1. wa-ˀɛ́ti di-kɔn šéʸhi ʸheʰ wa-díˀʸheʰ ḳáḳaʰ tóˀo ḷetóˁoʰ ˁážeʰ be-sabáb bíľeʰ di-bíŝiˀs ‘And he related what had happened with them—with him and his pal: how they had murdered a woman for some worthless things’ (CSOL I 4:20)
2a. fɔ́ne yéken nísɛs be-ḥágher wa-ḥer bíŝi nísɛs ‘There used to be light rains in Hagher, but not nowadays’ (CSOL I 2:38)
2b. ḳeṭíboʰ ˁáni ṣítɛt mes tɔ́mer bíŝi di-ˁérob béḳľeʰ ‘Now the goatskin was opened, and the dates were inspected: nobody knew what kind they were’ (CSOL I 2:53)
3a. ˁággi di-ˀettéfeḳu ḷe-deráhem kor yenɛfóˁoʰ beʸh bíľeʰ wa-zéˁe ṭad méʸhi deráhem wa-báˁad fétra ríˀiš ˁag díˀʸheʰ ṣáḥeb men díˀʸheʰ deráhem ˁö́mor ífuḷ šégɛˀk héyki díˀki deráhem ˁö́mor bíŝi šek še deráhem wa-ˀentóuḥoʰ báˁad fétraʰ ṣáme deʰ di-báḥľe deráhem wa-tóˀo hímaˁ ˁag dɛg ber ˁag ṣáme ˁö́mor ḫaľás góˁoḷk toʸh be-ḥaľ ‘Two men agreed they would jointly invest a sum of money. One of them held the money, and after a while, the other asked his friend about his share. He said: “What did you do with our money?” But the other said: “I don’t have any of your money.” They were in litigation for a while, and then the man who had been holding the money died. When the other man heard this, he said: “It’s over! I forgive him”’ (CSOL I 15:12)
3b. wa-šéˀef ˁouyɛ́ghɛn díˀʸheʰ ke-ˁážeʰ wa-ˁö́mor hes ḷóˀo ḳáḷaˁš tho wa-ho bíŝi fe ḥaym ‘The youth lay down with his wife and said to her: “Why did you throw pebbles at me—I have no penis”’ (CSOL I 19:23)
bíŝi ṭaʰ ‘isn’t it like that?’
With pronominal suffixes: 3 sg. m. example 1 (pl. m. biŝíˀyhen).
In the present: example 2a, in the past: example 2b.
With ke- to introduce the possessor: example 3a; with be- to introduce the carrier of inalienable features (body parts, personal qualities): example 3b.
Object pronouns attached to bíŝi refer to the possessee: example 1.
Soq. ŝi ‘something’ (JL 259) must be treated as Arabism (so explicitly Bittner 1918b:59) <...> but this element must be present in the negative pronominal and predicative word bíŝi ‘nobody; nothing; there is not’ (LS 99, Bittner 1918b:37), whose obscure b- is scarcely explainable within a borrowing paradigm. (Kogan 2015:591, n. 1537).