Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:12:16.015Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The three faces of the Arabic participle in Negev Bedouin dialects: continuous, resultative, and evidential

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Roni Henkin
Roni Henkin
Affiliation:
Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The category of participle (P) usually includes at least two distinct paradigms. The terms for these vary, as it is not easy to determine the often language-specific nature of the opposition encoded in them. Temporal- ‘aspectual’ terminology is widely applied, giving present or ‘imperfect’ or progressive Ps as opposed to past, preterite, or ‘perfect’ Ps. An alternative popular opposition in many a linguistic tradition is of active vs. passive Ps. To avoid commitment to any of these nomenclatures, I use neutral formal terms: PI and P2.

In order to establish the place of P in the verbal system of a given language, the relevant verbal-syntactic categories of that particular system must first be isolated. For this, I define the following components of indicative verbal systems in non-aspectual languages.

Type
Articles
Information
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 55 , Issue 3 , October 1992 , pp. 433 - 444
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 1992

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

Bauer, L. 1913. Das palästinische Arabisch. Die Dialekte des Städters und des Fellachen. Leipzig:Hinrichs.Google Scholar
Beeston, A. 1970. The Arabic language today. London: Hutchinson University Library.Google Scholar
Benveniste, É. 1966. Problèmes de linguistique générate, l. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Blau, J. 1960. Syntax des palästinensischen Bauerndialektes von Bīr-Zēt. Walldorf-Hessen.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. and Dahl, Ő. 1989. ‘The creation of tense and aspect systems in the languages of the world’, Studies in Language, 13/1: 51–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B. 1976. Aspect: an introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cortina, R. D. 1964. Collins Cortina: Spanish in twenty lessons. London.Google Scholar
Cowell, M. 1964. A reference grammar of Syrian Arabic. Washington D.C.Google Scholar
Curme, G. 1931, 1935. A grammar of the English language, Vol 3: Syntax. Vol 2: Parts of speech and accidence. Boston: D. C. Heath & Co.Google Scholar
Driver, G. R., 1925. A grammar of the colloquial Arabic of Syria and Palestine. London: Probsthain & Co.Google Scholar
Duden, . 1954. Bd. 4: Grammatik der deutschen Gegenwartssprache (3rd. ed. 1973). Mannheim: Dudenverlag.Google Scholar
Fleischman, S. 1989. ‘Temporal distance: a basic linguistic metaphor’, Studies in Language, 13/1: 1–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gesenius, F. H. W. 1910. Gesenius' Hebrew grammar, ed. E., Kautzch and A., Cowley. (2nd Eng ed.).Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Grevisse, M. 1986. Le bon usage. Paris: Duculot.Google Scholar
Haarmann, H. 1970. Die indirekte Erlebnisform als grammatische Kategorie. Eine eurasische Isoglosse. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Haarmann, H. 1971. ‘Verbale und pronominale Grammatisierung der indirekte Erlebnisform’, Ural-Altaische Jahrbücher, 43: 88–99.Google Scholar
Henkin, R. 1985. ‘The verbal system in Negev Bedouin dialects-tense and aspect’. Ph.D. diss., University of Tel-Aviv [in Hebrew].Google Scholar
Henkin, R. 1992. ‘“To be or not” in the Sinai Bedouin dialect of the Ahaywāt’, Mediterranean Language Review, 6.Google Scholar
Henkin, R. n.d.n.p. ‘Tense and related categories—a general theory applied to Negev Bedouin Arabic’ (in preparation).Google Scholar
Isačenko, A. 1975. Die russische Sprache der Gegenwart. Teil I: Formenlehre. (4th ed. 1982.) Munich. Max Hueber Verlag.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. 1957. ‘Shifters, verbal categories, and the Russian verb’, in Selected writings, II. The Hague, Mouton, 1971: 130–47.Google Scholar
Mitchell, T. 1962. Colloquial Arabic, the living language of Egypt. London: English Universities Press.Google Scholar
Mitchell, T. 1978. ‘Educated spoken Arabic in Egypt and the Levant, with special reference to participle and tense’, Journal of Linguistics, 14: 227–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nespital, H. 1981. Das Futursystem im Hindi und Urdu. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner.Google Scholar
Nespital, H. 1983. ‘Verbbedeutung und Aspekt aus sprachvergleichender Sicht’, Sprachwissenschaft Bd. 8. Heidelberg.Google Scholar
Piamenta, M. 1964. ‘The use of tenses, aspects and moods in the Arabic dialect of Jerusalem’. Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem [in Hebrew].Google Scholar
Piamenta, M. 1979. ‘The Negev Bedouin verbal etiquette system and its linguistic description’ [in Hebrew], in Studia Orientalia Memoriae D. H. Baneth Dedicata. Jerusalem: Magnes Press: 125–73.Google Scholar
Slobin, D. and Aksu, A.. 1982. ‘Tense, aspect, and modality in the use of the Turkish evidential’ in P. J., Hopper (ed.): Tense and aspect: between semantics and pragmatics (Typological Studies in Language, vol. 1). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Wild, S. 1964. ‘Die resultative Funktion des aktiven Partizips in den syrisch-palestinischen Dialekten des Arabischen’, ZDMG, 1 14:239-54.Google Scholar
Wright, W. 1890. Lectures on the comparative grammar of the Semitic languages. Cambridge:University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Wright, W. 1896–98. A grammar of the Arabic language. (Caspari). (3rd. ed. rev. W. R., Smith and M. J., de Goeje, repr. 1975.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar