Pub Date : 2021-08-17DOI: 10.1163/9789004448186_006
P. M. Noorlander, ʿAbdin andMlaḥsó
TheNeo-Aramaic dialects of Ṭur ʿAbdin (‘Ṭuroyo’) andMlaḥsó constitute a separate subgroup in Southeast Turkey called Central Neo-Aramaic. In terms of alignment, dialects of Ṭur ʿAbdin are typologically similar to the Southeastern Trans-Zab Jewish varieties of nena. The now extinct dialect of Mlaḥsó, in turn, is similar to Christian nena dialects in SE Turkey such as Borb-Ruma (Bohtan) aswell as Jewish dialects of IranianAzerbaijan, such as J. Urmi. Ṭur ʿAbdinNeoAramaic dialects are much less diverse than their Northeastern Neo-Aramaic kin, but there are somenotable differences among them.Wewill contrast them with the Trans-Zab Jewish dialects of nena and conclude with a comparison of Mlaḥsó with Ṭur ʿAbdin and nena dialects in general. Amajor difference betweenCentral andNortheasternNeo-Aramaic is found in the verbal stems andderivations, sinceCentralNeo-Aramaic is characterized by an extensive system of verbal derivations. Each stem derivation (i–iv) has its own mediopassive pendant (iM–ivM), e.g. stem iM məfṣoḥ-o ‘She is happy’. In addition, stem i verbs also include a special ‘perfective’ pattern CaCiC, i.e. qaṭil-, e.g. damix-o ‘She slept’, which will be represented by its historical origin *qaṭṭilfor *CaCCiC, e.g.damixo< *dammiḵå, to avoid confusingwith thenena qaṭəl-base, which corresponds to Central qoṭəl-. The Neo-Aramaic dialects of Ṭur ʿAbdin and Mlaḥsó differ greatly in the usage of these bases. Hemmauer and Waltisberg (2006) and, recently in more detail, Waltisberg (2016) argue that the preterit in Ṭuroyo is essentially tripartite. The distinction in verbal stems between intransitive and transitive clauses plays a key role in their argumentation. Amore nuanced viewwill be offered here: ergative alignment is indeed manifested in Neo-Aramaic dialects of Ṭur ʿAbdin, at least in termsof pro-indexes and, to someextent, also prepositionalmarking.The latter is more distinctly ergative than what is found in nena. Recently, Coghill (2016, 84–90) and Khan (2017, 894–895) also briefly treated alignment in Ṭuroyo and Mlaḥsó in comparison with nena, and their observations are comparable to mine.
Ṭur - Abdin (' Ṭuroyo ') andMlaḥsó的新阿拉姆语方言在土耳其东南部构成了一个独立的分支，称为中央新阿拉姆语。就对齐而言，Ṭur的方言在类型学上类似于东南部跨扎布犹太的尼纳变体。现在已经灭绝的Mlaḥsó方言，反过来又类似于土耳其东南部的基督教尼纳方言，如Borb-Ruma (Bohtan)，以及伊朗-阿塞拜疆的犹太方言，如J. Urmi。Ṭur al - abdin新阿拉姆语方言的多样性远远低于其东北新阿拉姆语亲属，但它们之间存在一些明显的差异。我们将把它们与尼纳的Trans-Zab犹太方言进行对比，最后将Mlaḥsó与Ṭur和尼纳方言进行比较。中部和东北部新阿拉姆语的主要区别在于词干和衍生，因为中部新阿拉姆语的特点是有广泛的词源系统。每个词干派生(i-iv)都有自己的中被动吊坠(iM - ivm)，例如词干iM m æ fṣoḥ-o ' She is happy '。此外，干i动词还包括一个特殊的“完成”模式CaCiC，即qaṭil-，例如damix-o ' She slept '，它将用它的历史起源*qaṭṭilfor *CaCCiC，例如damixo< *dammiḵå来表示，以避免与与中央qokai / l-相对应的ena qaqai / l-相混淆。Ṭur和Mlaḥsó的新阿拉姆语方言在这些基础的使用上有很大的不同。Hemmauer和Waltisberg(2006)以及最近更详细的Waltisberg(2016)认为Ṭuroyo的优势本质上是三方的。不及物从句和及物从句在词干上的区别在他们的论证中起着关键作用。这里将提供一个更微妙的观点:负对齐确实表现在Ṭur的新阿拉姆语方言中，至少在亲索引方面，在某种程度上，也在介词标记方面。后者比在nena中发现的更为明显地具有否定性。最近，Coghill(2016, 84-90)和Khan(2017, 894-895)也与nena比较了Ṭuroyo和Mlaḥsó中的对齐，他们的观察结果与我的相当。
{"title":"Below the Tigris: The Neo-Aramaic Dialects of Ṭur ʿAbdin and Mlaḥsó","authors":"P. M. Noorlander, ʿAbdin andMlaḥsó","doi":"10.1163/9789004448186_006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004448186_006","url":null,"abstract":"TheNeo-Aramaic dialects of Ṭur ʿAbdin (‘Ṭuroyo’) andMlaḥsó constitute a separate subgroup in Southeast Turkey called Central Neo-Aramaic. In terms of alignment, dialects of Ṭur ʿAbdin are typologically similar to the Southeastern Trans-Zab Jewish varieties of nena. The now extinct dialect of Mlaḥsó, in turn, is similar to Christian nena dialects in SE Turkey such as Borb-Ruma (Bohtan) aswell as Jewish dialects of IranianAzerbaijan, such as J. Urmi. Ṭur ʿAbdinNeoAramaic dialects are much less diverse than their Northeastern Neo-Aramaic kin, but there are somenotable differences among them.Wewill contrast them with the Trans-Zab Jewish dialects of nena and conclude with a comparison of Mlaḥsó with Ṭur ʿAbdin and nena dialects in general. Amajor difference betweenCentral andNortheasternNeo-Aramaic is found in the verbal stems andderivations, sinceCentralNeo-Aramaic is characterized by an extensive system of verbal derivations. Each stem derivation (i–iv) has its own mediopassive pendant (iM–ivM), e.g. stem iM məfṣoḥ-o ‘She is happy’. In addition, stem i verbs also include a special ‘perfective’ pattern CaCiC, i.e. qaṭil-, e.g. damix-o ‘She slept’, which will be represented by its historical origin *qaṭṭilfor *CaCCiC, e.g.damixo< *dammiḵå, to avoid confusingwith thenena qaṭəl-base, which corresponds to Central qoṭəl-. The Neo-Aramaic dialects of Ṭur ʿAbdin and Mlaḥsó differ greatly in the usage of these bases. Hemmauer and Waltisberg (2006) and, recently in more detail, Waltisberg (2016) argue that the preterit in Ṭuroyo is essentially tripartite. The distinction in verbal stems between intransitive and transitive clauses plays a key role in their argumentation. Amore nuanced viewwill be offered here: ergative alignment is indeed manifested in Neo-Aramaic dialects of Ṭur ʿAbdin, at least in termsof pro-indexes and, to someextent, also prepositionalmarking.The latter is more distinctly ergative than what is found in nena. Recently, Coghill (2016, 84–90) and Khan (2017, 894–895) also briefly treated alignment in Ṭuroyo and Mlaḥsó in comparison with nena, and their observations are comparable to mine.","PeriodicalId":329282,"journal":{"name":"Ergativity and Other Alignment Types in Neo-Aramaic","volume":"41 5-6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116559308","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-08-17DOI: 10.1163/9789004448186_005
{"title":"Christian and Western Jewish Dialects of NENA","authors":"","doi":"10.1163/9789004448186_005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004448186_005","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":329282,"journal":{"name":"Ergativity and Other Alignment Types in Neo-Aramaic","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123760819","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-08-17DOI: 10.1163/9789004448186_007
P. M. Noorlander
Constructional splits have been a recurrent theme in the discussions of the distinct dialect groups of Neo-Aramaic in the previous chapters, each of which are conditioned by features that have been pertinent to the question of ergativity in linguistic typology. On closer examination, however, these features, though some of them consistentwith typological traits of ‘split ergativity’, need not reflect ergativity nor split alignment in general. While the dialectal diversity of Northeastern and Central Neo-Aramaic shows a staggering degree of morphosyntactic microvariation, there are general motifs in the constructionspecific and dialect-specific constraints that merit a separate chapter to compare these cross-dialectally. Moreover, splits on some level do not preclude splits on another, so that sometimes subsystems may be observed within constructional splits, including those conditioned by tam (Section 6.1), morphological coding (Section 6.2), (in) transitivity (Section 6.3.) and referential properties (Section 6.4). In all of this, themorphology of arguments shows the highest degree of variation, always at least in some way linked to the historically resultative participle qṭil-, but not exclusively, whereas the general syntax of arguments is largely consistent across space and time. Differential object marking, for instance, is an essential component of themorphosyntax,which seems tobe completely blind to the alignment typology of a given dialect, but does seem to favor different combinations of coding strategies depending on the dialect, thus sometimes manifesting morphological splits. The coding of s, in turn, is typically manifested in verbal person marking and correlates with the additional expression of tam in verbal inflection more strongly than the coding of p. Moreover, the coding of s largely also depends on the lexicalization of transitivity, i.e. whether the intransitive verb or clause in question is compatible with transitive morphology, thereby sometimes resulting in split intransitivity. The L-suffixes are more grammaticalized as indicators of a in the expression of the transitive perfective past, while the E-suffixes as indicators of s tend to ‘lag behind’ in the grammaticalization of the intransitive resultative. In addition, the marking of a can be dependent on the properties of its co-argument, p, i.e. the presence or absence of a pronominal object. Thus, perfective past clauses with a and p sometimes show a degree of markedness greater than all other types of clauses.
{"title":"Cross-Dialectal Synopsis of the Morphosyntax","authors":"P. M. Noorlander","doi":"10.1163/9789004448186_007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004448186_007","url":null,"abstract":"Constructional splits have been a recurrent theme in the discussions of the distinct dialect groups of Neo-Aramaic in the previous chapters, each of which are conditioned by features that have been pertinent to the question of ergativity in linguistic typology. On closer examination, however, these features, though some of them consistentwith typological traits of ‘split ergativity’, need not reflect ergativity nor split alignment in general. While the dialectal diversity of Northeastern and Central Neo-Aramaic shows a staggering degree of morphosyntactic microvariation, there are general motifs in the constructionspecific and dialect-specific constraints that merit a separate chapter to compare these cross-dialectally. Moreover, splits on some level do not preclude splits on another, so that sometimes subsystems may be observed within constructional splits, including those conditioned by tam (Section 6.1), morphological coding (Section 6.2), (in) transitivity (Section 6.3.) and referential properties (Section 6.4). In all of this, themorphology of arguments shows the highest degree of variation, always at least in some way linked to the historically resultative participle qṭil-, but not exclusively, whereas the general syntax of arguments is largely consistent across space and time. Differential object marking, for instance, is an essential component of themorphosyntax,which seems tobe completely blind to the alignment typology of a given dialect, but does seem to favor different combinations of coding strategies depending on the dialect, thus sometimes manifesting morphological splits. The coding of s, in turn, is typically manifested in verbal person marking and correlates with the additional expression of tam in verbal inflection more strongly than the coding of p. Moreover, the coding of s largely also depends on the lexicalization of transitivity, i.e. whether the intransitive verb or clause in question is compatible with transitive morphology, thereby sometimes resulting in split intransitivity. The L-suffixes are more grammaticalized as indicators of a in the expression of the transitive perfective past, while the E-suffixes as indicators of s tend to ‘lag behind’ in the grammaticalization of the intransitive resultative. In addition, the marking of a can be dependent on the properties of its co-argument, p, i.e. the presence or absence of a pronominal object. Thus, perfective past clauses with a and p sometimes show a degree of markedness greater than all other types of clauses.","PeriodicalId":329282,"journal":{"name":"Ergativity and Other Alignment Types in Neo-Aramaic","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123311843","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-08-17DOI: 10.1163/9789004448186_004
{"title":"Ergativity and Its Typology: The Trans-Zab Jewish Dialects","authors":"","doi":"10.1163/9789004448186_004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004448186_004","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":329282,"journal":{"name":"Ergativity and Other Alignment Types in Neo-Aramaic","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133884049","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-08-17DOI: 10.1163/9789004448186_003
{"title":"Who Did What to Whom in the Context of Neo-Aramaic","authors":"","doi":"10.1163/9789004448186_003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004448186_003","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":329282,"journal":{"name":"Ergativity and Other Alignment Types in Neo-Aramaic","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115275611","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：