The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Qaraqosh

Khan, Geoffrey

doi:10.1163/9789004348585

Cited by 78 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, the perfective verb base can only host one agreement morpheme, while the imperfective verb base can host two. 4 The second type of split, found in Christian Barwar, Christian Qaraqosh, Telkepe, and several other languages, involves complete agreement reversal (Khan 2002(Khan , 2008Coghill 2003;Doron and Khan 2012). We exemplify this pattern with data from Christian Barwar (Khan 2008:167, 282):…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 60%

“…This pattern surfaces in a wider range of Neo-Aramaic languages, including Alqosh, Telkepe, Christian Barwar, Christian Qaraqosh, and Jewish Zakho (Khan 2002(Khan , 2008Coghill 2003;Doron and Khan 2012). 18 The data presented here mainly comes from Christian Barwar and Christian Qaraqosh, as these languages are particularly well-described (Khan 2002(Khan , 2008Doron and Khan 2012).…”

Section: Complete Agreement Reversalmentioning

confidence: 72%

“…The terms S-suffix and L-suffix refer to different sets of agreement markers, and we adopt them from the literature (e.g., Khan 2002Khan , 2008. The term S-suffix stands for simple/subject-suffix, as it was historically subject agreement and is still most frequently used in this function.…”

Section: Agreementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The second system, found in Christian Barwar, Qaraqosh, and Telkepe, among others, displays complete agreement reversal. In these languages, perfective and imperfective aspects have both subject and object agreement, but the functions of the agreement markers reverse entirely: the marker of subject agreement in one aspect is the marker of object agreement in the other, and vice versa (Khan 2002(Khan , 2008Coghill 2003). 2 Our main goal in this paper is to provide a unified analysis of these two aspect splits.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Instead, these splits are characterized by agreement reversal, a pattern in which the function of agreement markers switches between aspects, though the alignment of agreement remains consistently nominative-accusative. Some Neo-Aramaic languages have complete agreement reversal, affecting both subject and object agreement (Khan 2002(Khan , 2008Coghill 2003). In addition to this, we describe a different system, found in Senaya, which we call partial agreement reversal.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Aspect splits without ergativity

Kalin

Urk

2014

Nat Lang Linguist Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper looks at two different aspect splits in Neo-Aramaic languages that are unusual in that they do not involve any ergativity. Instead, these splits are characterized by agreement reversal, a pattern in which the function of agreement markers switches between aspects, though the alignment of agreement remains consistently nominative-accusative. Some Neo-Aramaic languages have complete agreement reversal, affecting both subject and object agreement (Khan 2002(Khan , 2008Coghill 2003). In addition to this, we describe a different system, found in Senaya, which we call partial agreement reversal. In Senaya, the reversal only affects the marker of the perfective subject, which marks objects in the imperfective. We show that a unifying property of the systems that we discuss is that there is additional agreement potential in the imperfective. We develop an account in which these splits arise because of an aspectual predicate in the imperfective that introduces an additional ϕ-probe. This proposal provides support for the view that aspect splits are the result of an additional predicate in nonperfective aspects (Laka 2006;Coon 2010;Coon and Preminger 2012), because it allows for the apparently disparate phenomena of split ergativity and agreement reversal to be given a unified treatment.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 60%