-year period from 1000 BCE to 600 BCE. During this period, the Neo-Assyrian Empire conquered the Aramaic-speaking polities of Syria, bringing the two populations into closer contact.

Akkadian is an umbrella term for a number of dialects that are attested over the course of 2000 years. During that timespan, the language naturally underwent many changes, and many of these changes are reflected in the written record.

We would therefore expect that Akkadian muškēnu would have entered Aramaic as miškēn or something similar, just as Akkadian šūzubu ‘to save’ enters Aramaic as šêzib. So why does Akkadian ‹š› show up as Aramaic ‹s› in this word? The answer lies in the historical development of Akkadian.

Akkadian ‹š› corresponds to Aramaic ‹s› only when it goes back to the Proto-Semitic consonant *s₂, which has been reconstructed as a lateral fricative /ɬ/. But the causative š goes back to a different sibilant *s₁, which is always realized as ‹š› in Aramaic.

This explanation is attractive because it’s based on an attested root, its morphology is clear, and the semantic change follows a logical progression. But there’s still problem with this account.

The verb šukēnu – based on its older attestations – can be parsed as a rare ŠD-stem of a root k-ʾ-n ‘to be firm, loyal’ (i.e. D-stem intensive coupled with Š-stem causative), in other words, ‘to cause to be loyal,’ with some semantic drift that eventually resulted in a reflexive verb.

In other words, Akk. muškēnu > Aram. miskēn- > Ar. miskīn and Ge. mǝskīn. Within Akkadian, muškēnu is derived from an irregular verb šukēnu (attested in Old Babylonian), which goes back to an older form that is attested in other dialects as šukaʾʾinu ‘to prostrate oneself.’