11. Decay of Ergativity Firenze

8/2/2019 11. Decay of Ergativity Firenze

1/12

QUADERNI Dl SEMITISTICA25

PROCEEDINGS OF THElOTH MEETING OF HAlvfiTO-SElVIITIC(AFROASIATIC) Lil'-JGUISTICS

(FLORENCE, 13-20 APRIL 2001)

Edited byPELIO FRONZAROLI AND PAOLO lviARRASSil'TI

2005DIPA.RTLlv!ENTO DJ LINGUISTICA

UN!VERSITA DJ FIRENZE

ICopyright (g 2005 Dipartimento di LinguisticaUniversita di FirenzePiazza Bmnelleschi, 4I-50 121 Firenze&[email protected]:!JiY. .uni:tlitLlinguis.ti.w'l.ISBN 88-901340-1-1ISSN 1724-8213


2/12

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface ..............................................P. Manassini, Florence: the Orient connection ...............D. Cohen, Les mutations de systemes en chamito-semitique . . . . . .A. Dolgopolsky, Emphatic. and plain voiceless consonants in

Hamito-Semitic in the light of internal and externalcomparative evidence .............................L. Kogan - A. :Militarev, Toward Common Afrasian Fauna!

Le.."ticon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ------ 0. Stolbova, Chadic *n, *r, *1 and their correspondences in

Semitic and Kushitic ..............................G. Talcics, Problems of Afro-Asiatic Historical Phonology:

Ancient Remnants OJ Sibilant Affricates in South Cushiticand Chadic......................................

A. Zaborsld, T!Je Oldest Periphrastic Conjugations o f Hamito-

p.p.p.

p.

p.

p.

p.

VI IIX

293549

65senlitic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 35

M. G. Amadasi Guzzo, Les phases du phrinicien: phenicien et_punique ........... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p. 95

F. Aspesi, Some comparative remarks about the Hebrew stative.. 105

VI Table of contents

A. Avanzini, Some remarks on the classification of Ancient SouthArabian languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .S. Ba1di, On Isoglosses of Arabic Loans in Some West African

Languages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A. Catainoti, Traditions onomastiques sernitiques dans ladocumentation du Ji r rnillenaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .P. Fronzaroli, Structures linguistiques et histoire des languesau Ill' mil/enaire av. J. -C. ..........................G. Go1denberg, Word-Structure, Morphological Analysis, the

Semitic Languages and beyond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..G. Hudson, Ethiopian Semitic Nonpast C2 Length . . . . . . . . . . . . .G. Mazzini, Ancient South Arabian Documentation and theReconstruction of Sernitfc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A. Mengozzi, Neo-Aramaic and the So-Called 'Decay ofErgativity' in Kurdish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .M. Moriggi, Peculiaritd linguistiche in una coppa magicaaramaica inedita . ................................1. Pasquali, Jnnovazione e continuitO. nellessico dell'artigianato

ne/la Siria deiiii millennia a. C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . . . .F. A. Pennaccbietti- E. Braids- S. Destefanis -A . Mengozzi- R.

Saccagno, A Project for the Publication and LexicographicStudy of Christian Neo-Aramaic Texts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

M. V. Tonietti, Le systeme pn!positionnel de l eb/aile . . . . . . . . . .M. Frascarelli - A. Pug1ielli, The Focus System in CushiticLanguages. A comparative-typological analysis . . . . . . . . . .0. Kape1iuk, The syntax of ynthetic verbal forms in Ethio-Semitic

as compared with Cushitic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .V. Brugnatelli, Voyel/es et accents dans I 'histoire du berbere . . . .H. Satzinger, On the assumed ergativity of he Berber language(s)C. Taine-Cheikh, Le probleme des verbes derives en berbere e.tl 'e"'Cemple du zenaga . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . . . . . . .H. Jungraithmayr, Pre)!X and suffix conjugation in Chadic . . . . . . >List of participants .....................................

p. 117

p. 127p. 145p. 155p. 169p. 195p. 215p. 239p. 257p. 267

p. 301p. 315

p. 333p. 359p. 371p. 381p. 391p. 411p. 423


3/12

NEO-ARAMAIC AND THE SO-CALLED 'DE CAYOF ERGATIVITY'INKURDISH

Alessandro MENGOZZI - Bergamo '

Neo-Aramaic and KurdishThe speakers of Central and North-Eastem Neo-Aramaic dialects' are

religious and linguistic minorities living in a situation that we could defineas one of social and linguistic symbiosis with the Kmdish element. In Kurdistan, .Aramaic is the language of Jews and Christians, the non-Muslimminorities of the region. Clnistians and Jews are integrated in the Kurdishsocial organization and not only do they share with the Kurds ten itory an dfolklore,' but they have also absorbed many of the linguistic features

~ T h e research for this paper has been financially supported by the Compagnia di SanPaolo (T01ino) in the cOntext of he project DOREK- CriticaL Edition with TranJiation undConcordances of N e o ~ S y r i a c Poems fi"om Iraqi Kurdisum (16th-20th C e n t u r i e , \ ~ . I wouldlike to thank Mrs. Mary McCann Salvatore!li who generously agreed to revise the text; theerrors remaining are all my own.1 For a classification of the Neo-Aramaic dialects, see the paper by Fabrizio A.Pennacchietti, Emanuela Braida, Simona Destefanis, Alessandro Mengozzi, Rita Saccagno.A Project for the Publication and Lexicographic Study of Christian Neo-Aramaic Texts,published in this volume. A survey of the most salient linguistic features of Western,Central and Eastern Neo-Aramaic can be found in 0. Jastrow, The Neo-AramaicLanguages)}, in R. Hetzron (ed.), The Semitic Lan!,>uages, Rourledge Language Family Descriptions, London- New York 1997, 334-377.2 See M. Chevalier, Les montagnards chretiens du Hakkdri et du Kurdistanseptentrional, Publication du Dl!:partement de Geographie de l'Universite de P a r i s - S o r b o ~ n e

QuSern 25 (2005), pp. 239-256


4/12

240 A. Mengozzi

characteristic of the Kurdish dialects in their language. The tremendous influence of Kurdish on Neo-Aramaic has been detected at all levels of linguistic analysis: phonology, morphology, syntax and lexis.3

Kmdish dialects differ considerably from one another, not only whenthey are classified in different groups (Zaza dialects, Northern Kurdish,Southern and South-Eastern Kurdish. dialects), bu t also within a singlegroup. Sorani (Southern dialects) and Kurmanci (Northern dialects) are themost important dialectal groups, in terms of number of speakers and theexistence of a written tradition. The Kurmanci-Kurdish dialects ar e spokenin Eastern and South-Eastern Turkey, Northern Iraqi Kurdistan and NorthEastetn Syria. The area where vruieties ofKur manci are spoken constitutesabout halfof the total Kurdish-speaking area and the number of Kurmancispeakers has been calculated around 12 million.'

We will address today a pattern of diachronical development thatKurdish a.Ud Neo-Aramaic seem to have in common, namely the loss. ofergati ve features in the verbal system.

DataAs the following comparative table shows, the data we will discussand their sources are not at all homogenous.

13, Paris 1985,55-61, and, more recently, M.L. Chyet, Neo-Aramaic and Kurdish. An interdisciplinary Consideration of their Influence on Each Othem,lsraei Orientul Studies 15(1995) 219-252.

J O!ga Kapeliuk (Is Modern Hebrew the Only l n d o ~ E u r o p e a n i z e d ' ? ) ) Semitic L a n ~ guage'! And what about Neo-Aramaic, Israel Or:iental Studies 16 (1996) 59-70) wroteabout Neo-Aramaic as an 'Indo-Europeanized' Semitic language, Simon Hopkins (S. Hopkins, The N e o ~ A r a m a i c Dialects of Iran)>, in Sh. Shaked -A . Netzer (eds.), Jrano-Judaica!V (1999) 311-327.) describes the Neo-Aramaic verbal system of Iranian Kurdistan aS fully'lranized'. Irene Garbel\ (The Impact ofKwdish and Turkish on the Jewish Neo-AramaicDialect of Persian Azerbaijan and the Adjoining Regions, Journal of he American Oriental Society 85 (1965) 159-177), Fabrizio A. Pennacchietti (Verba neo-aramaico e verbaneo-iranicm), in V. Orioles (ed.), Tipologie del/a convergenza linguistica. At ti del convegnodel/a Societrl ltaliana di Giottologia (Bergamo, 17-19 dicemhre 1987), Pis a I 988, 93-1 10),Idem and A. Orengo, ~ < N e o a r a m a i c o , curdo e armeno: lingue a contatto)), Egitto e VicinoOriente I 8 (1995) 221-233, Geoffrey Khan (in various sections of his A Grammar o fNeoAranwic. The Dialect of the Jews of Arbel, Handbuch der Orientalistik, I. Der nahe undmittlere.Osten, Leiden 1999) have described in detail many aspects of the Kurdish impact.on Neo-Aramaic dialects.

4 See M. Dorleijn, The Decay of Ergativity in Kurmanci: Language internal orContact induced?, Studies in Multilingualism 3, Tilburg 1996, 6-8.

Neo-Aramaic and the So-Called 'Decay oJErgarivity' in Kurdish 241

Dialect Provenance Data Decay Referencesof erg.Kunnanci N. Kurdistan Grammar

Cross-dialectal BynonKurd. Grammatical comparison 1980So rani Sulaymaniya descriptionKunnanci N. Kurdistan Spontaneousand ellcited d. ldiolects of Dorleijn

Spontaneous speakers 1996Kunnanci Diyarbalm and elicited d.

I Turoyo Tur-Abdin Grammatical Jastrow 1993Neo- descriptionA ram. Kerend West Iran A couple Hopkins I 989of examples

Sureth Alqosh 1Jih centurypoems Diachrony Pennacch. t990l9 1h century Idiolects of Mengozzi 2000Sureth Mosul manuscripts scribes

As far as the Kurdish.dialects are concerned, we will consider examples drawn from the classical description ofKurdish ergativity provided byTheodora Bynon for varieties of Sorani and Kurmanci,5 and from recentstudies by Margreet Dorlei n on some varieties of Kurmanci spoken inTurkey.' Both scholars use data collected working with informants andcontrast them with standard giammatical descriptions of the dialect(s) theyare studying.

5 Th. Bynon, , Orientalia Suecanu 41 ~ 4 2 ( 1 9 9 2 ~ 1 9 9 3 ) 139-154; Id., \


5/12

242 A. Mengozzi

As far as Neo-Aramaic is concerned, we will consider examples fromthree dialectal varieties and we will then focus on the histmical development Of the third one.l) The first variety is Turoyo, a Central Neo-Aramaic dialect, spoke n by

West-Syrian Christians in Tur-Abdin, South-Eastern Turkey. Turoyohas reached a relatively high degree of standardization, especially inthe Diaspora of the Turoyo communities in Europe and it has beenstudied by the authoritative Otto Jastrow.72) On the opposite border of the Kmdish and Neo-Arama ic tenitory, thesecond variety we will consider is the Jewish dialect of Kerend,b1iefly described by Simon Hopkins."

3) The third Neo-Aramaic variety is the literary language in which religious poems are written by Christian priests, from the end of the 16'"century onwards (Sureth). Poems of this kind are recorded in manuscript and their manuscript transmission is characterized by a remarkable degree of scribal freedom. Recent research on this- literature hasshown that the copyists of the manuscripts now belonging to theSachau collection (now in Berlin and London) felt free to up-date notonly the spelling but also the granm1arof the text, especially as regards the verbal system. The scribe of the Sac hau manusc1ipts alteredthe verbal system of the poems which date from the 17'" centu1y inorder to adapt it to a Neo-Aramaic lcoine as spoken in Mosul at theend of the 19'" century. We will focus on this up-dating process withrelation our subject, the so-called 'decay of ergativity' .9The data also differ from the perspective in which a 'decay' of erga

tive structures has been observed. In Kurdish, the decay of ergativity hasbeen observed in the comparison of diffe1:ent dialects or in the comparisonof different idiolects among the speakers of the same dialect. In Neo-

7 0. Jasrrow, Laut- und Formenlehre des neuurwniiischen Dialekt.\' von Mrdin im Tiir'Abllfn, Semitica Viva 9, Wiesbaden 1993.

11 S. Hopkins. ((Neo-Aramaic dialects and the formation of the preterite)>, Journal q(Semitic Languages 34 (1989) 413A32.

9 F.A. Pennacchietti, Due pagine da un manoscritto inedito di una poesia religiosaneoaramaica di Yausip Gemdani (XVII sec.), in A. Vivian (ed.), Biblische undjudaistische Studien. Festschrfft.fUr Pew/a Sacchi, Judentum tmd Umwelt 29, Frankfurt am Main1990, 691-709; A. Mengozzi, The Neo-Aramaic Manuscripts of he British Library: Noteson the Study of the Dunkyiilii as a Neo-Syriac Genre, Le Museon 112 ( 1999) 459-49 4;Idem, A Stmy in a Trutl1ful Language. Neo-Syriac Poems by Israel ofAlqosh and Joseph c1fTelkepe (North Iraq, 1711' century), Cor.pus Scriptorum Chri.1tianorum Orientaiium, vol.589-590, ScriptoresSyri 230-231, Leuven 2002.

Neo-Aramaic and the So-Called 'Decay of Ergativity' in Kurdish 243

Aran1aic the loss of ergativity has been observed at a diachronicallevel, inthe history of the manuscript transmission.

Split ErgativityErgativity denotes 'a grammatical pattern in which subjects of intran

sitive verbs and direct objects of transitive verbs are treated identically forgrammatical purposes, while subjects of transitive verbs are treated differently' 10 In ergativeconstructions, the subject of transitive verbs is markedby the ergative case.

Subject of Transitive Subject oflntransitiveVerbs VerbsAgent Subject Object

Ergative A b s o l u ~ i v e AbsolutiveOBLique DIRect DIRect

This contrasts with the non-ergative nominative/accusativesystem of markers, which is familiar to the speakers of ~ o s t Europeanlanguages.

Subject of Transitive Subject of IntransitiveVerbs VerbsAgent Subject Object

Nominative Nominative AccusativeDIRect DIRect OBLique

Kurdish and Neo-Aramaic are not ergative languages. The only domain in which they display ergative featmes is the verbal inflectional system and specifically, within the verbal inflection, they display ergativityonly in the past tense.'' This kind of ergativity is typologically described assplit ergativity. In Neo-Aramaic, s p l i t - e r g ~ t i v e features are usually confined to restricted syntactic sub-domains of the past-tense inflection.

w R.L. Trask, A Dictionary of Grammatical Terms in LinguistiC.\', London - NewYork 1993,93.

11 The restriction of ergativity to the past-tense or perfect aspect is a fairly commonphenomenon in splitwergative languages (see R.M.W. Dixon, Ergcttivity, Cambridge Studiesin Linguistics 69, Camb1idge 1994, 99). For an interpretation of split ergativity in terms oftransitivity see P.J. Hopper- S.A. Thompson,


6/12

244 A. Mengozzi

Ergative Features in Kurdish and Neo-AramaicAs you can see in (1) and (2), the verbal system ofKUlmanci Kurdishdisplays a typical split-ergative system. 12

(1) !fallez di-kev -iml.DIR fall -I s(2) )'OU see me

tu min di-bin -Iyou.DIR me.OBL see -2sm

!fellez ket -imI.DIR fell -l syou saw mete ez dit -imyou.OBL me.DIRseen-ls

In the present tense -left column- the subject of the intransitive verb'to fall' is a direct personal pronoun, exactly as the subject 'you' of thetransitive 'to see', while the object 'me' is marked differently by anoblique pronoun. The present verbal form agrees with the 2sm subject. Inthe past tense - right column - Kmmanci displays ergative morphology.The subject of the intransitive verb is marked by a direct pronoun exactlyas the direct object (patient) of the transitive verb, while the agent,. thesubject of the transitive verb is marked differently by an oblique pronoun.The past-tense verbal form agrees with the ls direct object 'me'.

When we consider Neo-Ararnaic, we find in Turoyo.(3a) and (4) asplit-ergative system very similar to that ofKurmanci Kurdish.(3a) you sleep

demx -etsleep -you.DIR

(4) you kiss herne.Sq -etkiss -you.DIR -la-she.OBL

you sleptdamix-etslept -you.DIR

(3 b) she coughedS'il -lacoughed-she.OBLshe ldssed youn.Siq -et -lakissed -you.DIR -she.OBL

In Turoyo, however, the use of direct personal markers for t11e subjectof a past tense is confined to a lexically defined set of verbs (3a)," while

12 See M. Dorleijn, The Decay qf Ergativity in Kurmanci, 38-4\; the examples aredrawn from a description of 'standard' Kunnanci Kurdish (E.D. Bedir Khan - R. Lescot,Grammaire kurde, Paris 1970).

13 The verbs which take direct endings as markers of past-tense subjects are called'Neutrische Verbe.n' in 0. Jastrow, Laut- und Formenlehre des neuarumiiische.n Dialekts

Neo-Aramaic and the So-Called 'Decay ofErgativity' in Kurdish 245

the inilection of other intransitive verbs- see, e.g., 'to cough' in (3b)- isleveled on the analogy of the oblique markers of ransitive verbs in the pasttense (4).

In the Jewish Neo-Aramaic dialect of Kerend - on the oppositeborder of the territory where Central and North-Eastem Neo-Aramaic dia-lects are spoken, all intransitive verbs are marked by direct personal endings (5), but the direct marking of the object is limited to the intraconjugational representation of definite objects in tl1e 3"' person (6). 14(5) I stoodqim -nastood -I.DIR(6) I kissed her

nSiq -a -ITkissed -her.DIR -I.OBLAs in the majority ofNeo-Aramaic dialects, in Kerend the intraconju

gational representation of the object is marked only for 3' ' person objects,singular feminine and plural of both genders.

TheDecay ofErgativity in Kurdish. Recent fieldwork on valieties of KUl"manci spoken in Turkey has

shown that the split-ergative system is not as stable as it would appear inthe standard description of that language- see, above, (1) and (2). Statistics on this subject, which has been studied by Margreet Dorleijn in herPh.D dissertation, 15 are arranged in the following table.

von Mfdin im Tilr 'Abdfn, 71. The majority of them are intransitive, denoting a propertysuch as colour and form (e.g., 'to become black, to become rigid') or indicating a movement or a state (e.g., 'to go, come, fly, become tired, s \ e ~ p ' ) . Some Neutrische Verbrm are,however, transitive, meaning, e.g., 'to leam, know, acknowledge, forget, listen'.

14 Examples are drawn from S. Hopldns, Neo-Aramaic dialects and the formation ofthe preterite>), Journ!ll ofSemitic Languages 34 (1989) 4 1 3 ~ 4 3 2 . In case of a 1 1- or 2""-person object, the oblique marker indicating the agent would immediately follow the verbalparticiple, and the patient Would be marked by a prepositional object in extra-conjugationalposition.

15 M. Dorleijn, The Decay ofErgativity in Kurmanci, 67-68.


7/12

246 A. Mengozzi

Diyarbaktr jj n o n ~ D i y a r b a k J r you {pi.) s a ~ me Speakers 1 speakers

(7) we ez dit-im 1 . 2 ~ Y u 6 8 . 3 ~ : - - : , you.OBL me.DlR seen.Ols(8) we m n dit 48.6'}':. 26.7':.-'uyou.OBL me.OBL seen(9) we m n dU-in 10% 4%you.OBL me.OBL seen.Ap .

(10) hUn min diMn 40.2% l'Yoyou.DIR me.OBL seen.ApBesides the standard ergative construction (7), Kurmanci speakers areinclined to use other types of transitive construction, the most frequent ofwhich are those exemplified under nos. (8) to (10). In (8) we can see theloss of ergativity in the use of oblique pronouns for both agent and patientand in the loss of object agreement. In (9), agent and object are again

marked identically and the verbal form agrees with the agent, as is typicalin non-ergative constructions. No. (10) represents the most radicalle-velingof the past transitive construction to a standard non-ergative system.

As far as the distribution of the various construction is concemed, theergative type (7) is virtually unlmown to Knrmanci speal , !55 and 159-160.


8/12

248 A. Mengozzi

you (pi.) saw me the shepherd saw the horses(!la) xze -en -Hiwxon susli.wii!il xzay 1-Sivana

seen -me.DIR -you.OBL horses.DIR seen.3p 1-shepherd.OBL(15) we ez dit-im Siven hesp drt -in

you.OBLme.DlR seen.Ols shepherd.OBL horse.DIR seen-03p(16) ewa min-tan bioi S\viinaka aspakiin -i bini

you mc-A2p seen the shepherd the horses -A3s seenIn the Kurmanci sentences (15) the agent- 'you' and 'the shepherd'

respectively- is marked by the use of oblique forms, whereas the p atient isin the form characteristic of the subject in present-tense verbal forms.Though with a different order of actants, the split-ergative conslluction ofKurmanci is paralleled in Christian literary Neo-Aramaic of the Surethtype (15a). As a vestige of its diachronic nature as a passive participle, thepast-tense verbal form agrees with the direct object both in Kmmanci andSureth.

Ergativity has been completely lost in the Kurdish dialect of Sulaymaniya (16) in the south-eastern corner of Iraq. The southern dialects ofIraqi Kurdistan which have retainedcase as a grammatical category canuse the direct case to mark the agent of a past-tense form, as is typical innon-ergative constructions." The verbal form agrees neither with the agentnor with the patient. Only the pronominal clitic attached to the objectguides us in identifying the agent in the sentence. Given the loss of e r g a ~ live agreement, i.e. object agreement, in the verbal form, 'the clitic must, itwould seem, now definitely be analyzed as a marker of agreement with theagent-subject, despite its anomalous position in the sentence' 19As Theodora Bynon assumes, the geographical distribution of forms- split-ergative system in tl1e Nortl1 and nominative/accusative in the Southof Iraqi Kurdish territory -might reflect different stages in the diachronicshift from passive via split-ergative to non-ergative structures.1From a

lR Th. Bynon,


9/12

250 A. Mengozzi

l9Lh century. By that time, the ergative inflection of intransitive verbsappears to have totally disappeared in the urban lmine.23

he died for us, but he rose up and saved us(19) met -le mbadalan w- qemdied -he.OBL tOr us and rose(20) w- kernand PAST m x 3 I e ~ -s -lansave -heDIR -we.OBL

-re-he.OBL

Similarly, the transitive past form with pronominal object in thearchetypal text still exhibits an ergative construction (18) with a directending marking the patient and oblique ending marking the agent. In theSachau manuscript a strictly non-ergative paradigm is used, with the preverbal marker kern- which transforms the non-ergative present-tense pattern mxaLe#an into a past tense (20). The scribe of the Sachau manuscriptsupdated the inflectional system of the archetype according to the non-ergative system of his own dialect.

The non-ergative, leveled inflection of the Sachau manuscript represents the system attested in the maj01ity of North-Eastern Neo-Aramaicdialects. The poems of the 17'' century, on the other hand, display a splitergative system very similar to that described for Turoyo- see, above (3-4). The direct markers are used for the intraconjugational representation ofa pronominal direct object (18) and for a set of intransitive verbs: miJ. 'hedied' in (17).In Turoyo, the choice of direct markers for a set of intransitive verbs

is lexically defined, whereas there are indications that in the language ofthe 17th century poems, the choice between direct and oblique endings forintransitive verbs (mii vs. qemle) reflects an opposition in aspectua[nuances. The ergative intransitive paradigm with direct endings wouldseem to be tendentially resultative, perfective, whereas the paradigm with

23 Besides the historical structural change, we must take into account socio-linguisticand languagecontact factors. The 19 10 century text preserved' in the Sachau manuscriptsreflects the urban !wine of Mosul, the town where the nonergative system of Arabic islikely to have exerted its influence on Neo-Aramaic. The archetypal text, from the 171hcentury onwards, was circulating in oral and written form in a n1ral milieu, presumably lessexposed to Arabic influence. We have seen a similar opposition between urban and ruralspeech attitudes to split ergativity among Diyarbalm and non-Diyarbakir speakers ofKurmanci Kurdish.

Neo-Aramaic and .the So-Called 'Decay ofErgativity' in Kurdish 251

oblique ending would express the .nanative, punctual aspect of the intransitive verbal form. :4

Intraconjugational Representation of he ObjectIn the language of the 17'" century poems, the ergative construction is

customru.y when the object of a past-tense verb, be it direct or indirect, is apersonal pronoun- examples (21) to (23).(21) he saved usmxoi!;l. -ex

saved -we.DIR-le-he.OBL

(22) he has forgiven themSVlq -i -leforgiven -they.Dffi -he.OBL

(23) he taught us the ten commandamentsmolp -ex -le 'esra puqd.iinetaught -we.DIR he.OBL ten commandmentsWhen the direct object of a past tense is a noun phrase, either pluralor feminine singular, the intraconjugational representation of the object isoptional. We may find either the construction exemplified in (24) withoutintraconjugational object or the ergative construction with pronominalobject exemplified in the sentences (25) to (28). In fact, in these cases, theergative pattem is a marked construction, in which the direct ending serves

to resume or anticipate the patient withl:n the boundary of the verbal complex. In (25), e.g., the plural direct ending represents in the ergative verbalform the definite plural object gnahti 'her faults'.(24) he inherited the Kingdom.

(25)

(26)

iret -le malkutiiinherited -he.OBL Kingdom.fshe orgave herfaultsSviq -i -leforgiven -p.Dffi -he.OBLhe saved all manldndmxol$ -i -lesaved -p.DIR -he.OBL

gnah -afaults.p-ofherkOihin bnaynasaall of them human beings. p

::!4 A. Mengozzi, A Stmy in a Trut!Jfid Language, vol. 590, 38-39.


10/12

252 A. Mengozzi

(27) he revealed to you the KingdomkSif -ii -le qfimawxon malkutarevealed -fs.DIR -he.OBL to you K.ingdom.fs(28) he bought the (earlier mentioned) fieldmata zvin -a -lefield.fs bought -fs.DIR -he.OBL

Nominal objects which are pronominally indexed within the verbalcomplex are usually definite, i.e. nouns which are determined by a demonstrative or a pronominal suffix (25), proper or specific nouns (27), nounswrth a human referent, textually prominent nominals (28), nouns qualifiedby an attribute (26)- genitive modifier, adjective or relative close.

The possibility of marking a definite object in Neo-Ararnaic reflects awell-known tendency of human languages, which has been studied in thetheoretical and typological frame of the so-called differentielle Objektmarkierung.'l3 Within the scope of the present paper, it is interesting toobs.erve that, as far as Neo-Aramaic is concerned, the ergative patternwhrch allows a differentielle Markierung of definite objects is the more resistent to the process of leveling towards a coherent non-ergative system.To the best of my knowledge, most Central and North-Eastern -Neo-Aramaic dialects can still mark intraconjugationally definite objectsthrough the use of what remains of an ergative construction, at leas t whenthe objec t is a singu lar felflinine or a plural nominal phrase.

15 See the studies by Georg Bossong, especially devoted to the N e o ~ I r a n i a n languages: e.g., G. Bossong, Historische Sprachwissenschaft und empirische Universalienf o r s c h u n g > ~ , R o m ~ n L v t i s c h e s Jahrbuch 33 (1982) 17-51; Idem, Empirische Universaiienjbrschung. D ! f l ~ r ~ n t l e l / e Objektmarkierung in den neuiranischen Sprac:hen, TGbingen 1985.For the Se:mtlc languages we have the good overview published by Geoffrey Khan in1984: O ? J e c ~ Markers a n ~ Agreement Pronouns in 'Semitic Languages)), Bulletin ( ~ f the School oj Ortentaf und African Studies 47 (1984) 468-500. The inspiring observationsmade by Hetzron and Polotsky - and many others after them - on the Urmi verbalsystem moves in the direction ~ f t h e d!tfi:1rentielie Objektmarkierung: see, e.g., R. Hetzron,(tThe Morphology of the Verb m Modern Syriac (Christian Colloquial ofUrmi)}) Journalof_the A ~ z e r i c a n Oriental Society 89 (1969) 112-127; H.J. Polotsky, Verbs ~ i t h twoobjects _m M o d e r ~ S ~ r i a c (Unni))), Israel Oriented Studies 9 (1979) 204-227; Id., N e u _ s y n ~ c h e K o n J u g ~ t l O m > . Orientalia Suecana 33-35 (1984-1986) 323-332; Id., }, in G. Goldenberg - Sh. Raz (eds.), Semitic and CushiticStudtes, W1esbaden 1994, 90- !02; Id., Notes on a Neo-Syriac Grammar, Israel OrientalStudies 16 (1996) 11 ~ 4 8 .

Neo-Aramaic and the So-Called 'Decay ofErgativity' in Kurdish 253

Differentielle Objelctmarlcienmg and MetreAs the example {24) shows, definiteness is a necessary condition but

defmitely not a sufficient one for a nominal object to be pronomin ally represented in the verbal fmm. The differentielle Mar/cienmg of definiteobjects is optional. \Vhat are then the conditions which led early Neoi\.ramaic authors to opt for the marked ergative construction? A firstanalysis of the Neo-Aramaic language of the 17'" century poems does notprovide a definitive answer to this question, but we do observe someregularity in the distribution of fonns with or without intraconjugational.representation of he object.The corpus includes 265 sentences in which a feminine singular or aplural nominal phrase occurs as the direct object of a past transitive construction." The poetic language of the early texts is characterized by a freeorder of constituents. In !54 cases \]Ie nominal object follows the verbalform in the sentence (VO), while in 111 cases the object is placed beforethe verbal com plex (OV). Of the 154 postverbal objects, 15 are anticipatedin the verbal form b y means of a pronominal index (23% c.ca). Of he 111cases in which the object nominal phrase precedes the verb, 33 display intraconjugational object representation by means of a resuming pronoun(37%).The iritraconjugational representation of a feminine singular object -as in (27-28)- or a plural object- as in (25-26)- is more frequent whenthe nominal object is in preverbal position (OV), as if a preverbal objectwould give the feeling that it had been moved or fronted and its pronominal re-presentation further on in the sentence would thus been renderedmore effective.We may suppose that authmial preferences and/or metrical choicesare factors involved in the option for the differentielle Objektmarkierung.The following table summarizes separate statistics for the poems composed by two Neo-Ararnaic authors of tl1e 17'' century -Israel of Alqoshand Joseph ofTelkepe- and for tl1e poems written in two different metres.

26 The 256 sentences are all the instances of 3ru-feminine singular and 3 ' d ~ p ! U r a l object which occur in the 171h-century poems published in A. Mengozzi, A Story aTruthful Language (2537 verse lines).


11/12

254 A. Mengozzi

Corpus. I vo 11 OV ISeptenaries 17'Yo 43'YuVerses by Israel of A l q ~ s h 21% 42'%Entire Corpus 23% 37 1YnVerses by Joseph ofTelkepe 23'Yu 35'YoDodecasyllab\es 25% 32%,

Israel of Alqosh would appear to be more inclined than Joseph ofTelkepe to opt for the intraconjugational representation ofthe object; whenthe object is placed before the verbal form. However, the most substantialopposition between preverbal and postverbal objects seems in fact noticeable, when we consider metrical rather than personal stylistic choices. Inthe short lines- the seven-syllable lines - preverbal objects which are pronominally indexed are noti>, Israel

Oriental Studies 12 (1992) 113-137. Following Polotsky, the author rejects the use 9ftheterms 'ergativity' and 'split ergativity' in describing the passive-to-active shift observed inthe Neo-Aramaic past tense.

Neo-Aramaic and the So-Called 'Decay of Ergativity' in Kutdish 255

The Neo-Aramaic phenomenon which has been compared with the decayof ergativity in Kurdish deserves further scholarly attention. As any otherdiachronic stmctural development, the loss of ergativity is somehow regulated by a complicated interplay of different factors: morphologic andsyntactic change and the consequent internal process of morphologic andsyntactic leveling. Anexternal factor such as the influence of split-ergativeor non-ergative contact languages could have reinforced or facilitated theprocesses of both diachronic change and leveling.

The real pockets of resistance of split ergativity in Neo-Aramaicappear to be the differentielle Markierung of definite objects." A firstsimple attempt has been made to assess the syntactic conditions whichfacilitates the marking of definite objects in early Christian Neo-Aramaicpoems from Iraqi Kurdistan. From a statistical point of view, preverbalnominal objects are more frequently indexed in the verbal complex thanpostverbal objects. The opposition between preverbal and postverbal position of the nominal object appears to be more relevant in short verse linesthan in long verse tines.

2) Secondly, the loss of split ergativity demonstrates, once again,.therelevance of the early religious poetry for the general picture of NeoAramaic dialectology."

The 17'" centu1y poems offer the scholar a vivid portrayal of a dialect,found in the middle of the Neo-Aramaic territory, at a moment in its diachronic development when traces of split ergativity were still present. Thehistory of the manuscript transmisSion of the very same poems offers, onthe other band, evidence that a variant of this dialect has almost completelylost all traces of ergativity sometime before the 19'" century, through aprocess of leveling which has effected in similar ways the majority ofNorth-Eastern Neo-Aramaic dialects.

As we have seen, in order to find weak vestiges of split-etgative features in dialects spoken today we have to look for them in the most peripheral areas of the Central and North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic territory: in TurAbdin (South-Eastern Turkey) and in the Jewish dialect of Kerend, thesouthernmost of Neo-Aramaic dialects of Iran. Further evidence could

28 The necessity of rendering the semantic roles of he actants unambiguous and thetendency towards a differentieile Markierung of definite objects seems to be involved in thedistribution of ergative and non-ergative fonns in Kunnanci Kurdish (t4. Dorleijn, .:TheDecay of Ergativity in Kurmanci, 129-130 and 138-140).

29 See', e.g., G. Goldenberg, ((Early Neo-Aramaic and PresentDay Dialectal Diversity, Journal of Semitic Studies 45 (2000) 69-89.


12/12

256 A. Mengozzi

change this dialectal map, but we may safely desctibe the remains of splitergativity in Turoyo and Kerend as archaic features preserved the longestin the peripheral areas. Further evidence may also prove us to be right inconsidering the loss of ergativity as a phenomenon which spread fiom thecentral region to the periphery of the Neo-Aramaic territory.'"

3 actors other than the geographical position- e.g., factors such as the confessionaland religious identity of the speakers- may have facilitated the preservation o f s p l i t ~ e r g a ~ tive features in these two dialects. Turoyo is spoken exclusively by Orthodox West-Syriansand the Jewish dialect ofKerend differs from the Ch1istian dialect ofthe very same village,in that the Christian dialect of Kerend has completely lost the traces of split ergativity thatstill survive in the Jewish dialect ofKerend.

1!

...

';,.

'

11. Decay of Ergativity Firenze

Documents

Transcript of 11. Decay of Ergativity Firenze