1887
Volume 11, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2210-2116
  • E-ISSN: 2210-2124
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Alignment patterns in the Eastern varieties of modern Aramaic varieties are generally said to originate in an ergative source construction based on the so-called ‘passive’ participle - ‘killed’ and the preposition - where ergative person markers gradually extended to all intransitive predicates. While various source constructions have been suggested, this article demonstrates that most explanatory power and scope for the complex historical background of the alignment microvariation in Neo-Aramaic is offered by the typology of resultatives. There was instability from the beginning due to the versatile nature of resultatives and the increasing polyfunctionality of the preposition -. This, in turn, indicates that the suggested source constructions for ergative alignment need not be mutually exclusive. Moreover, this also points to ergativity as merely one among several outcomes rather than the original source.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jhl.19046.noo
2021-07-23
2021-12-04
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Act.Thom. = Wright, William
    1871Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles I: Syriac Texts. London: Williams & Norgate.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Anon.Abr. = Brock, Sebastian P.
    1981 An anonymous Syriac homily on Abraham. Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica12.225–260.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Aphr. = Wright, William
    1869The Homilies of Aphraates, the Persian Sage. London: Williams & Norgate.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. BLC = Drijvers, H. J. W.
    1964Book of the Laws of the Countries: Dialogue on Fate of Bardaisan of Edessa (Semitic Texts with Translations 3). Assen: Van Gorcum & Comp.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Curet. = Kiraz, George A.
    1996Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels. Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Joh.Eph.LES = John of Ephesus
    Joh.Eph.LES = John of Ephesus 1924Lives of the Eastern Saints II (=Patrologia Orientalis XVIII) ed. byErnest W. Brooks. Paris: Firmin-Didot.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Sinait. = Kiraz, George A.
    1996Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels. Leiden: Brill
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Jul.Rom. = Hoffmann, Johann G. R.
    1880Iulianos der Abtruennige. Leiden: Brill.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Adams, James Noel
    2013Social Variation and the Latin Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511843433
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511843433 [Google Scholar]
  10. Andrews, Avery D.
    2007 The Major Functions of the Noun Phrase. Language Typology and Syntactic Description I: Clause Structureed. byT. Shopen, 132–223. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511619427.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511619427.003 [Google Scholar]
  11. Arnold, Werner
    1990Das Neuwestaramäische. V. Grammatik (Semitica Viva 4/5). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Aro, Jussi
    1965 Parallels to the Akkadian Stative in West Semitic Languages. Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger on His Seventy-fifth Birthday, April 21, 1965 (= Assyriological Studies 16) ed. byHans G. Güterbock & Thorkild Jacobsen, 407–411. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Bar-Asher, Elitzur A.
    2008 The Origin and the Typology of the Pattern qtil li in Syriac and Babylonian Aramaic. Sha’arey Lashon. Studies in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Jewish Languages in Honor of Moshe Bar-AsherIIed. byA. Mamman, S. Fassberg & Y. Breuer, 360–392. Jerusalem: Hebrew University. [in Hebrew]
    [Google Scholar]
  14. (Siegal) 2011 On the Passiveness of one Pattern in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic: A Linguistic and Philological Discussion. Journal of Semitic Studies56.111–143. 10.1093/jss/fgq061
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jss/fgq061 [Google Scholar]
  15. (Siegal) 2014 From a Non-argument-dative to an Argument-dative. The Character and Origin of the qtīl lī Construction in Syriac and Jewish Babylonian Aramaic. Folia Orientalia51.59–101.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Barotto, Alessandra
    2014 Typology of Case Alignments in NENA Dialects. RiCOGNIZIONI. Revista di lingue, literature e culture moderne2:1.83–94.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. 2015 Split Ergativity in NENA Dialects. Neo-Aramaic in its Linguistic Contexted. byGeoffrey Khan & Lidia Napiorkowska, 232–249. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press. 10.31826/9781463236489‑015
    https://doi.org/10.31826/9781463236489-015 [Google Scholar]
  18. Barsky, Eugene & Sergey Loesov
    2021 A History of the Intransitive Preterite of Ṭuroyo: From a Property Adjective to a Finite Tense. Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic (=Cambridge Semitic Languages and Cultures IV) ed. byGeoffrey Khan & Paul M. Noorlander. Cambridge, UK: Open Book Publishers. 10.11647/obp.0209.01
    https://doi.org/10.11647/obp.0209.01 [Google Scholar]
  19. Benveniste, Emile
    1966 [1952]La construction passive du parfait transitif. Problèmes de linguistique générale Ied. byEmile Benveniste, 176–186. Paris: Gallimard.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Bergsträsser, Gotthelf
    1915Neuaramäische Märchen: und andere Texte aus Ma’lūla: hauptsächlich aus der Sammlung E. Prym s und A. Socin. Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Bickel, Balthasar, Giorgio Iemmolo, Taras Zakharko & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich
    2013 Patterns of Alignment in Verb Agreement. Languages across Boundaries: Studies in Memory of Anna Siewierskaed. byDik Bakker & Martin Haspelmath, 15–36. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110331127.15
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110331127.15 [Google Scholar]
  22. Bickel, Balthasar
    2008 On the Scope of the Referential Hierarchy in the Typology of Grammatical Relations. Case and Grammatical Relations. Papers in Honor of Bernard Comrieed. byGreville G. Corbett & Michael Noonan, 191–210. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.81.09ont
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.81.09ont [Google Scholar]
  23. Bossong, Georg
    1998 Le marquage de l’expérient dans les langues d’Europe. Actance et Valence dans les Langues de I’Europeed. byJ. Feuillet, 259–294. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110804485.259
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110804485.259 [Google Scholar]
  24. Brockelmann, Carl
    1913Grundriss der vergleichende Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen. II: Syntax. Berlin: Reuther & Reichard.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Bybee, Joan L. & Östen Dahl
    1989 The Creation of Tense and Aspect Systems in Languages of the World. Studies in Language13:1.51–103. 10.1075/sl.13.1.03byb
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.13.1.03byb [Google Scholar]
  26. Bybee, Joan L., Revere D. Perkins & William Pagliuca
    1994The Evolution of Grammar. Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Coghill, Eleanor
    2016The Rise and Fall of Ergativity in Aramaic. Cycles of Alignment Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198723806.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198723806.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  28. Cohen, David
    1984La phrase nominale et l’évolution du système verbal sémitique: Études de syntaxe historique. Paris.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Cole, Peter, Harbert, Wayne, Hermon, Gabriella Hermon & S. N. Sridhar
    1980 The Acquisition of Subjecthood. Language56.719–743. 10.2307/413485
    https://doi.org/10.2307/413485 [Google Scholar]
  30. Comrie, Bernard
    1978 Ergativity. Syntactic Typology: Studies in the Phenomenology of Languageed. byW. P. Lehmann, 329–393. Sussex: Harvester Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. 1989Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology. 2nd ed.Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 2005 Alignment of Case Marking. InThe World Atlas of Language Structuresed. byMartin Haspelmath, Mathew S. Dryer, D. Gil & Bernard Comrie, 398–404. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Contini, Riccardo
    1998 Considerazione sul presunto « dativo etico » in aramaico pre-cristiano. Etudes sémitiques et samaritaines offertes à Jean Margain. ed. byC.-B. Amphoux, Albert Frey & Ursula Schattner-Rieser, 83–94. Lausanne: Editions du Zèbre.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Creissels, Denis
    2008a Direct and Indirect Explanations of Typological Regularities: The Case of Alignment Variations. Folia Linguistica42:1.1–38. 10.1515/FLIN.2008.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/FLIN.2008.1 [Google Scholar]
  35. 2008b Remarks on Split Intransitivity and Fluid Intransitivity. Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics7ed. byOlivier Bonami & Patricia Cabredo Hofherr, 139–168. Paris: Colloque de syntaxe et sémantique.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Cristofaro, Sonia
    2013 The Referential Hierarchy. Reviewing the Evidence in Diachronic Perspective. Languages across Boundaries. Studies in Memory of Anna Siewierskaed. byDik Bakker & Martin Haspelmath, 69–93. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110331127.69
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110331127.69 [Google Scholar]
  37. Croft, William
    1993 Case Marking and the Semantics of Mental Verbs. Semantics and the Lexiconed. byJames Pustejovksi, 55–72. Dordrecht: Kluwer. 10.1007/978‑94‑011‑1972‑6_5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-1972-6_5 [Google Scholar]
  38. 2012Verbs: Aspect and Causal Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248582.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199248582.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  39. Diem, Werner
    2012Vom Status pendens zum Satzsubjekt: Studien zur Topikalisierung in neueren semitischen Sprachen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Dixon, Robert M. W.
    1979 Ergativity. Language55:59–138. 10.2307/412519
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412519 [Google Scholar]
  41. 1994Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611896
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611896 [Google Scholar]
  42. Donohue, Mark & Søren Wichmann
    2008The Typology of Semantic Alignment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199238385.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199238385.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  43. Doron, Edith & Geoffrey Khan
    2010 The Debate on Ergativity in Neo-Aramaic. Proceedings of the Israel Association for Theoretical Linguistics26.1–16.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 2012 The Typology of Morphological Ergativity in Neo-Aramaic. Lingua122.225–240. 10.1016/j.lingua.2011.11.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2011.11.008 [Google Scholar]
  45. Drinka, Bridget
    2017Language Contact in Europe: The Periphrastic Perfect through History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781139027694
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139027694 [Google Scholar]
  46. Drower, E. S. & R. Macuch
    1963Mandaic Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Fassberg, Steven
    2018 The Ethical Dative in Aramaic. Aramaic Studies16.101–116. 10.1163/17455227‑01602003
    https://doi.org/10.1163/17455227-01602003 [Google Scholar]
  48. Folmer, Margaretha
    1995The Aramaic Language in the Achaemenid Period: A Study in Linguistic Variation. Leuven: Peeters Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Fox, Samuel E.
    2009The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Bohtan (=Gorgias Neo-Aramaic Studies 9). Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press. 10.31826/9781463217327
    https://doi.org/10.31826/9781463217327 [Google Scholar]
  50. Gildea, Spike & Fernando Zúñiga
    2016 Referential Hierarchies: A New Look at Some Historical and Typological Patterns. Linguistics54:3.483–529. 10.1515/ling‑2016‑0007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2016-0007 [Google Scholar]
  51. Givón, Talmy
    1984 Direct Object and Dative Shifting: Semantic and Pragmatic Case. Objects: Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relationsed. byF. Plank, 151–182. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Goetze, Albrecht
    1942 The So-Called Intensive of the Semitic Languages. Journal of the American Oriental Society62:1.1–8. 10.2307/594095
    https://doi.org/10.2307/594095 [Google Scholar]
  53. Goldenberg, Gideon
    1992 Aramaic Perfects. Israel Oriental Studies12.113–137.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Greenblatt, Jared
    2011The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Amədya. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/ej.9789004182578.i‑366
    https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004182578.i-366 [Google Scholar]
  55. Gzella, Holger
    2004Tempus, Aspekt und Modalität im Reichsaramäischen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Haig, Geoffrey
    2008a The Emergence of Ergativity in Iranian: Reanalysis or Extension?Aspects of Iranian Linguisticsed. bySimin Karimi, Don Stilo & Vida Samiian, 113–112. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. 2008bAlignment Change in Iranian Languages: A Construction Grammar Approach (=Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 37). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110198614
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110198614 [Google Scholar]
  58. 2017 Deconstructing Iranian Ergativity. The Oxford Handbook of Ergativityed. byJessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa deMena Travis, 465–500. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. 2018 The Grammaticalization of Object Pronouns: Why Differential Object Indexing is an Attractor State. Linguistics56:4.781–818. 10.1515/ling‑2018‑0011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2018-0011 [Google Scholar]
  60. Halevy, Rivka
    2008 Grammaticalization ‘Chains’ of the Subject Coreferential Dative in Semitic and Elsewhere. New Re-flections on Grammaticalization, Leuven17–19July 2008 Conference presentation.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Happ, Heinz
    1967 Die lateinische Umgangssprache und die Kunstsprache des Plautus. Glotta45.60–104.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Haspelmath, Martin
    1990 The Grammaticalization of Passive Morphology. Studies in Language14:1.25–72. 10.1075/sl.14.1.03has
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.14.1.03has [Google Scholar]
  63. 1994 Passive Participles across Languages. Voice: Form and Functioned. byBarbara Fox & Paul J. Hopper, 151–177. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.27.08has
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.27.08has [Google Scholar]
  64. Hemmauer, R. & M. Waltisberg
    2006 Zum relationalen Verhalten der Verbalflexion im Ṭurojo. Folia Linguistica Historica27:1–2.19–59. 10.1515/flih.2006.27.1‑2.19
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flih.2006.27.1-2.19 [Google Scholar]
  65. Heine, Bernd
    1997Possession: Cognitive Sources, Forces and Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511581908
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511581908 [Google Scholar]
  66. Hoberman, Robert D.
    1983 Verb Inflection in Modern Aramaic: Morphosyntax and Semantics. Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Hopkins, Simon
    1989 Neo-Aramaic Dialects and the Formation of the Preterite. Journal of Semitic Studies34.413–432. 10.1093/jss/XXXIV.2.413
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jss/XXXIV.2.413 [Google Scholar]
  68. Jastrow, Otto
    1985Laut- und Formenlehre des neuaramäischen Dialekts von Mīdin im Ṭur ʕAbdīn. 3rd ed.Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. 1988Der neuaramäische Dialekt von Hertevin (Province Siirt) (Semitica Viva 3). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. 1994Der neuaramäische Dialekt von Mlaḥsô (Semitica Viva 14). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
    [Google Scholar]
  71. 1996 Passive Formation in Ṭuroyo and Mlaḥsô. Israel Oriental Studies16.49–57.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Joosten, Jan
    1989 The Function of the So-called dativus ethicus in Classical Syriac. Orientalia58.473–492.
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Jügel, Thomas
    2015Die Entwicklung der Eregativkonstruktion im Alt- und Mitteliranischen: Eine Korpusbasierte Untersuching zu Kasus, Kongruenz und Satzbau. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. 10.2307/j.ctvc770qq
    https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvc770qq [Google Scholar]
  74. Kapeliuk, Olga
    2008 Between Nouns and Verbs in Neo-Aramaic. Neo-Aramaic in its Linguistic Contexted. byGeoffrey Khan & Lidia Napiorkowska, 131–147. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press. 10.31826/9781463211615‑009
    https://doi.org/10.31826/9781463211615-009 [Google Scholar]
  75. Keenan, Edward L.
    1976 Towards a Universal Definition of Subject. Subject and Topiced. byC. N. Li, 303–333. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Khan, Geoffrey
    1999A Grammar of Neo-Aramaic: The Dialect of the Jews of Arbel. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004305045
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004305045 [Google Scholar]
  77. 2002The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Qaraqosh. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004348585
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004348585 [Google Scholar]
  78. 2004aThe Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Sulemaniyya and Halabja. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789047413585
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789047413585 [Google Scholar]
  79. 2004b Aramaic and the Impact of Languages in Contact With it Through the Ages. Lenguas en Contacto: el testimonio escritoed. byPedro Bádenas de la Peña, Eugenio R. Luján, María Angeles Gallego & Sofía Torallas Tovar, 87–108. Madrid: Consejo superiores de investigaciones científicas.
    [Google Scholar]
  80. 2007a Grammatical Borrowing in North Eastern Neo-Aramaic. Grammatical Borrowing in Cross-Linguistic Perspectiveed. byYaron Matras & Jeanette Sakel, 197–214. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. 2007b The North Eastern Neo-Aramaic dialects. Journal of Semitic Studies52.1–20. 10.1093/jss/fgl034
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jss/fgl034 [Google Scholar]
  82. 2008The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Urmi. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press. 10.1163/ej.9789004167650.i‑2198
    https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004167650.i-2198 [Google Scholar]
  83. 2013 Some Historical Developments of the Verb in Neo-Aramaic. Diachronic and Typological Perspectives on Verbsed. byFolke Josephson, 425–435. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.134.15kha
    https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.134.15kha [Google Scholar]
  84. 2016The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of the Assyrian Christians of Urmi. I: Phonology and Morphology. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004313934
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004313934 [Google Scholar]
  85. 2017 Ergativity in Neo-Aramaic. The Oxford Handbook of Ergativityed. byJessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa deMena Travis, 873–899. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Kutscher, E. Y.
    1969 Two ‘Passive’ Constructions in Aramaic in the Light of Persian. Proceedings of the International Conference on Semitic Studies held in Jerusalem, 19–23 July 1965, 132–151. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Ledgeway, Adam
    2012From Latin to Romance: Morphosyntactic Typology. Oxford (etc.): Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199584376.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199584376.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  88. Loesov, Sergey
    2012 A New Attempt at Reconstructing Proto-Aramaic. Babel und Bibel 6: Annual of Ancient Near Eastern, Old Testament and Semitic Studiesed. byLeonid E. Kogan, Natalia V. Koslova, Sergey Loesov & Sergey V. Tishchenko, 421–456. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 10.5325/j.ctv1bxh5gx.17
    https://doi.org/10.5325/j.ctv1bxh5gx.17 [Google Scholar]
  89. Malchukov, Andrej
    2008 Split Intransitives, Experiencer Objects and ‘Transimpersonal’ Constructions: (Re-)establishing the Connection. InDonohue & Wichmann 2008: 76–100. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199238385.003.0003
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199238385.003.0003 [Google Scholar]
  90. Mengozzi, Alessandro
    2002aIsrael of Alqosh and Joseph of Telkepe: A Story in a Truthful Language Religious Poems in Vernacular Syriac (North Iraq, 17th Century) I: An Anthology. Leuven: Éditions Peeters.
    [Google Scholar]
  91. 2002bIsrael of Alqosh and Joseph of Telkepe: A Story in a Truthful Language Religious Poems in Vernacular Syriac (North Iraq, 17th Century) II: Introduction and Translation. Leuven: Éditions Peeters.
    [Google Scholar]
  92. 2005 Neo-Aramaic and the So-called ‘Decay of Ergativity’ in Kurdish. Proceedings of the 10th Meeting of Hamito–Semitic (Afroasiatic) Linguisticsed. byPelio Fronzaroli & Paolo Marassini, 239–256. Florence: Dipartimento di linguistica, Università di Firenze.
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Molin, Dorota
    2021The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Dohok: A Comparative Grammar. Doctoral dissertation, University of Cambridge.
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Mor, Uri & Na’ama Pat-El
    2016 The Development of Predicates with Prepositional Subjects in Hebrew. Journal of Semitic Studies61:2.327–346. 10.1093/jss/fgw016
    https://doi.org/10.1093/jss/fgw016 [Google Scholar]
  95. Morgenstern, Matthew
    2011Studies in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic: Based upon Early Eastern Manuscripts. Winona Lake, IN: Brill. 10.1163/9789004370128
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004370128 [Google Scholar]
  96. Mutzafi, Hezy
    2004The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Koy Sanjaq (Iraqi Kurdistan), (=Semitica Viva 32). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
    [Google Scholar]
  97. 2008 Trans-Zab Jewish Neo-Aramaic. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies1(3): 409–431. 10.1017/S0041977X08000815
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0041977X08000815 [Google Scholar]
  98. Næss, Åshild
    2007Prototypical Transitivity (=Typological Studies in Language 72). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.72
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.72 [Google Scholar]
  99. Nedjalkov, Vladimir P.
    1988Typology of Resultative Constructions (=Typological Studies in Language 12). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.12
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.12 [Google Scholar]
  100. 2001 Resultative Constructions. Language Typology and Language Universals (=Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 20) ed. byMartin Haspelmath, 928–940. Berlin: De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. & Sergej J. Jaxontov
    1988 The Typology of Resultative Constructions. InNedjalkov 1988, 3–62. 10.1075/tsl.12.06ned
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.12.06ned [Google Scholar]
  102. Nöldeke, Theodor
    1868Grammatik der neusyrischen Sprache am Urmia-See und in Kurdistan. Leipzig: T.O. Weigel.
    [Google Scholar]
  103. 1875 [1964]Mandäische Grammatik. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Noorlander, Paul M.
    2012 Neo-Aramaic Alignment in a Historical Perspective: Some Preliminary Remarks. Semitics Philology Seminar3December 2012 Cambridge. Conference presentation.
    [Google Scholar]
  105. 2014 Diversity in Convergence: Kurdish and Aramaic Variation Entangled. Journal of Kurdish Studies2:1.201–224. 10.33182/ks.v2i2.401
    https://doi.org/10.33182/ks.v2i2.401 [Google Scholar]
  106. 2017 The Proximative and its Correlatives in North Eastern Neo-Aramaic. Prospective and Proximative in Turkic, Iranian and Beyonded. byAgnes Korn & Irina Nevskaya, 187–210. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  107. 2018a Me Likes the Subject-Subject-like Properties of Experiencers in Aramaic. Neo-Aramaic Languages across Space and Time5–7October 2018 Uppsala. Conference presentation.
    [Google Scholar]
  108. 2018b Alignment in Eastern Neo-Aramaic Languages from a Typological Perspective. Doctoral dissertation, Leiden University.
    [Google Scholar]
  109. 2019 One Way of Becoming Perfect? ‘Possessive’ Resultatives in Semitic and Aramaic in Particular. Semitics Philology Seminar14October 2019 Cambridge. Conference presentation.
    [Google Scholar]
  110. 2021a Towards a Typology of Possessors and Experiencers in Neo-Aramaic: Non-canonical Subjects as Relics of a Former Dative Case. Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic (=Cambridge Semitic Languages and Cultures IV) ed. byGeoffrey Khan & Paul M. Noorlander, 29–93. Cambridge, UK: Open Book Publishers. 10.11647/obp.0209.02
    https://doi.org/10.11647/obp.0209.02 [Google Scholar]
  111. 2021bErgativity and Other Alignment Types in Neo-Aramaic: Investigating Morphosyntactic Variation. To appear in Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics 103. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004448186
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004448186 [Google Scholar]
  112. Noorlander, Paul M. & Dorota Molin
    . Forthcoming. Word Order Typology in North Eastern Neo-Aramaic: Towards a Corpus-Based Approach. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 75. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Onishi, Masayuki
    2001 Non-canonically Marked Subjects and Objects: Parameters and Properties. Non-canonical Marking of Subjects and Objects (= Typological Studies in Language 46) byAlexandra Y. Aikhenvald, R. M. W. Dixon & Masayuki Onishi, 1–51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.46.03oni
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.46.03oni [Google Scholar]
  114. Payne, John R.
    1980 The Decay of Ergativity in Pamir Languages. Lingua51.147–186. 10.1016/0024‑3841(80)90005‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-3841(80)90005-4 [Google Scholar]
  115. Pinkster, Harm
    1987 The Strategy and Chronology of the Development of Future and Perfect Tense Auxiliaries in Latin. The Historical Development of Auxiliariesed. byMartin Harris & Paolo Ramat, 193–233. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110856910.193
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110856910.193 [Google Scholar]
  116. Polotsky, Hans Jacob
    1996 Notes on Neo-Syriac Grammar. Israel Oriental Studies16.11–48.
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Ritter, Helmut
    1967–1971Ṭūrōyō: Die Volksprache der syrischen Christen des Ṭūr ʕAbdîn A. TexteI: 1967, II: 1969, III: 1971 Beirut: Steiner.
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Rubin, Aaron D.
    2005Studies in Semitic Grammaticalization (=Harvard Semitic Studies 57). Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. 10.1163/9789004370029
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004370029 [Google Scholar]
  119. Siewierska, Anna
    2003 Person Agreement and the Determination of Alignment. Transactions of the Philological Society101:2.339–370. 10.1111/1467‑968X.00122
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-968X.00122 [Google Scholar]
  120. 2005 Alignment of Verbal Person Marking. World Atlas of Language Structuresed. byMartin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie, 406–409. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Sokoloff, Michael
    1992A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic. 2nd ed.Ramat–Gan: Bar Ilan University Press / Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  122. 2002A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic. Ramat–Gan: Bar Ilan University Press / Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  123. 2009A Syriac Lexicon. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns & Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  124. 2014A Dictionary of Christian Palestinian Aramaic. Leuven: Peeters Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Stassen, Leon
    2009Predicative Possession. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Trask, R. L.
    1979 On the Origins of Ergativity. Ergativity: Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relationsed. byF. Plank, 385–404. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  127. Van Rompay, Lucas
    1999Les versions syriaque. La chaîne sur l’Exode I: Fragments de severe d’Antioche: Texte grec établi et traduited. byFrançoise Petit. Louvain: In Aedibus Peeters.
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Waltisberg, Michael
    2016Syntax des Ṭuroyo (=Semitica Viva 55). Wiesbaden: Harrassowiz.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/jhl.19046.noo
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jhl.19046.noo
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): alignment change; dative; ergativity; resultative participle; Semitic
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error