Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T16:04:55.644Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The ergative construction in Kurdish

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 December 2009

Extract

It is well known that during the course of their histories a number of Indo-European languages, all of them members of the Indo-Iranian branch of the family, developed an ergative construction. Thus, in certain tenses of the verb, their grammars came to treat in forlly identical manner the subject of an intransitive verb and the logical object of a transitive verb, the agent (or logical subject) of this latter being given a different morphological marker. Now although ergativity has been studied in a wide variety of languages as a synchronic phenomenon, the opportunities for examining it from a diachronic point of view are in the great majority of cases severely limited by lack of historical documentation. The Indo-Iranian languages, however, form a notable exception. These, thanks to the availability of texts from closely related languages covering a time-span of some three millennia, provide us with a chance to observe both the development of the construction and its subsequent decline. The present paper will do no more than attempt to trace a part of this process, namely the way in which the ergative construction has disappeared from a certain area of western Iranian. It bases its arguments upon the assumption that the geographical continuum of the Kurdish dialects, whose grammars exhibit the whole range of possibilities from fully ergative systems in the north to fully accusative systems in the south, reflects the successive stages of a diachronic process. This being granted, it should be possible by ordering the synchronic patterns of representative dialects from the northern, the central and the southern regions, to arrive at a picture of the historical sequence of events which has led to the loss of ergativity in the southern dialects and to isolate the mechanisms involved in their resultant restructuring. The wider problems of precisely how the construction arose historically and of why within the Indo-European family it appears to be confined to Indo-Iranian will not be dealt with here.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allen, W. S. 19501951. ‘A study in the analysis of Hindi sentence-structure’, Ada Linguistics, vi, 6886.Google Scholar
Allen, W. S. 1964. ‘Transitivity and possession’, Language, XL, 337–43.10.2307/411499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, S. R.. 1976. ‘On the notion of subject in ergative languages’in Li, C. N. (ed.), Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press, 123.Google Scholar
Bedir Khan, Emir Djeladet and Lescot, R. 1970. Grammaire kurde (dialecte kurmandji) (Librairie d'Amérique et d'Orient). Paris: Adrien Maisonneuve.Google Scholar
Benveniste, E. 1952. ‘La construction passive du parfait transitif’, BSLP XLVIII 5262.Google Scholar
Blau, Joyce. 1975. Le kurde de'Amadiyaetde Djabal Sindjar. Paris: Librairie C. Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Cardona, G. 1970. ‘The Indo-Iranian construction mana (mama) kŗtam Language XLVI, 112.10.2307/412403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B. 1976. Ergativity. Typescript.Google Scholar
Edmonds, C. J. 1955. ‘Prepositions and personal affixes in southern Kurdish’, BSOAS, XVII, 3, 490502.10.1017/S0041977X00112406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henning, W. 1933. ‘Das Verbum des Mittelpersischen der Turfanfragmente’, ZII, IX, 158253.Google Scholar
Lehmann, W. P. 1976. ‘Prom topic to subject in Indo-European’in Li, C. N. (ed.), Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press, 445–6.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, D. N. 1961. Kurdish dialect studies, I. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mann, O. 19061909. Die Mundart der Mukri-Kurden. Berlin: Georg Beimer.Google Scholar
Morgenstierne, G. 1958. ‘Neu-iranische Sprachen’ in Handbuch der Orientalistik, 1. Abt., Band IV, 1. Abschnitt. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 155–221.Google Scholar
Schmidt, K. H. 1963. ‘Zum Agens beim Passiv’, IF, LXVIII, 112.Google Scholar
Schmidt, K. H. 1973. ‘Transitiv und Intransitiv’ in Redard, G. (ed.), Indogermanische und allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft: Akten der IV. Fachtagung der Indogermanischen Oesellschaft. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Beichert Verlag, 107–24.Google Scholar
Schmidt, K. H. 1977. ‘Probleme der Ergativkonstruktion’, Munchner Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft, XXXVI, 97116.Google Scholar
Tegey, H. 1978. ‘Ergativity in Pashto’, Pasto Quarterly, I, 3, 388.Google Scholar
Wagner, H. 1978. ‘The typological background of the ergative construction’, Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, LXXVIII, C, 3, 3774.Google Scholar