The syntax of special inflection in Coptic interrogatives

Reintges, Chris

doi:10.1075/cilt.241.18rei

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Conclusive evidence for its affixal status is found in its allomorphy, which is, somewhat unusually from a cross-linguistic perspective, conditioned by TAM construction: nt-for the past tense, ete-in some negative constructions, and e-elsewhere. As in Earlier Egyptian, this information-structural morphology is strongly associated with interrogative constructions (Polotsky 1944;Shisha-Halevy 1986;Reintges 2003), and it can occur even where no focal element is clearly present.…”

mentioning

confidence: 78%

Swimming against the typological tide or paddling along with language change?

Grossman

Polis

2018

JHL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has repeatedly been observed that there is a worldwide preference for suffixes over prefixes. In this article, we argue that universally dispreferred – or rare – structures can and do arise as the result of regular processes of language change, given the right background structures. Specifically, we show that Ancient Egyptian-Coptic undergoes a long-term diachronic macro-change from exhibiting mixed suffixing-prefixing to showing an overwhelming preference for prefixing. The empirical basis for this study is a comparison of ten typologically significant parameters in which prefixing or affixing is potentially at stake, based onDryer’s (2013a)969-language sample. With its extremely high prefixing preference, Coptic belongs to the rare 6% or so of languages that are predominantly prefixing. We argue that each of the micro-changes implicated in this macro-change are better understood in terms of changes at the level of individual constructions, rather than in terms of a broad structural “drift.” Crucially, there is nothing unusual about the actual processes of change themselves.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 78%

Swimming against the typological tide or paddling along with language change?

Grossman

Polis

2018

JHL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(50) e-k-čô na-n n-tei-parabolê foc-2sgm-say dat-1pl acc-dem-parable 'Are you telling this parable for us?' (Luke 12: 41) However, this focus morphology is strongly associated with interrogative constructions (Polotsky, 1944;Shisha-Halevy, 1986;Reintges, 2003), and it can occur even where no focal element is clearly present. An anonymous reviewer points out that the prefix described here is not an "interrogative suffix".…”

Section: 9mentioning

confidence: 99%

Did Greek Influence the Coptic Preference for Prefixing? A Quantitative-Typological Perspective

Grossman

2018

Journal of Language Contact

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present article takes a quantitative approach to investigating contact-induced change, using typological parameters established for the purposes of cross-linguistic comparison. Specifically, it examines the likelihood that a socio-politically dominant language, Greek (Indo-European), influenced the morphological structure of a socio-politically subordinate indigenous language, Coptic (Afroasiatic). Based on the high prefixing score of Coptic and the much lower prefixing score of Greek, it is concluded that it is highly unlikely that Greek had any significant or direct influence on the strong prefixing preference of Coptic.

show abstract

“…As we can see from (10a-d), the occurrence of relative markers like QW does not indicate relative embedding per se, since such markers appear not only in DP-internal relative clauses and clefts, but also in main clause wh-in-situ questions and declarative focus sentences. 10 In Reintges (2003) and Reintges, LeSourd & Chung (2004), the relative marking of the tense-aspect word is analysed as ZK-agreement morphology, which flags classical ZK-constructions (relative clauses, ZK-questions, and focusing constructions) and sets them apart from pragmatically neutral declaratives. Notice, however, that operator-variable constructions are not automatically flagged by special inflectional morphology: the relevant operator must also be in the appropriate configuration.…”

Section: Kh Qdwxuh Ri Wkh Uhodwlyh Fodxvhmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Kiss 1987), Basque (Ortiz de Urbina 1989), Greek (Tsimpli 1995), and Hausa (Green & Jaggar 2003). Focus fronting is also available as a marked alternative to in-situ focus in Coptic Egyptian (Reintges 2003). 9…”

Section: Kh Ohiwshulskhudo Srvlwlrq Ri Wkh Fohiwhg '3mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is only one position where a gap appears instead of a resumptive pronoun, namely the highest subject position of the embedded clause (see Reintges 1998). The obligatory presence of a gap in this position has been attested in a variety of languages (see Borer 1984, McCloskey 1990, Demirdache 1997 for representative views on the "Highest Subject Restriction").…”

Section: … Op Pron …mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The nominal cleft construction in Coptic Egyptian

Reintges¹,

Lipták²,

Cheng³

2005

Universal Grammar in the Reconstruction of Ancient Languages

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cleft sentences belong to a larger family of focusing constructions. In a language like English, clefts are formed by dividing a simple clause into two parts, namely an initial focus (the cleft constituent) and a backgrounded proposition, which is expressed by a relative clause (see Huddleston & Pullum 2002:1414-20, Lambrecht 2001). (1) (QJOLVK LWFOHIWV a. It was a red wool sweater that I bought. b. It was the wording of the question that confused me. This paper examines the corresponding construction in Coptic Egyptian, the latest developmental stage of the Ancient Egyptian language. The modern term &RSWLF is derived from Arabic TXEWL , itself a corruption of the Greek word (DLJ\SW(LRV) 'Egyptian'. At the roots of the literary production lies the translation of the Greek Bible into Coptic Egyptian. The earliest Biblical manuscripts date from about 350 CE, but go back to the third century. Coptic Egyptian continued to be in use well beyond its extinction as a spoken language. 1 Coptic is actually a dialect cluster, consisting of at least six regional varieties, two of which gained supra-regional importance: Sahidic, the language of the whole Nile valley above the Delta, and Bohairic, the language of the Nile Delta. Prior to the Arabic conquest in 641 CE, Sahidic was the predominant literary dialect of Coptic. Its supremacy became challenged by Bohairic Coptic from the 9 th century onwards. By the 11 th century, Bohairic had replaced Sahidic as the official church language and become the sole representative of Coptic Egyptian, which survived as the liturgical language of the present-day Coptic Orthodox Church. The language material of this paper is exclusively drawn from Sahidic Coptic, the main reference dialect. 2 Turning to the topic of our paper, cleft sentences are very common in the syntactic patterns of Sahidic Coptic to indicate the focal status of a nominal argument. As with English clefts, Coptic cleft constructions have a biclausal syntax, yet express a single proposition. The focused DP SMRHL V 'the Lord' in

show abstract

The syntax of special inflection in Coptic interrogatives

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Swimming against the typological tide or paddling along with language change?

Swimming against the typological tide or paddling along with language change?

Did Greek Influence the Coptic Preference for Prefixing? A Quantitative-Typological Perspective

The nominal cleft construction in Coptic Egyptian

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About