Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T14:28:06.177Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Object markers and agreement pronouns in Semitic languages1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 December 2009

G. A. Khan
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The term ‘Object Marker’ is used to refer to analytic particles or prepositions which signal the direct object status of a nominal. These are attested in a variety of forms in Semitic languages. For instance: 'eṯ, which is used in Hebrew and in the language of the Moabite stone, 'yt, which is attested in Phoenician and also in early Aramaic (e.g. Zakir inscription 5; Sefire I B/32, III/11, III/13; Aššur Ostracon 6). wt, which is found with a 3rd person pronominal suffix in the Old Aramaic Hadad inscription 28. yt, frequently employed in the Aramaic Targums (generally in slavish imitation of Hebrew 'eṯ) and also in other Western Aramaic dialects, e.g. Nabataean, Palmyrene, and Galilean Aramaic; in Christian Palestinian Aramaic it occurs regularly before pronominal suffixes but not before full nouns. It is only sporadically found in the Eastern Aramaic dialects, e.g. in early Syriac (about 12 times in the Peshitta, once in the ‘Hymn of the Soul’) and in Biblical Aramaic (once— Dn 3/12). l-, used in many dialects of Aramaic as an Object Marker, also occasionally in the Hebrew of the Priestly Source (e.g. Num. 32: 15) and quite frequently in Late Biblical Hebrew and Mishnaic Hebrew. Akkadian ana, sometimes employed as an Object Marker in the later periods of the language, viz. Neo-Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian, and Late Babylonian, also sporadically in other periods, e.g. Middle Assyrian. In the South Semitic area may be listed Arabic 'iyyā and Gə'əz kiyya, both of which are used only with pronominal suffixes; Gə'əz lā-; the suffix particle -n in Amharic and Gafat, and the prefix particles n- in Tigrinya and nä- or yä- in Soddo.

Type
Articles
Information
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 47 , Issue 3 , October 1984 , pp. 468 - 500
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies 1984

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

Albrecht, K. 1929, ‘'et vor dem Nominativ und beim Passiv’, ZATW, N.F., VI, 274–83.Google Scholar
Anderson, F.I., 1966, ‘Moabite syntax’, Orientalia, N.S., XXXV, 2: 81–120.Google Scholar
Aro, J. 1955. Studien zur Mittelbabylonischen Grammatik. (Studia Orientalia, XX) Helsinki: Societas Orientalis Fennica.Google Scholar
al-Baghdādi·abd, al-Qādirb·umar. 1299/1881–82. Khizânal al-adab wa-lubb lubāb lisān al-'Arab. Būlāq: al-Maṭba'a al-Mīriyya.Google Scholar
Bauer, H. and P, Leander. 1927. Grammatik des Bilisch-Aramäischen. Halle: M. Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Beeston, A.F.L. 1970. The Arabic language today. London: Hutchinson University Library.Google Scholar
Beeston, A.F.L. 1974. ‘Parallelism in Arabic prose’, Journal of Arabic Literature, V, 134–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Behagel, Otto. 1909. ‘Beziehungen zwischen Umfang and Reihenfolge von Satzgliedern’, Indogermanische Forschungen, XXV, 110–42.Google Scholar
Birkeland, H. 1940. Allarabische Pausaflormen. (Skrifter utgitt av Det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi i Oslo, II. Hist.-Filos. Kl.,4.)Google Scholar
Blake, F.R. 1915–1917. ‘Studies in Semitic grammar–, JAOS, XXXV, 375–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanc, H. 1964. The communal dialects in Baghdad. (Harvard Middle Eastern Monographs, X.) Cambridge, Mass: Center for Middle Eastern Studies, Harvard University.Google Scholar
Blau, J. 1954. ‘Zum angeblichen Gebrauch von 'et vor dem Nominativ’, VT, IV, 1: 7–19.Google Scholar
Blau, J. 1961. Diqdūq hū'ărāḏit hayyahūdit šel yīmē-habbīnayim. Jerusalem: Magnes Press.Google Scholar
Blau, J. 1972. ‘On the problem of the synthetic character of Classical Arabic against Judaeo-Arabic (Middle Arabic)’, JQR, LXIII, 1: 29–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borger, R. 1963. Babylonisch-Assyrische Lesestücke. 3 vols. Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum.Google Scholar
Brockelmann, C. 1981. Syrische Grammatik, mil Paradigmen, Literatur, Chrestomathie und Glossar. 13. Auflage. Leipzig: VEB Verlag Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar
Buccellati, G. 1968. ‘An interpretation of the Akkadian stative as a nominal sentence’, JNJES, XXVII, 1, 1–12Google Scholar
Castellino, G. R. 1962. The Akkadian personal pronouns and verbal system in the light of Semitic and Hamitic. Leiden: E. J. Brill.Google Scholar
Chafe, W. L. 1976. ‘Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view’, in C. N. Li(ed.), 1976, 25–55.Google Scholar
Chaine, M. 1907. Grammaire éthiopienne. Beirut: Imprimerie Catholique.Google Scholar
Cohen, M. 1936. Traité de langue amharique (Abyssinie). (Universite de Paris. Travaux et Mémoires de l'lnstitut d'Éthnologie, XXIV.) Paris: Institut d'Ethnologie.Google Scholar
Cohen, M. 1939. NouveUes études d'éthiopien méridional. (Bibliothéque de l'École des Hautes Études. Sciences Historiques et Philologiques, 275.) Paris: Honoré Champion.Google Scholar
Cowley, A. (ed. and tr.). 1923. Aramaic papyri of the fifth century B. C Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
De Lancey, S. 1981. ‘An interpretation of split ergativitv and related patterns’, Language, LVII, 3: 626–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eid, M. 1983. ‘The copula function of pronouns’, Lingua, XLIX, 2/3: 197–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erwin, W. M. 1963. A short reference grammar of Iraqi Arabic. (Arabic Series, No. 4.) Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Falkenstein, A. 1950. Grammatik der Sprache Gudeas von Lagoš, II: Syntax. (Analecta Orientalia, 29.) Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum.Google Scholar
Fitzmyer, J. A 1966. The Genesis apocryphon of Qumran Cave I. (Biblica et Orientalis, 18.) Rome: Pontificium Institutum Biblicum.Google Scholar
Friedman, S. Y. 1971. ‘Kol qā1E63;ār qōdēm’, Lešōnēnū, 35/2, 117–29; 35/3–4, 192–206.Google Scholar
Gardiner, A. H. 1957. Egyptian grammar, being an introduction to the study of hieroglyphs. 3rd edition, revised. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gelb, I. J. 1952. Morphology of Akkadian: a comparative and historical sketch. (Multigraph, University of Chicago.)Google Scholar
Getatchew, Haile 1971. ‘The suffix pronouns in Amharic’, in Chin-wu Kim and H. Stahlke (ed.), Papers in African Linguistics. (Current Inquiry into Language and Linguistics, 1.) Edmonton-Champaign: University of Urbana Department of Linguistics, 101–12.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. C. L 1971. Textbook of Syrian Semitic inscriptions. Vol. I. Hebrew and Moabite inscriptions. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Givon, T. 1979. On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Givon, T. (ed.). 1979. Discourse and syntax. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goldenberg, G. 1977. ‘The Semitic languages of Ethiopia and their classification’, BSOAS, XL, 3: 461–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimes, J. E. 1975. The thread of discourse. (Janua linguarum. Series minor, 207.) The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Haupt, P. 1894. ‘A new Hebrew particle’, Johns Hopkins University Circulars [Baltimore], XIII, No. 114.Google Scholar
Hetzron, R. 1971. ‘Presentative function and presentative movement’, Studies in African Linguistics. (Supplement, II, 79–105.)Google Scholar
Hetzron, R. 1972. Ethiopian Semitic: studies in classification {Journal of Semitic Studies. Monograph No. 2). Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Hetzron, R. 1975. ‘Genetic classification and Ethiopian Semitic’, in Bynon, J and Bynon, T. (ed.), Hamito-Semitica. (Janua Linguarum Series Practica, 200.) The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Hooper, J. B. and Thompson, S. A.. 1973. ‘On the applicability of root transformations’, Linguistic Inquiry, IV, 4: 465–97.Google Scholar
Hopkins, S. 1978. A miscellany of literary pieces from the Cambridge Genizah collections. (Genizah Series, 3.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Library.Google Scholar
Hopper, P. J. 1979. ‘Aspect and foregrounding in discourse’, in Givon, T. (ed.), 1979, 213–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopper, P. J. and Thompson, S. A.. 1980. ‘Transitivity in grammar and discourse’, Language, 56/2, 251–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyman, L. M. and Zimmer, K. E.. 1976. ‘Embedded topic in French’, in C. N. Li (ed.), 1976, 189–211Google Scholar
Jacobsen, T. 1960. ‘ittallak niati’, JNES, XIX, 2: 101–16Google Scholar
Joün, P. 1947. Grammaire de l'hébreu biblique. Deuxiéme édition. Rome: Institut Biblique PontificalGoogle Scholar
Kapeliuk, O. 1972. ‘L'emploi de la marque de l'accusatif -n avec le complément d'objet direct en amharique’, Israel Oriental Studies [Tel Aviv], 2.Google Scholar
Khan, G. A. (in preparation). Extraposition and pronominal agreement in Semitic languages, Ph.D. thesis, University of London.Google Scholar
Klimov, G. A. 1973. Ocherk obshchei teorii ergativnosti. Moscow: Akademiya Nauk SSSR.Google Scholar
Klimov, G. A. 1974. ‘On the character of languages of active typology’, Linguistics, 131, 11–25.Google Scholar
König, E. 1881–97. Historisch-Kritisches Lehrgebäude der hebräischen Sprache. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs.Google Scholar
Koutsoudas, A. 1967. ‘Double nominals in Lebanese Arabic’, Glossa, I/1, 33–48.Google Scholar
Kropat, A. 1909. Die Syntax des Authors der Chronik verglichen mil der seiner Quellen. (ZATW, Beihefte xvi.) Giessen: A. Töpelmann.Google Scholar
Kutscher, E. Y. 1952. ‘Hā'ărāmit hammiqrā'īt—'ărāmīt mizrāḥīt hī 'ō ma'ărābīt?’, World Congress of Jewish Studies, 1st, Summer 1947, I, 123–7. Jerusalem: Magnes Press.Google Scholar
Kutscher, E. Y. 1971. ‘Aramaic’, in Linguistics in South West Asia and North Africa. (Current trends in linguistics, vol. 6.) The Hague-Paris: Mouton, 347–412.Google Scholar
Lambert, M. 1893. ‘De l'emploi du lamed en Araméen Biblique devant le complément direct’, Revue des Études Juives, XXVII, 269–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
jeech, G. N. and Short, M. H.. 1981. Style in fiction: a linguistic introduction to style in English fictional prose. (English Language Series, No. 13.) London: Longman.Google Scholar
jevy, E. 1982. ‘Towards an objective definition of Discourse Topic’, in Tuite, K and Schneider, R and Chametzky, R (ed.), Papers from the eighteenth regional meeting of the Chicago linguistic society. Chicago: Department of Linguistics of the University of Chicago, 295–305.Google Scholar
Li, C. N. (ed.). 1976. Symposium on subject and topic. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Li, C. N. and Thompson, S. A.. 1976. ‘Subject and topic: a new typology of language’, in Li, C. N. (ed.), 1976, 457–89.Google Scholar
Li, C. N. (ed.). 1977. Symposium on the. mechanisms of syntactic change. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Li, C. N. and Thompson, S. A.. 1977. ‘A mechanism for the development of copula morphemes’, in Li, C. N. (ed.), 1977, 419–44.Google Scholar
Longacre, R. 1976. An anatomy of speech notions. Lisse: Peter de Ridder.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luckenbill, D. 1924. The annals of Sennacherib. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
MacDonald, J. 1964. ‘The particle 't in Classical Hebrew: some new data on its use with the nominative’, VT, XIV, 3, 264–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montgomery, J. A. 1951. A critical and exegetical commentary on the Books of Kings. (The International Critical Commentary.) Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark.Google Scholar
Nöldeke, T. 1868. ‘Beiträge zur Kenntniss der aramäischen Dialecte II—ueber den christlichpalastinischen Dialect’, ZDMG, XXII, 3: 443–527.Google Scholar
Nöldeke, T. 1898. Kurzgefasste syrische Grammatik. 2, Aufiage. Leipzig.Google Scholar
Nyberg, H. S. 1920. ‘Wortbildung mit Prafixen in den semitischen Sprachen’, Le Mond Oriental, XIV, 177–288.Google Scholar
Polotsky, H. J. 1961. Review of Schneider (1959), JSS, VI, 251–6.Google Scholar
Polzin, R. 1976. Late Biblical Hebrew: toward an historical typology of Biblical Hebrew prose (Harvard Semitic Monographs, No. 12.) Chico, California: Scholars Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popinceanu, I. 1962. Rumä;nische Elementargrammatik. Tübingen: M. Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Praetorius, F. 1878–1879. Die amharische Sprache. Halle: Verlag der Buehhandlung dei Waisenhauses.Google Scholar
Prince, E. F. 1981. ‘Toward a taxonomy of given-new information’, in Cole, P (ed.), Radica Pragmatics, New York: Academic Press, 223–55.Google Scholar
Reiner, E. 1966. A linguistic analysis of Akkadian. (Janua Linguarum. Series Practica, 21). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Reinisch, L. 1909. Das persōnliche Fürwort und die Verbalflexion in den Chamito-Semitischer Sprachen. (Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften. Schriften der Sprachen kommission, Bd. I.) Wien: Hölder.Google Scholar
Rowley, H. H. 1975. ‘The literature of the Old Testament’, in Black, M and Rowlej, H. H (ed.), Peake's Commentary on the Bible, Hong Kong: 86–90.Google Scholar
Rundgren, F. 1955. Über Bildungen mit (š)-und n-t-Demonstrativen im Semitischen. Beitrāgt zur vergleichenden Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen. Uppsala: Almqvist und Wiksell.Google Scholar
Saydon, P. P. 1964. ‘Meanings and uses of the particle ‘t’, VT, XVI, 2: 192–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, R. 1959. L'expression des complements de verbe et de nom et la place de l'adjectif épithètt en guèze. (Bibliothèque de l'Ēcole des Hautes Ētudes. Section des Sciences Historiques et Philologiques. Fasc. 312.) Paris: Honore Champion.Google Scholar
Speiser, E. A. 1936. ‘Studies in Semitic formatives’, JAOS, XLVI, 22–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timberlake, A. 1975. ‘Hierarchies in the genitive of negation’, Slavic and East European Journal, XIX, 123–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timberlake, A. 1977. ‘Reanalysis and actualization in syntactic change’, in Li, C. N (ed.), 1977, 141–77.Google Scholar
Wald, B. 1979. ‘The development of the Swahili object marker: a study of the interaction oisyntax and discourse’, in Givón, T (ed.), 1979, 505–24.Google Scholar
Wilson, A. M. 1889. ‘The particle 'eṯ in Hebrew’, Hebraica, VI, 139–50, 212–24.Google Scholar
Wright, W. 1933. A Grammar of the Arabic Language, 3rd edition; Cambridge, 1933.Google Scholar
Zubin, D. A. 1979. ‘Discourse function of morphology: the focus system of German’, in Givon, T (ed.), 1979, 469–504.Google Scholar