Hewitt - 8CLC Edinburgh - Welsh Syntactic Mutation - Arabic Faulty Accusative-REV-1

1 8th Celtic Linguistics Conference, Edinburgh, 6-7 June 2014

Welsh “syntactic mutation” and Arabic “faulty accusative”: case or configuration?

Steve Hewitt, UNESCO, [email protected], [email protected]

Both Welsh and Arabic have special marking for indefinite objects, soft mutation (lenition) of, for instance, t to d in Welsh, and indefinite accusative case-marking –an in Arabic (1). Welsh syntactic mutation (direct-object mutation) has been the object of considerable debate among theoretical linguists over the past 30 years, Lieber, Zwicky and Roberts having adopted a case-based approach, but Harlow, King, Borsley, and Tallerman preferring a configurational analysis (XP Trigger Hypothesis). When an active subject is suppressed/retired ($), there is no marking of the entity that was the direct object in the active sentence (2) (no mutation in Welsh, nominative instead of accusative in Arabic). When an adverbial or prepositional phrase is added after the subject of the passive, there is no change (3a), but when it is inserted in between the verb and the subject of the passive, that NP has “syntactic mutation” in Welsh, and sometimes, if erroneously, “faulty accusative” in Arabic (3b) (º = no person- or number-marking):

Welsh “syntactic mutation” (e.g. tŷ ‘house’ > dŷ) Arabic (indefinite) accusative (-an)

(1) Gwelodd Mair dŷ. (syn. mutation) sawº Mary house (tŷ)

ra’at miryam bait.an (ACC – correct) sawºF Mary house.ACC.IDF

‘Mary saw a house.’

(2) Gwelwyd tŷ. (no mutation) was.seenº$ house

ru’iya bait.un (NOM – correct) was.seenº$.M house.NOM.IDF (M)

‘A house was seen.’

(3a) Gwelwyd tŷ ar y bryn. (no mutation) was.seenº$ house on the hill

ru’iya bait.un ‘alà t-tall (NOM – correct) was.seenº$.M house.NOM on the-hill

(3b) Gwelwyd ar y bryn dŷ. (syn. mutation) was.seenº$ on the hill house

ru’iya ‘alà t-tall bait.an (faulty ACC!) was.seenº$.M on the-hill house.ACC!IDF

‘A house was seen on the hill.’

It thus looks as if a single configurational HEAD-[TRIGGER]-DEPENDENT rule would account for both syntactic mutation in Welsh and indefinite accusative in Arabic (for both correct and “faulty” accusative): whenever some XP – NP, PP, AdvP etc. – is inserted between a verbal head and its bare (indefinite) dependent, the dependent is marked with lenition in Welsh and accusative indefinite in Arabic. Every single example of faulty accusative in Arabic would have syntactic mutation in Welsh. Yishai Peled, who is no doubt unaware of the Welsh evidence and debates, in his important 2004 article “Accusatival subjects in Arabic non-transitive constructions and the unaccusative hypothesis” gives numerous examples of “faulty accusative” (all “faulty accusatives” should, according to the canonical grammar, have nominative case) in both Middle Arabic and Modern Arabic, which he analyses as being the result of unaccusative effects (intransitive unaccusative subjects having object-like properties). For most of his examples, a configurational HEAD-[TRIGGER]-DEPENDENT rule would work just as well, but for a number of them, especially from Middle Arabic and Biblical Hebrew, there is no trigger element inserted between the head and the dependent. In such cases, an unaccusative explanation is probably unavoidable. This prompts speculation that “faulty accusative”, and perhaps accusative in general, in Arabic may have evolved from a semantic (case-based) rule to a simpler, configurational HEAD-[TRIGGER]-DEPENDENT rule. If such a case > configuration evolution was possible for Arabic, it could provide a clue to the genesis and evolution of “syntactic mutation” in Welsh, which begins to appear, at first sporadically and then increasingly consistently, in the Middle Welsh period, To begin with, any immediately post-verbal NP may show lenition, whether subject or object, and these are originally possibly merely sandhi effects. With the advent of the Middle Welsh T-2 (tense-second) constraint (Willis 1998), the most likely candidates for fronting are subjects of transitive verbs and unergative intransitives, leaving direct objects and subjects of unaccusative intransitives as the most common post-verbal NPs. Lenition would then become associated with direct objects or subject NPs having object-like properties (unaccusative subjects). On the basis of normal VSO order, such association with objects or pseudo-objects might then have been reanalysed as a configurational HEAD-[TRIGGER]-DEPENDENT rule, giving the rule that best accounts for all instances of “syntactic mutation” in Modern Welsh.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Steve Hewitt – Welsh “syntactic mutation” and Arabic “faulty accusative”: case or configuration? 2

Abbreviations

< original source of quote º apersonal verb form: tense-

marked, but not person-marked

1, 2, 3 first, second, third person A agent ACC accusative ACC! Ar. “faulty accusative”

(<NOM) ADV adverb, adverbial AFF affirmative (a, y W

affirmative tense particle) Ar. Arabic Br. Breton BH Biblical Hebrew CA Classical Arabic CH Classical Hebrew CMA Christian Middle Arabic CS construct state DO direct object DEF definite DFO definite object marker

(Hebrew ɛθ-; Turkish –i; Persian –rā)

DIR -ā directional accusative (Hebrew)

DU dual ELAT elative ESA Educated Spoken Arabic

(colloquial-based tending towards MSA)

F feminine FA Formal Arabic (= CA, MSA) GEN genitive H Hebrew

HLP ’inna Ar. NP introductory highlighting particle (≈ H hinnē ‘lo’, ‘verily’)

HYP lau Ar. hypothetical ‘if’ IDF indefinite INF infinitive INT hal interrogative particle

(Arabic) IMP imperfect IPF imperfective IPR imperative IH Israeli Hebrew IHAA indeterminate human agent

active impersonal/auto-nomous type

Ir. Irish JUSS jussive (Formal Arabic) L lenition, soft mutation JMA Jewish Middle Arabic MMA Muslim Middle Arabic MSA Modern Standard Arabic MW Middle Welsh M masculine N nasal mutation NEG negative NEG.PRF lam Ar. negative perfective

particle NOM nominative O object o pronominal object OBL oblique PASS passive impersonal/

autonomous type Pr predicate P patient PRF perfective, qad Ar.

perfective particle

PL plural POT qad Ar. potential particle PP past participle Prep preposition PrP prepositional phrase PRP yn W predicative particle PROG yn W progressive particle PRT preterite s pronominal subject S spirant mutation S subject $ active subject supressed (W

impersonal/autonomous form –ir, -er, -id, -wyd; Ar. maǧhūl ‘unknown’ (impersonal ~ passive) vowelling: PRF u-(u)-i; IPF u-(a)-a)

SM W soft mutation (lenition) SFA Spoken Formal Arabic (oral

production of MSA) SG singular SBJ subjunctive T tense [xxx]T XP trigger UA unaccusative UE unergative V verb VL lexical verb VS syntactic verb W Welsh xxxÁ distance accusative head Axxx accusative-marked target xxxĹ distance lenition head Lxxx lenited initial consonant


1. STRIKING SIMILARITY BETWEEN ARABIC “FAULTY ACCUSATIVE” AND WELSH “SYNTACTIC MUTATION”

(1a) wāħid: ’an yakūn ladē-k hadaf.an one: that should.be.SBJºM with-you.M objective.M.ACC! ‘One: that you should have an objective…;’

Muħammad Ħasanain Haikal, Ma‘a haikal, Al-Jazeera, 20.03.2008, SFA

(1b) Un: bod ’da chi darged (<targed) one: be.INF with you Ltarget ‘One: that you should have a target…’ Welsh equivalent to (1a)

(2a) yabdū ’anna-hu sa-yakūn hunāk ħall.an siyāsīy.an seemsº that-it.M FUT-will.beºM there solution.M.ACC! political.M.ACC! yattasim bi-l-fauḍà li-l-’auḍā‘ fī l-‘irāq it.is.characterized.M by-the-anarchy to-the-conditions in the-Iraq ‘It seems that there will be a fairly anarchical political solution to the situation in Iraq’

BBC Arabic.com, 04.05.2004, MSA

(2b) Mae ’n debyg y bydd ’na ddatrysiad gwleidyddol isº PRP likely AFF will.beº there Lsolution political braidd yn anarchaidd i’r sefyllfa yn Iraq. rather PRP anarchical to’the situation in Iraq ‘It seems likely that there will be a fairly anarchical political solution to the situation in Iraq’

Welsh equivalent to (2a)

• Arabic “faulty accusative” not part of the canonical grammar of Formal Arabic; all “faulty accusatives” should, according to the norm, be nominatives.

• Welsh “syntactic mutation” (direct object mutation – DOM) fully part of the grammar of both Formal (Classical) Welsh and Colloquial Welsh; developed during the Middle Welsh period (1150-1450).

• However, persistent “errors” by skilled users (writers/speakers) of fuṣḥà (Formal Arabic (FA): Qur’ānic Arabic, Classical Arabic, Modern Standard Arabic (MSA), Spoken Formal Arabic (SFA)) suggest a subconscious reanalysis: from a true case assignment system to a simpler configurational mechanism

• All “faulty accusative” errors in Arabic would have syntactic mutation in Welsh: same underlying rule?

• In Formal Arabic, the affected noun is by definition indefinite. (Definites may be “affected”, but much more difficult to tell – few texts are fully vocalized; in SFA, many case/mood endings, especially the definite ones, are elided).

• In Welsh, the leftmost noun of the affected NP cannot have the (definite) article (mutations triggered or blocked by the article take precedence over syntactic mutation), but may be semantically definite, i.e. first term in a definite genitive construct tŷ fy mrawd > dŷ fy mrawd ‘my brother’s house’, or proper noun Pedr > Bedr.


2. PRELIMINARIES

2.1 Person-marking: º

For ease of comprehension, we usually gloss what the verb form contains in normal English: kataba [he.wrote], rather than [write.PST.3.SG]. Both Arabic and Welsh do not indicate number in verbs followed by a 3.SG/PL subject; unlike Welsh, Arabic does indicate gender; such lack of indication of number (possible in the 3rd person only) is indicated by º. In such cases, we gloss kataba ar-raǧul/ar-riǧāl [wroteºM the-man/the-men] and katabat al-mar’ä/an-nisā’ [wroteºF the-woman/the-women]; in Welsh, ysgrifennodd y dynion/y merched [wroteº the men/the women].

2.2 Celtic impersonal/autonomous form; Arabic maǧhūl ‘unknown, passive’: $

Both Arabic and Welsh have special impersonal/autonomous forms indicating action by some indeterminate human subject, who one cannot, or does not wish to specify. Such forms are indicated in glosses with $, indicating the backgrounding or withdrawal of the subject.

Celtic impersonal/autonomous forms: indeterminate human agent active / passive (see Hewitt 2002)

Breton appears always to have been of the indeterminate human agent active (IHAA) type, whereas Welsh appears to have shifted from the IHAA type towards a more genuine passive (PASS) type (accepts agentives ‘by X’), and Irish appears to have gone in the opposite direction, from the PASS type towards the IHAA type:

Type\Period Old Modern

IHAA Br, W Ir, Br

PASS Ir W

The Welsh -ir, -er, -id, -wyd; Breton -er, -ffer, -ed, -ffed, -jed, -jod/-at; Irish -tar, -adh, -taí, -faí etc. “impersonal/autonomous” forms refer implicitly to some indeterminate human agent for whom there is no pronoun.

(3) gwelir tŷ is.seenº$ house ‘a house is seen’

The Arabic maǧhūl ‘unknown, passive’ vowelling patterns (perfective/past u (u) i; imperfective/present-future u (a) a) are exponents of a valency-reducing process:

• passive with transitives (all persons possible) • indeterminate human agentive with both transitives and intransitives.


Hewitt 2002:15-16, exx. 35-38: “Thus, [the Celtic impersonal/autonomous forms] cannot perform the twin functions (indeterminate active subject / passive subject < object) of the majhūl “unknown, passive” vowelling (36) in Arabic:

(4) qatala (a) killedºM S.M (some masculine entity killed) ‘S.M killed’ (b) he.killed.3.SG.M ‘he killed’

(5) qutila (a) was.killedº$.M S.M (some masculine entity was killed) ‘S.M was killed’ (b) he.was.killedº$.3.SG.M ‘he was killed’ (c) was.killedº$.M ‘“it was killed”, there was killing, people were killed’

(6) qatalù they.killed.3.M.PL ‘they killed’

(7) qutilù they.were.killed.$.3.M.PL ‘they were killed’”


2.3 Unaccusative

Alexiadou et al. 2004:Introduction pp.1-13: intransitive verbs divided into “unergatives” with an underlying VP-external subject NP [VP V], and “unaccusatives” with an underlying VP-internal subject NP [VPV NP]; subjects of unergative verbs have subject-like qualities; subjects of unaccusative verbs have object-like qualities.

Diagnostic↓ Type of intransitive → Unergative Unaccusative

Auxiliary selection (where split) j’ai marché / je suis allé HAVE BE

Impersonal passives (German, Dutch) es wird getanzt / *es wird gegangen

Subject-NP-modifying past participle: *the worked student / the departed boy

Presentative construction: *there telephoned four new students / there arrived four new students

Ne-cliticization (Italian) * ne teleferanno molti / ne arriveranno molti studenti

Alexiadou et al. 2004:12-13:

“a. Generally unergative predicates: i. Predicates describing willed or volitional acts, e.g. work, play, speak, talk, smile, grimace, wink, walk, box, knock,

bank, laugh, dance; manner-of-speaking verts, e.g. whisper, shout, bellow; predicates describing sounds made by animals e.g. bark, quack, roar.

ii. Certain involuntary bodily processes e.g. cough, sneeze, burp, sleep. b. Generally unaccusative predicates: i. Predicates expressed by adjectives in English; predicates describing size, shapes, weights, colours, smells.

ii. Predicates whose initial nuclear term is semantically a patient, for example, burn, fall, drop, sink, float, tremble, shake, melt, freeze, evaporate, solidify, crystallize, dim, redden, darken.

iii. Predicates of existing or happening, such as exist, happen, occur, take place. iv. Involuntary emission of stimuli, for example shine, glow, clink, pop, smell, sting. v. Aspectual predicates: begin, start, stop, cease.

Unclear what tests could be used for Arabic or Welsh (cf. Tallerman 2001): no BE/HAVE auxiliary split; past/passive participle Arabic , but not fully productive for Welsh. Presentatives not distinctive in VSO languages. No ne-cliticization. No clear split with “impersonal passives”.


2.4 Arabic diglossia

• Diglossia: Ferguson 1959a; original Arabic koiné not identical with Classical Arabic: 14 non-classical features shared by all modern dialects, Ferguson 1959b.

• Formal Arabic (FA): fuṣħà – al-luɣä al-fuṣħà ‘the most elegant, refined language’ (Qur’ānic Arabic (QA), Classical Arabic (CA), Modern Standard Arabic (MSA), Spoken Formal Arabic (SFA)). Written and formal oral production; no one’s native language, but some regular users acquire near-native competence (most Western Arabists deny this). No one dialect “closer” to Formal Arabic than another. Differences (cf. Altoma 1969, Brustad 2000) concern lexicon, syntax, morphology (FA ’i‘rāb lit. ‘Arabization’: terminal mood variations in verbs; terminal case and definiteness variations in nominals), phonology (some consonants have varying reflexes in different dialects; most Arabs well aware, through television, of these equivalences; see Annex 1). Fuṣħà likely to have developed from a pre-Qur’ānic poetic koiné never actually spoken spontaneously (al-mu‘allaqāt ‘the ones hung up’: the very best pre-Islamic poems ‘hung up’ for public inspection in Mecca). SFA often shorn of final ’i‘rāb, except when apparent in script, bringing it close to ESA.

• Colloquial dialects al-luɣä al-‘āmmīyä ‘the common language’, al-luɣä ad-dārijä ‘the ordinary language’, lahjä ‘dialect, local form’. mother tongue of all Arabs: capital of each country, sometimes other distinct prestigious varities, e.g.: Aleppo, Mosul, Fès, Benghazi, etc. All spontaneous oral communication except in the most formal situations. Rarely written, except for dialect poetry, some plays, cartoon captions; not felt to be a suitable medium for normal written communication. Most Arabs believe that modern dialects are corruptions of Classical Arabic (cf. above, Ferguson 1959b); often describe dialects to non-Arabs as “slang” “no grammar”; loath to teach Colloquial Arabic to non-Arabs. Slightly different status of Egyptian (Cairo) Colloquial: extremely well-defined and stable; understood throughout the Arab world thanks to Egyptian soap operas and films; often acceptable in formal situations where other Arabs would use SFA (also true to a lesser extent of Lebanese Colloquial).

• Intermediate forms: Educated Spoken Arabic (ESA): dialect-based morphology, e.g. 2SG.F -ī, 3PL.M -ū instead of MSA -īn, -ūn, no feminine human plurals, no duals in verbs; no case or indefinite markers in nominals, esp. absence of accusative indefinite -an, mainly Egyptian or Levantine (Palestinian, Lebanese, Syrian) and to a lesser extent Iraqi dialect base. Many MSA lexical items (usually no equivalents in spoken dialects).

• Medieval Muslim Middle Arabic (MMA), Christian Middle Arabic (CMA), Jewish Middle Arabic (JMA, written in Hebrew letters, but reproducing Arabic orthographic conventions: alef א ‘ʔ’ used to represent all of ʔ, ā and final -an/-ā (indefinite accusative), as with final Arabic alif U? . Impression given by such texts is of a living, spontaneous language very close to the borderline area between modern ESA and SFA.


3. WELSH

3.1 Welsh soft mutation (lenition – L)

Orthography

p t c m b d g ll rh b d g f dd - l r

IPA

p t k m b d ɡ ɬ rʰ b d ɡ v ð -(<ɣ) l r

+ voice +fric + voice • inventory of consonants affected

• phonological process (historically)

• three syntactic types of mutation:

o contact mutation: immediately after a preceding trigger

o spreading mutation: “mutating” element, e.g. F.SG noun: itself lenited following the article y, ’r; “infects” following adjectives and nouns within the same NP. Originally sandhi; with phonetic erosion (loss of declension), sandhi grammaticalized: British: donios tecos [t-] ‘fair man’; merxa teca [d-] ‘fair woman’; with loss of endings: Welsh: dŷn teg ‘fair man’; merch deg ‘fair woman’

o distance mutation: mutation unique to Welsh: case or configuration?

• frequency (lexicon): high-frequency lexemes mutated more consistently than less frequent ones.

(8) LtorthL oL Lfara < bara loaf of bread ‘a loaf of bread’

(9) LtorthL LfawrL Lfelen < mawr; < M. melyn loaf.F big yellow.F ‘a big yellow loaf’

(10) y LdorthL LfawrL Lfelen < torth; < mawr; < M. melyn the loaf.F big yellow.F ‘the big yellow loaf’


3.2 Welsh syntactic mutation

(11) Tentative rule for syntactic mutation: V.TĹ [XP]T LNP

(12) Mae torth oL Lfara ar y bwrdd < bara isº loaf of bread on the table ‘There is a loaf of bread on the table.’

(13) MaeĹ [’na]T Ldorth oL Lfara ar y bwrdd < torth; < bara isº there loaf of bread on the table ‘There is a loaf of bread on the table.’ Adv

(14) MaeĹ [ar y bwrdd]T Ldorth oL Lfara. < torth; < bara isº on the table loaf of bread ‘There is a loaf of bread on the table.’ PrP

(15) GweloddĹ [Siôn]T y tŷ Sawº Siôn the house

(16) GweloddĹ [Siôn]T Ldŷ < tŷ Sawº Siôn house ‘Siôn saw a house.’ S

(17) GweloddĹ [ef]T Ldŷ < tŷ Sawº he house ‘He saw a house.’ s

(18) GweloddĹ [ef]T Ldŷ (ef = pro) < tŷ Saw.3.SG [he] house (tŷ) ‘He/she saw a house.’ pro

(19) Gwelwyd tŷ Saw.$ house ‘A house was seen.’

(20) GwelwydĹ [ar y bryn]T Ldŷ mawr < tŷ Was.seen.$ on the hill house big ‘On the hill was to be seen a big house.’ PrP

(21) chonaicĹ [mé]T [anuraidh]T [iN NnGaillimhe]T Lthú Irish saw.PRTº I last.year in Galway you.ACC ‘I saw you last year in Galway’

• Only tú ‘you.SG’, sé ‘he’, sí ‘she’, siad ‘they’ > thú ‘you.SG’, é ‘him’, í ‘her’, iad ‘them’ affected – lexical?

(22) maS ollL Sflijadur < plijadur Breton my all pleasure ‘my whole pleasure’

• Not productive; almost always this particular example cited.


Six basic syntactic mutation types in Welsh (Borsley, Tallerman, Willis 2007:224, exx. 1-6):

(23) PrynoddĹ [y ddynes]T Lfeic. < dynes ; < beic VSO boughtº the woman bike ‘The woman bought a bike’ S

(24) GwnaethĹ [y dyn]T [Lwerthu beic.] < gwerthu AuxSVO (VS S VL O) Didº the man sell.INF bike ‘The man sold a bike’ S

(25) DechreuoddĹ [Huw]T [Lolchi ’r llestri.] < golchi embedded VO clause Beganº Huw wash.INF the dishes ‘Huw began to wash the dishes.’ S

(26) DymunoddĹ [Aled]T [i Mair]T [Lfynd adref.] < mynd embedded infinitival i-clause wishedº Aled to Mair go.INF home [i S]T [LV…] ‘Aled wanted Mair to go home’ S/PrP/both?

(27) MaeĹ [yn yr ardd]T Lgi < ci extrapolated existential (subject!) isº in the garden dog ‘There is a dog in the garden.’ PrP

(28) RoeddĹ [yna]T Lgath yn y gegin < cath; < cegin existential (subject!) Wasº there cat in the kitchen ‘There was a cat in the kitchen’ Adv


3.3 Case-based approaches to Welsh syntactic mutation

Welsh – assign accusative case to objects; ACC > Linitial consonant of noun phrase (not preceded by y, ’r [definite article]). Lieber 1983; Zwicky 1984; Roberts 1997, 2005.

Problems:

(29) Tŷ mawr welodd e (fronting: no mutation) house big sawº he ‘He saw a big house.’

(30) Roedd Siôn yn gweld tŷ (object of verbal noun/infinitive: no mutation) was Siôn PROG see.INF house ‘Siôn could see a house.’

(31) vídet’ ptícu (object of infinitive: case-marking) Russian see.INF bird.F.ACC ‘to see a bird’

(32) Yr oedd Prŷs yn rhagweld [PP yn 1721] dranc yr iaith Gymraeg AFF was Prŷs PROG foresee.INF in 1721 demise the language.F Welsh ‘Prŷs foresaw in 1721 the death of the Welsh language’ Tallerman 2006 < Thorne 1993:52

(33) Fe welodd e dŷ, gardd a bachgen. (only leftmost object lenited) AFF sawº he house, garden and boy ‘He saw a house, a garden and a boy.’

(34) Ja vížu ptícu, dévušku i mál’čika. (all objects accusative-marked) Russian I I.see bird.ACC.F.SG girl.ACC.F.SG and boy.ACC.HUM(=GEN).M.SG ‘I can see a bird, a girl and a boy’

Case approach: Does not readily explain why no soft mutation on: (a) fronted objects; (b) non-leftmost objects; (c) objects following infinitives (verbal nouns).

Tallermann 2006, summarizing Roberts 2005 case-based account of Welsh “direct object mutation”:

“Direct object mutation (DOM) applies exactly where the finite main verb moves to the pre-subject position in a transitive clause (i.e. to [the functional head] PERS ...). On the other hand, where an auxiliary appears initially and the transitive main verb is realised in a non-finite form ... occupying a position in between the subject and the object, there is no DOM.”


3.4 Configurational approaches to Welsh syntactic mutation

XP Trigger Hypothesis (XPTH): [XP]L > Linitial consonant of noun phrase (not preceded by definite article y, ’r) Rhys Jones 1977 (NP without article mutates following subject pronoun/NP/proper name); Harlow 1989; King 1993, 1995, 1996, 2003; Borsley 1997, 1999; Borsley & Tallerman 1996; Tallerman 1987, 1990, 1998, 1999, 2006, 2009.

Tallerman 2009:171: “The principal idea in this literature is that initial consonants undergo SM when immediately preceded by a phrase, XP”

Tallermann 2009:172: “A complement bears S[oft] M[utation] if it is immediately preceded by a c-commanding phrase.” No reference to head/verb (except indirectly: “c-commanding phrase”).

Tallerman 2009:176: “X bears soft mutation if: (a) X is a VALENT of a preceding overt head H, and (b) X is SEPARATED from H.”

Original suggestion by Rhys Jones (1977:167) “soft mutation of brecwast after the pronoun e: fe fytodd e frecwast da ‘he ate a good breakfast’. A noun substituted for e in this type of construction will also cause soft mutation: fe fytodd Tom frecwast da ‘Tom ate a good breakfast’” – informal characterization. Footnote 1977:167: “The gramatical rule is that the direct object of the personal form of the verb will undergo Soft Mutation, but the learner will probably find the above explanation easier in practice.”

Dependency Distance Hypothesis (DDH) (Hudson 2009):

Hudson 2009:

• ‘Valent’: subject or complement

• SSM applies to any valent D2 which is:

– after the head word H

– and separated by another dependent of H, D1

• (so ‘dependency distance’ of D2 > 0).


4. ARABIC

4.1 Formal and Colloquial Arabic verb systems

See Annex 6 – note written forms (in yellow) which would not also reflect the spoken form; most of the time, the written form may be interpreted (read out) either as Formal Arabic or as Educated Spoken Arabic.

4.2 Formal Arabic case system – nouns, adjectives, participles (no case system in Colloquial Arabic)

• Most common type (for all other declension types, see Annex 5 – note written forms (in yellow) which would not also reflect the spoken form; most of the time, the written form may be interpreted either as Formal Arabic (FA) or as Educated Spoken Arabic (ESA):

Arabic name of case English French definite indefinite

raf‘ ‘being high, above’ (ḍamma �? u) nominative cas sujet -u -un

(xafḍ ‘being low, below’ (kasra �? i) ǧarr ‘pulling’ genitive cas indirect -i -in

naṣb ‘raising, putting up’ (alif tanwīn Î«?) accusative cas direct -a -an

Arabic script (unvocalized)

Transcription (raised letters full, formal) construct definite indefinite indefinite definite construct

XO� XO��« XO� N baitun al-baitu baitu

G baitin al-baiti baiti

U�O� ¨ÎU�O� A baitan -ā# (-#) al-baita baita

‘house’ ‘house’

• Only Formal Arabic (Qur’ānic, Classical, Modern Standard Arabic (MSA)) has ’i‘rāb (case and mood terminal variations, see Annexes 5 and 6); no living Arabic dialects do. Bedouin -in, -ən (popularly thought to prove that Bedouins have retained case-marking) is an invariable highlighting marker, not true case.

• Proper ’i‘rāb is de rigueur in all non-dialectal writing (dialectal writing uncommon; however, new ESA styles arising with email and texting).

• Most ’i‘rāb endings (except indefinite accusative) not apparent in unvocalized writing (writing usually not vocalized, except in Qur’ān and pedagogical materials, or to disambiguate; partial vocalization sometimes in classical poetry).

• Dialect-based Educated Spoken Arabic (ESA) does not normally use case endings at all, except for the very productive adverbial –an (< accusative indefinite) e.g. ōtōmātīkīyan ‘automatically’.

• Spoken Formal Arabic (SFA) may range from full production of all case and mood endings (few competent to do so spontaneously without slip-ups – mainly newsreaders, literary academics, religious leaders) to observance of correct endings only where apparent in the script (much more frequent solution), with speakers constantly moving up and down the formality continuum.

• “Pausal forms”: even in the most formal Arabic, a sentence-final short vowel -a, -i, -u or nunated vowel -in, -un is always elided; many speakers simply extend this principle to more and more words sentence-internally, and even to all words, so as not to have to worry about “getting it right”.


• Problem with indefinite accusative: correct pausal form -ā felt to be affected, precious (reminiscent of Qur’ānic recitation, classical poetry); solution: either elide -an entirely (informal) or retain –an in all positions, even finally (formal).

• Common solution for SFA: reproduce full ’i‘rāb only where actually apparent in Arabic script. Only someone speaking at least this formally may be used to test for “faulty accusative”.

• In written texts, only indefinites of the first and third declension classes may be used to test for “faulty accusative” because only they are unambiguously indicated in the script and are not shared with some other case (nominative or genitive, such as the masculine and feminine participial forms and the dual forms, last classes); in the latter case the accusative/genitive usually coincides with the general spoken form; so such a form could thus be the result of levelling influence from Colloquial Arabic, ESA.

• Common saying among Arabs about speaking fuṣħà (Formal Arabic):

(35) iǧzim, taslam cut.short.IPR.2.SG.M you.will.be.safe.JUSS.2.SG.M ‘Cut short [elide case and mood vowellings], you’ll be safe.’


4.3 Functions of the Formal Arabic cases

The nominative case (raf‘, marfū‘) (unmarked, default form) is used for:

• subject of a verb.

• subject and predicate of a nominal (verbless) sentence.

• citation form of nominals (nouns/adjectives)

The genitive case (ǧarr, maǧrūr [xafḍ, maxfūḍ]) is used solely for genitive constructs:

• all except first term of a genitive construct NP+NP(+NP(+NP, etc.)); (first term is nominative, genitive, accusative, according to syntactic context).

• object of a preposition PrP (all prepositions take the genitive).

• complement of ’ayy ‘any’.

• complement of an elative: akbaru baitin [big.ELAT.NOM house.GEN] ‘the biggest house’.

The accusative case (naṣb, manṣūb) is used for a much wider range of functions:

• direct/indirect object of a verb.

• subject X (= NP) of clauses beginning with the pseudo-verb ’inna ‘NP introductory, highlighting particle’ (≈ Heb. hinnē ‘lo’, ‘verily’) and its sisters (all subordinating: lakinna ‘but X’; ’anna ‘that X’; li’anna ‘because X’; ka’anna ‘as if X’; la‘alla ‘perhaps X, in the hope/fear that X’); also laita ‘in the hope that X’ (X in each case complement of a pseudo-verb).

• predicate (in Arabic direct object) of kāna/yakūnu ‘be’ and its sisters (laisa ‘not be’; mā zāla ‘not continue, remain = still be’; ṣāra ‘reach > become’; ’aṣbaħa ‘reach morning > become’; ’aḍħà ‘reach forenoon > become’; ’amsà ‘reach evening > become’; ðalla ‘remain, continue’; bāta ‘spend the night, become’). Hence, al-baitu kabīrun ‘the houseNOM.DEF is bigNOM.IDF, but al-baitu kāna kabīran [the houseNOM.DEF it.was.3.SG.M big.ACC.IDF] ‘the house was big’ (all complements of BE and other predicative verbs)

• both objects of ðanna ‘think, consider X as Y’ and its sisters (ḥasiba ‘reckon, consider’; i‘tabara ‘consider’; ǧa‘ala ‘make X Y’, etc.) (verb X = Y) (all complements of verbs of considering X as Y), and ’a‘ṭà ‘give Y X’ (also ’a‘ṭà ‘give X to Y’)

• internal/cognate object: mašà mashyan sarī‘an [walked.PRT.3.SG.M walk.ACC quick.ACC] ‘he walked a quick walk’ > mašà sarī‘an [walked.PRT.3.SG.M quick.ACC] ‘he walked quickly’ (all cognitive [(same-root) objects of verbs)

• adverbs: sarī‘an ‘fast, rapidly’ (same as above, with elision of cognate object).

• objects of specification (tamyīz), purpose, circumstance (ħāl): ištaɣala muhandisan [worked.3.SG.M engineer.ACC] ‘he worked as an engineer’ (complement of verb – function, purpose).

• nouns after numerals 11-99 (unit+ten+NP (cf. German) – distance government over (multiple of) ten; even plain multiples of ten: 20 =? zero+20, or by assimilation to unit+ten+NP?). 1: SG; 2: DU; 3-10 + PL.GEN; 11-99 + SG.ACC; hundreds, thousands, millions, etc. + SG.GEN;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accusative_case




4.4 Example of scripted oral Formal Arabic and spontaneous Spoken Formal Arabic

(a) Arabic script; (b) what Arab eyes see; (c) FA full’i‘rāb; (d) SFA partial i‘rāb; (e) ESA no i‘rāb;

(a) WOKzUF�« …“U�ù« s� Î«b�e� Êu�KD� WO�—U)« …—«“Ë uH�u�

(b) mwðfw wzārä -lxārǧyä yṭlbwn mzydā mn -l-ǧāzä -l‘āylyä

(c) muwaððafū wizāräti l-xāriǧīyäti employees.M.PL.CS ministry.F.GEN.(CS) the-external.F.GEN

yaṭlubūna mazīdan mina l-’iǧāzäti l-‘ā’ilīyäti they.demand.M.PL more.ACC.IDF of the-leave.F the-family.ADJ.F

(d) muwaððafū wizārät al-xāriǧīyä yaṭlubūn mazīdan min al-’iǧāzä al-‘ā’ilīyä

(e) muwaððafīn wizārit al-xāriǧīyä (b)yuṭlubū mazīd_ min al-’iǧāzä al-‘ēlīyä

‘Employees of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs demand more family leave.’

http://www.aljazeera.net/portal

• lack of corpus material for Spoken Formal Arabic and for unedited Formal Arabic; difficult to assess the prevalence of “faulty accusative” – only concrete examples of “faulty accusative” are significant; absence may always be attributed to observance of the canonical grammar.

• Arabic “faulty accusatives” noted in Spoken Formal Arabic and in poorly edited or unedited texts (Emad Mohamed, Egyptian linguist, p.c., notes that written faulty accusatives are particularly common in letters to the editor and in film subtitles, both produced hastily, and without proper editing; reveal more about user’s real grammatical instincts).

http://www.aljazeera.net/portal


4.5 Formal Arabic equivalents of Welsh examples in 3.1

(36) Tentative rule for “faulty accusative”: VÁ [XP]T ANP

(37) ra’àÁ [yūsuf.u]T Al-bait.a sawºM Yusuf.NOM the-house.ACC.DEF ‘Yusuf saw the house.’

(38) ra’àÁ [yūsuf.u]T Abait.an sawºM Yusuf.NOM house.ACC.IDF ‘Yusuf saw a house.’ S

(39) ru’iya l-bait.u. was.seenº$.M the-house.M.NOM.DEF ‘The house was seen.’

(40) ru’iya bait.un was.seenº$.M house.M.NOM.IDF ‘A house was seen.’

(41) ru’iya [‘alà t-tall] bait.un kabīr.un was.seenº$.M on the-hill house.M.NOM.IDF big.M.NOM.IDF ‘On the hill was to be seen a big house.’ Correct

(42) ru’iyaÁ [‘alà t-tall]T Abait.an Akabīr.an was.seenº$.M on the-hill house.M.ACC!IDF big.M.ACC!IDF ‘On the hill was to be seen a big house.’ Faulty accusative, PrP


4.6 Definite object marker (DFO) in Hebrew, Persian and Turkish

Important for detecting unaccusative in Biblical Hebrew.

(43) rā’ā yōsef bayiθ (Classical) Hebrew sawºM Joseph house ‘Joseph saw a house.’

(44) rā’āÁ [yōsef]T A’ɛθ-ha-bayiθ (Classical) Hebrew sawºM Joseph DFO-the-house ‘Joseph saw the house.’ (configurational analysis possible, but more likely DFO case-marking)

(45) yūsuf manzil dīd Persian Yusuf house he/she.saw ‘Yusuf saw a house / some houses.’

(46) yūsuf manzil-rā dīd Persian Yusuf house-DFO he/she.saw ‘Yusuf saw the house’

(47) yusuf ev gördü Turkish Yusuf house he/she.saw ‘Yusuf saw a house / some houses’

(48) yusuf evi gördü Turkish Yusuf house.DFO he/she.saw ‘Yusuf saw the house.’


4.7 Examples of Arabic “faulty accusative”: V.TÁ [XP]T ANP

Faulty accusative in Arabic noticed by Blau (various), Schen 1973, Mahmoud 1991, Abdul Raof 1998, Peled 2004, and myself (without at first being aware of these authors). No trace in standard grammars (ostensibly incorrect).

(49) wāħid: ’an yakūnÁ [ladē-k]T Ahadaf.an Muħammad Ħasanain Haikal, Ma‘a haikal one: that should.be.SBJºM with-you.M objective.M.ACC! Al-Jazeera, 20.03.2008 ‘One: that you should have an objective;’ SFA, PrP

(50) yabdū ’anna-hu sa-yakūnÁ [hunāk]T Aħall.an siyāsīy.an BBC Arabic.com seemsº that-it FUT-will.beºM there solution.M.ACC! political.M.ACC! 04.05.2004 yattasim bi-l-fauḍà li-l-’auḍā‘ fī l-‘irāq it.will.be.characterized.M by-the-anarchy to-the-conditions in the-Iraq MSA, Adv ‘It seems that there will be a fairly anarchical political solution to the situation in Iraq’

(51) wa-lā šakk fī ’anna rāmsfēld BBC Arabic.com 07.05.2004 and-no doubt about that Rumsfeld MSA, o-NP lā ya‘ūzuÁ-[hu]T A’ayy.an min hātain aṣ-ṣifatain NEG lackº-him any.ACC! of these.two.DU.F the-two.qualities.DU.F ‘and there is no doubt that Rumsfeld does not lack either of these qualities

[determination and firmness]’

(52) wa-naqṭariħ ’an yudraǧÁ [fī l-waθīqä 33 mīm/5]T Egyptian reply to consultation and-we.suggest that be.included.$.M in the-document 33 C/5 on UNESCO Programme Anuhūj.an ’iḍāfīyä muštarakä bain al-qiṭā‘āt ’amθilät:... and Budget for approaches.F.ACC! additional.F joint.F between the.sectors likes.CS:… 2006-2007 ‘We suggest that additional intersectoral approaches be included in document 33 C/5, such as:...’ MSA, PrP

(53) wa-sa-yu‘qadÁ [yauma ɣadin]T Aiǧtimā‘.an āxar Iðā‘at aš-šarq and-FUT-will.be.held.$.M day.ACC.CS tomorrow.GEN meeting.M.ACC! other.M 19.07.2005 ‘and another meeting will be held tomorrow’ SFA, Adv

(54) lūħiða… ’anna-hu waradaÁ [bi-hi]T (ǧadwal al-’a‘māl) Egyptian reply to consultation was.noticed.$.M that-it.M arrived in-it.M [agenda] on UNESCO 33 C/Resolution 92 Ašurūħ.an wāfiyä explanations.F.ACC! extensive.F MSA, PrP ‘It was noted … that it [the agenda] contained extensive explanations’

(55) wa-kānaÁ [la-hā]T (mu’allafāt Ibn Rushd) Mūsà Ħasan, Pres. UNESCO Gen. Conf., and-wasºM to-them.F.SG [works Ibn Rushd] World Philosophy Day 15.11.2006, Ata’θīr.an kabīr.an ‘alà l-fikr al-masīḥī wa-l-falsafī Rabat, Morocco influence.ACC! great.ACC! on the-thought the-Christian and-the-philosophical fī l-‘uṣūr al-wusṭà MSA, PrP in the-ages the-middle.F ‘And they [the works of Ibn Rushd (Averroës)] had a great impact on Christian and philosophical

thought in the Middle Ages.’

(56) ’aṣbaħaÁ [hunāk]T Aburūd.an bain amrīkā wa-maṣrInterviewer Mā warā’ al-xabar has.becomeºM there coolness.ACC! between America and-Egypt Al-Jazeera, ‘There is now a coolness between America and Egypt’ SFA, Adv 1950 GMT 02.04.2008


(57) hal yabqàÁ [fī l-’aðhān]T A’aθar.an ‘alà maqūlä MSA, PrP INT remainºM in the-minds trace.ACC! on dictum.F yuraddidu-hā ba‘ḍ al-mustašriqīn al-ǧudud wa-l-muta‘aṣṣibīn…1 repeatºM-it.F some the-orientalists.M.PL the-new.M.PL and-the-fanatical.M.PL ‘Is there any trace left in [peoples’] minds of a dictum often repeated by some latter-day, fanatical

orientalists…’

(58) ’inna-nā fī miṣr [ladaiÁ-nā]T A’īmān.an rāsix.an bi-’anna… Egypt, UNESCO Executive HLP-we in Egypt with-us faith.ACC! firm.ACC! in-that… Board, 182 EX/SR.3 para. 7.4 ‘We in Egypt have a firm belief that…’ MSA, PrP 12.09.2009

(59) laisaÁ [la-hā]T (al-ħarakāt al-mu‘āriḍä) Adaur.an fā‘il… al-Ittijāh al-mu‘ākis is.notºM to-them.F.SG (the-movements the-opposing) role.ACC! active. 21.09.2010, 1940 GMT ‘They [the opposition movements] have no active role…’ SFA, PrP

(60) wa-nataṭalla‘ ’ilà ’an Egypt, 186th UNESCO Executive Board and-we.look.forward.1.PL to that 186 EX/SR.2 para. 2.6, 09.05.2011 yakūnÁ [li-l-yūneskō]T Adaur.an fī … MSA, PrP beºSBJ.M to-the-UNESCO role.ACC! in ‘And we look forward to UNESCO having a role in …’.

1 “The influence of the Arab heritage on the West in the field of medicine and pharmacology”, paper presented at the International Encounters on the Shores of the Mediterranean: The Alchemy of an Uninterrupted Dialogue, UNESCO, Paris, 4-6 December 2008.


4.8 Examples of Arabic “faulty accusative” analysed by Peled (2004) as unaccusative, but for which a configurational approach also works

Peled 2004 remarkable article – explains faulty accusative effects in Arabic (and Hebrew) as the result of unaccusativity. Peled no doubt unaware of the configurational HEAD-[TRIGGER]-DEPENDENT > lenition approach for Welsh. For non-contemporary examples, Peled rightly gives only non-vocalized original Arabic or Hebrew script; my proposed transcriptions, to make the examples accessible to non-Semiticists; assumption that final Ar. U? or H א is -an rather than strict pausal form -ā; of little moment for the argument.

(61) fa-lam yabqāÁ [la-hu]T Aaθar.an > < «d�√ t� UI�� rK� PELED 2004:122 so-NEG.PRF remainºM to-it.M trace.ACC! <BLAU 1966:336 n.67 ‘And no trace of it remained.’ CMA, PrP

(62) wa-kāna ta‘līq-ī ‘alà ðālik al-ħiwār PELED 2004:119 and-wasºM comment.M-my on that.M the-dialogue.M <HAIKAL 1978:210 ħīna tanāhatÁ [’ilay-ya]T A’aṭrāf.an min-hu… when reachedºF to-me parts.F.ACC! of-it.M ‘My comment on that exchange, when bits of it reached me, was…’ MSA, PrP

(63) wa- kānaÁ [l-ī]T Awalad.an waħīd > < וכאן לי ולדא וחיד PELED 2004:128 and- wasºM to-me boy.M.ACC! single* <BLAU 1981:185 ‘And I had only one son.’ JMA, PrP

(64) lam yaṣilÁ [’ilai-h]T A’aħad.an > < לם יצל אליה אחדא PELED 2004:122 did.not.PRF arriveºM to-him anyone.M.ACC! <BLAU 1981:172 ‘No one came to him’ JMA, PrP

(65) θumma yubnàÁ [‘alà ’asās miθl hāðihi l-muwāfaqä]T PELED 2004:124 then will.be.builtºM on basis such this.F the-agreement.F <al-Muṣawwar (l-iftirāḍīyä.F) Ataqaddum.an ħaula 49 nuqṭä 07.02.1997:25 [the-putative] progress.M.ACC! around 49 point MSA, PrP ‘…then, on the basis of such an [putative] agreement, progress will be made on 49 points.’

(66) wa-kam kāna yawadd lau yūǧadÁ [fī-him]T Awāħid.an PELED 2004:124 and-how he.was he.wants if is.found.$.M in-them one.M.ACC! <BLAU 1973:196 ‘…and how he would like it if there were [to be] one among them…’ MSA, $, PrP

(67) lā yaǧūz ’an yuzādÁ > < לא יג'וז אן יזאד עליהם כ'אמסא PELED 2004:125 NEG is.allowedº that be.added.$ <BLAU 1981:185 [‘alai-him]T Axāmis.an onto-them fifth.ACC! ‘It is not allowed to add a fifth to them.’ JMA, $, PrP

(68) malik(un?) wulidaÁ [la-hu]T > < UM�« t��« s� t� b�Ë pK� PELED 2004:125 king.NOM? was.born.$.M to-him <BLAU 1966-7:336 [min amati-hi]T Aibn.an from maid-his son.M.ACC! ‘A king to whom a son was born from his maid.’ CMA, $, PrP, PrP


4.9 Peled’s examples of Arabic and Hebrew “faulty accusative” for which unaccusative is more plausible than configuration

(69) lam yaħduθÁ Ašai’.an PELED 2004:111 NEG.PRF happenºM thing.M.ACC! ‘Nothing happened.’ MSA?, UA

(70) wa-fī ħayāti-nā taǧassadatÁ Adurūs.an Amustafādät.an PELED 2004:119 and-in life-our materializedºF lessons.F.ACC! beneficial.F.ACC! <al-Muṣṣawar 07.02.1997:31 ‘In our lives, lessons have materialized from which we could

learn a great deal’ MSA, UA

(71) ħadaθaÁ Aǧū‘.an > < חדת' ג'ועא PELED 2004:122 happenedºM famine.M.ACC! <BLAU 1981:185 ‘A famine occurred’ JMA, UA

(72) lā yūjadÁ Ama‘lūm.an fa-lā yaħsulÁ A‘ilm.an Ajadīd.an PELED 2004:124 NEG is.foundº$.M known.M.ACC! so.NEG happensº knowledge.ACC! new.ACC! < MA thesis ‘There is no known, nor does any new knowledge arise’ MSA, $ UA

(73) gā’a-nā walad.un/an ism-uh… > < ...גאנא ולדן אסמה PELED 2004:123 cameºM-us.ACC boy.M.NOM/ACC! name-his <BLAU 1946:32 ‘There came to us a boy whose name was…’ JMA, UA?

(74) futiħaÁ Amauḍi‘.an > < UF{u� `�� PELED 2004:125 was.openedº$.M place.M.ACC! <SCHEN 1973:84 ‘A place was opened’ MMA, $ UA

Biblical Hebrew examples show that unaccusative effects are very old in Semitic:

(75) ū-vā’ hā-’ărī wa-ɛθ-ha-dōv > < הדוב-ובא הארי ואת PELED 2004:123 and-cameº the-lion and-DFO-the-bear <1 Samuel 17:34 ‘When a lion came or a bear’

(76) ’ɛθ- kɔl hā-rā‘ā ha-zōθ bā’ā ‘ālē-nū > < את-כל הרעה הזות באה עלינו PELED 2004:123 DFO all the-evil.F the-this.F it.came.F upon-us <Daniel 9:13 ‘All this evil came upon us’

(77) wə-’ɛθ-ha-barzɛl nāfal ɛl-ha-mayyim > < ואת-הברזל נפל אל-המים PELED 2004:123 and-DFO-the-iron.M it.fell. M to-the-waters <2 Kings 6:5 ‘The iron [axe-head] fell into the water’

(78) way-yiwwāleð la-ħănōx ’ɛθ- ‘īrāð > < ויולד לחנוך את-עירד PELED 2004:126 and-is.bornº to-Enoch DFO Irad <Genesis 4:18 ‘And unto Enoch was born Irad.’

(79) way-yuggaðÁ lə-rivqāh > < ויגד לרבקה את-דברי עשו PELED 2004:126 and-was.toldº$.M to-Rebeccah <Genesis 27:42 A’ɛθ-divrē ‘eśāw DFO-words.PL.CS Esau ‘And the words of Esau were told to Rebeccah.’

(80) ’im A’ɛθ-kɔl dəɣē ha-yam > < אם את-כל דגי הים יאסף להם PELED 2004:126 or DFO-all fish.PL.CS the-sea <Numbers 11:22 ye’āsefÀ lā-hɛm will.be.gatheredº$.M to-them ‘Or shall all the fish of the sea be gathered together for them?’


5. WELSH AGAIN

Iosad 2007c:2: “The ‘Direct Object Mutation’ of Welsh is triggered not by a specific lexical item or a class of those, but rather by a certain syntactic configuration: in simple terms, whatever comes directly after the first post-verbal constituent undergoes soft mutation. In particular, this includes the object NP in VSO clauses.”. Reformulate as V.TĹ [XP]T LNP: tensed verb; verb must govern affected NP – reference to three terms: finite verb government, XP trigger and target NP.

Origins of Welsh syntactic mutation: Willis 2007:313-15; Evans 1964; Morgan 1953 – lenition of post-verbal NPs in Middle Welsh confused. Lenition not always written; when written, after tensed verb forms: sometimes subject lenited, sometimes object; only at a later stage does the indefinite object (bare NP, without preceding article (may be definite in genitive constructs)) lenite systematically. Sangiad (interpolated XP) sometimes triggers lenition, sometimes not.

Morgan 1953:185 gives examples of instability in mutating post-verbal subjects and objects in Middle Welsh, all from J. Gwenogvryn Evans (ed.) The White Book of Mabinogion, Pwllheli, 1907):

a glywei llef ‘could hear a cry (VO no mutation)’ a welei lannerch ‘could see a glade (VO mutation)’ a welei carw ‘could see a deer (VO no mutation)’ ual y llathrei wynnet y cwn y llathrei cochet eu clusteu ‘as glowed the whiteness (VS mutation) of the dogs so glowed the redness (VO no mutation) of their ears’ ual y llunyei uanawydan y gweith y gwniei pryderi ‘for as Manawyddan (VS mutation) shaped the work, so Pryderi (VS no mutation) stitched it’

Morgan 1953:184 “Here are three types of ‘normal’ sentence’: (a) [tensed] Verbform + noun (subject or object) immediately after the verb, and here, whichever of the two nouns [subject or object.] follows the verb, it is mutated following some verbforms, such as torrai [‘broke’ imperfect], clybu [‘heard’ preterite], cigleu [‘has heard’ perfect] [all ending in a vowel]; but it keeps the radical [unmutated consonant] following others, such as tyr [‘breaks/will break’ present/future], torro [‘should break’ subjunctive], torrodd [‘broke’ preterite], torres [‘broke’ preterite], cymerth [‘took’ preterite], dug [‘bore, carried’ preterite], gwnaeth [‘did, made’ preterite] [all ending in consonants except torro; originally torr-h-o, which may have given a pronunciation with final consonant torroh]. (b) [tensed] Verbform + nominal subject + nominal object, and here mutation or otherwise of the subject is determined by the verbform, as in (a); as for the object, all that can be said here is that the verbform has nothing to do with whether or not it is mutated; (c) [tensed] Verbform + postclitic [subject] pronoun + object, with the verbform having nothing to do with whether or not the object is mutated.”

(Dyna dri math o frawddeg normal: (a) Ffurfiad berfol + enw (goddrych neu wrthrych) yn union ar ôl y ferf, ac yma, pa enw bynnag o’r ddau a ddilyno’r ferf, fe’i treiglir ar ôl rhai ffurfiadau megis torrai, clybu, cigleu; ac fe geidw’r gysefin ar ôl eraill megis tyr, torro, torrodd, torres, cymerth, dug, gwnaeth; (b) Ffurfiad berfol + goddrych enwol + gwrthrych enwol, ac yma penderfynir a fydd tr. i’r goddrych neu beidio gan y ffurfiad berfol fel yn (a), eithr am y gwrthrych, y cwbl a ddywedir yma yw nad oes a wnelo’r ffurfiad berfol â’r cwestiwn a ddylid treiglo neu beidio; (c) Ffurfiad berfol + rhagenw ôl + gwrthrych, heb fod â wnelo’r ffurfiad berfol â’r cwestiwn a ddylai’r gwrthrych dreiglo.)


Possible sequence of developments in Middle Welsh, assuming both unaccusative and configurational explanations for Arabic faulty accusative are germane:

• Lenition of following NP after tense(-person) endings, especially those ending in a vowel or a sonorant (except subjunctive -o: original -h-o, metathesis > -oh blocking lenition?), irrespective of whether NP is subject or object (difficult to ascertain conclusively; absence of written lenition does not prove absence in spoken language) (also increasing frequency of post-verbal subject pronouns, all ending in vowels).

o Erich Poppe, “Syntactic variation in Middle Welsh: New perspectives” (presentation at the First European Symposium in Celtic Studies, Trier, Germany, 5-9 August 2013) has 12 examples of tensed verb followed immediately by subject: gweles Pawl (V-obstruent + S: no mutation) (3 times) oruc Pawl (V-obstruent + S: no mutation) duc Mihaghel (V-obstruent + S: no mutation) oed morynnyon (V-obstruent + S: no mutation) oedynt morynnyon (V-obstruent + S: no mutation) (twice) gwelei Pawl (V-sonorant + S: no mutation) (only example of no mutation following sonorant) gwelei Bawl (V-sonorant + S: mutation) (twice) klywei Bawl (V-sonorant + S: mutation)

• With introduction of T-2 constraint, O (P) and S.UA (P) likely to be more frequent following V than S.UE (A) (general tendency for NPs with object properties to come later than those with subject properties).

• Post finite-verb lenition shifts from phonetic to semantic: first NP with object properties: O (P) or S.UA (P). “Accusative case” realized by lenition on first object-like bare NP (no definite article).

• Shift from semantic (case)-based rule (above) to simpler configuration mechanism, as in Arabic: V.TĹ [XP]T LNP (XP may be S, s, pro, PrP, Adv, etc.) with no reference to semantic function; neatly accounts for sangiad lenition of non-objects.

Need to screen Middle Welsh texts (by 50-year periods with following types) for lenition of post-verbal NPs and for relative prevalence of types: (V = verb; A = agent (transitive subject; intransitive unergative subject); P = patient (transitive object; intransitive unaccusative subject;

• Verb-initial: V A P; V A; V P

• X-initial: X V A P; X V A; X V P (X = AdvP, PP, etc.)

• Argument-initial: A V P; A V; P V; (P V A?)


Adjacency construct in Arabic

V NNOM N NGEN

inhāra bait-u-n collapsedºM house.M-NOM-IDF ‘A house collapsed

bāb-u l-bait-i door-NOM the-house-GEN ‘the door of the house’

P NGEN

fī l-bait-i in the-house-GEN ‘in the house’

N NGEN NGEN ….

bāb-u bait-i ṣ-ṣadīq-i door-NOM house-GEN the-friend-GEN ‘the door of the friend’s house’

Distance dependency in Arabic – HEAD-[TRIGGER]-DEPENDENT (accusative-marked)

V [NNOM] NACC N [NGEN] NACC

ra’à zaid-u-n bait-a-n sawºM Zaid.M-NOM-IDF house-ACC-IDF ‘Zaid saw a house.’

ru’yat-u zaid-i-n bait-a-n sight-NOM Zaid-GEN-IDF house-ACC-IDF Zaid’s seeing of a house

V [NNOM] NACC NACC N [NGEN] NACC NACC

’a‘ṭà zaid-un ṣadīq-a-n kitāb-a-n gaveºM Zaid.M-NOM friend-ACC.IDF book-ACC.IDF ‘Zaid gave a friend a book.’

’i‘ṭā’-u zaid-in giving-NOM Zaid.M-GEN ṣadīq-a-n kitāb-a-n friend-ACC.IDF book-ACC.IDF ‘Zaid’s giving a friend a book.’

V [PP] NACC

’an yakūn-a ladai-k hadaf-a-n that beºM.SBJ with-you.M goal.M-ACC!IDF ‘that you should have a goal’

V [Adv] NACC

sa-yakūn hunāk ħall-a-n siyāsīy-a-n FUT-beºM there solution-ACC!IDF political-ACC!IDF ‘There will be a political solution.’

unit [ten] countedACC ??

xamsä wa-‘išrūna kitāb-a-n five and-twenty.NOM book-ACC-IDF ‘twenty-five books’

[ṣifr wa-] ‘išrūna kitāb-a-n [zero and-] twenty.NOM book-ACC-IDF ‘twenty books’


6. A (VERY!) TENTATIVE CONCLUSION Arabic evolution: case (unclear when lost in living dialects) > unaccusative effects give faulty accusative NOM → ACC; reanalysed from case to simpler configuration: V.TÁ [XP]T ANP (HEAD-[TRIGGER]-DEPENDENT > accusative). Possible overlapping of unaccusative and configuration, with growing dominance of configuration; unlikely that faulty accusatives which can only be explained by unaccusative effects are frequent today; near-native-speaker reanalysis of canonical fuṣħà rules governing indefinite accusative marking. (HEAD-[TRIGGER]-DEPENDENT rule may account for correct accusative (VSO), faulty accusative (V-XP-NP where XP may also = PP, AdvP, etc.), unit-[ten]-counted noun, etc.

Welsh evolution: phonetic (sandhi) after tensed verb endings: lenition on first post-verbal NP following vowels and sonorants > (in connection with emergence of Middle Welsh T.2) post-verbal intransitive subject increasingly likely to be unaccusative > lenition of post-verbal NPs thus increasingly associated with object features > VSO with systematic lenition of Case effects unsurprising; HEAD-[TRIGGER]-DEPENDENT > lenition overlaps with unaccusative – HEAD-[TRIGGER]-DEPENDENT > lenition probably dominant today, and appears to explain all instances of syntactic mutation (DOM, sangiad, etc.)


7. ENVOI

• reliability of data in generative work on “exotic” languages

• usefulness of typology with smaller numbers of languages of which linguist has practical mastery

• possibility of rules from different components overlapping, applying simultaneously (e.g. both case or unaccusative and XPTH)

Hewitt 2001:156 “L’un des débats récurrents en linguistique moderne concerne le nombre et l’organisation des composants de la grammaire – phonologie, morphologie, lexique, syntaxe, sémantique, pragmatique, structure de l’information, etc., et l’on recherche un modèle maximalement efficace et économique, avec des frontières précises et étanches entre ces composants. Cependant, l’on sait qu’en phonétique acoustique le signal sonore contient une redondance optimale de l’ordre de 50 % – avec moins de redondance, le risque de perdre le signal est trop grand ; avec plus de redondance, le système devient excessivement lourd. Ce principe de redondance optimale pourrait bien s’étendre à l’ensemble des sous-systèmes linguistiques, et notamment aux rapports entre eux ; ainsi il n’y aurait plus de frontières nettes (mais curieusement insaisissables) entre les différentes parties de la grammaire, dont le chevauchement servirait à renforcer la fiabilité du système. Même l’opposition entre la répétition mécanique de phrases toutes faites et l’analyse grammaticale sophistiquée pourrait s’estomper dans ce schéma, les deux principes s’appliquant simultanément. L’analyse grammaticale est naturellement nécessaire pour pouvoir produire et décoder des phrases totalement nouvelles : la phrase « j’ai vu un crocodile en coiffe danser la gavotte avec Alexis Gourvennec » n’a guère été produite auparavant, mais elle est parfaitement compréhensible pour tout locuteur du français. En revanche, l’on peut se demander si tout le dispositif grammatical est réellement mis en marche à chaque fois qu’on dit ou entend « j’en sais rien », phrase qui a dû être prononcée littéralement des milliards de fois. Finalement, l’idée de la redondance optimale et du renforcement mutuel des différents composants de la grammaire pourrait également expliquer comment les gens qui parlent des variantes sensiblement différentes d’une langue arrivent à communiquer.”

°rK�� ¨Âe�« iǧzim, taslam!

Cwtogwch, byddwch yn saff!

Cut short, you’ll be safe!


Annex 1: Arabic consonants – dialect variation

= pharyngealization (tafxīm) “emphatic” consonants: a dull, hollow, dark sound, mainly perceptible to non-Arabs in the lower, backed timbre of the adjacent vowels) [sounds used in “elevated” lexical items]

Letter

Name

Standard transcription

Classical Arabic

“Bedouin” dialects

“Urban” dialects

À – � ÷

θā’ ðāl ðā’ ḍād

θ, th, t ð, dh, d

ð, ẓ ḍ

θ ð ð

ḍ (orig. ḍḷ ?)

θ ð ð ð

t [s] d [z] ḍ [ẓ] ḍ [ẓ]

‚ qāf q (ḳ) q ɡ [q] ʔ [q]

Ã ǧīm ǧ, j, dj ʤ Lower Egypt, North Yemen ɡ Levant, Maghreb ʒ Upper Egypt, Sudan ɟ ᶁ

One of the epithets of the Arabic language is luɣät aḍ-ḍād ‘the language of the [letter] ḍād’, so unique that sound was deemed to be; it is paradoxical that ḍ is today a sound which many Arabs have trouble pronouncing correctly; in spoken dialects it falls everywhere together with /ð/: Bedouin-type dialects /ð/; urban-type dialects (ordinary words) /ḍ/ (but often not pharyngalized: /d/), (elevated words) /ẓ/. There is evidence that the original sound also involved a lateral, i.e. something like ḍḷ, cf. Arabic al-qāḍì ‘the judge’, cf. Spanish alcalde ‘mayor’.

Annex 2: Arabic dialect map

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Arabic_Dialects.svg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/73/Arabic_Dialects.svg


Annex 3: Arabic script – positional forms, transcription variants and IPA values

name of letter alone end middle front transcription IPA hamzä ¡ R? Q? T? ¡ ¡ R? Q? ?�? ’ ʾ ʔ ʔ alif « U? < « a/i/u- -ā- -ā (ɛː) æː aː ɑː (ɒː) alif mamdūdä ¬ P? < ¬ ’ā ʔ+ā bā’ » V? ?�? ?� b b tā’ X? ?�? ?� t t θā’ À Y? ?�? ?� θ th t θ (t s) ǧīm Ã Z? ?�? ?� ǧ j dj ʤ (ɡ ʒ ɟ ᶁ) ħā’ Õ `? ?�? ?� ħ ḥ H 7 ħ xā’ Œ a? ?�? ?� x kh k ḫ 5 x dāl œ b? < œ d d ðāl – c? < – ð dh d ð (d z) rā’ — d? < — r r zāy “ e? < “ z z sīn ” f? ?�? ?� s s šīn ‘ g? ?A? ?� š sh ʃ ṣād ’ h? ?B? ?� ṣ S 9 sʕ ḍād ÷ i? ?C? ?{ ḍ D 9ʹ dʕ (ðʕ+ zʕ) ṭā’ ◊ j? ?D? ?� ṭ T 6 tʕ ðā’ � k? ?E? ?� ð ẓ Z 6ʹ ðʕ (zʕ) ‘ain Ÿ l? ?F? ?� ‘ ʿ c ʕ 9 3 ʕ ɣain ⁄ m? ?G? ?� ɣ ġ gh g 3ʹ ɣ fā’ · n? ?H? ?� f f qāf ‚ o? ?I? ?� q ḳ 2 8 q (ʔ ɡ) kāf „ p? ?J? ?� k k (ʧ/_i/e_) lam ‰ q? ?K? ?� l l lam-alif ô ö? < ô lā / l-a/i/u- (l+ā, l+a- i- u-) mīm Â r? ?L? ?� m m nūn Ê s? ?M? ?� n n hā’ Á t? ?N? ?� h h

tā’ marbūṭä … W? -ä -a -ah -ät -at (CS)

-ɛ -æ -a -ɑ -ɒ (+h) -ɛ -æ -a -ɑ -ɒ +t (CS)

wāw Ë u? < Ë ©®«u? w ū (-ù in verbs) au aw

w u: ᵾ: au ou (oː)

yā’ Í w? ?O? ?� y ī ai ay

j iː ᵻː ai ei (eː)

alif maqṣūrä È v? -à -ā (-ɛː) -æː -aː -ɑː (-ɒː)

fatħä �? (�¡U? ÎW? ÎU?) a (-an) ɛ æ a ɑ ɒ (-an, -ən) kasrä �? (�?) i (-in) i ɪ e ɨ (ə) (-ɪn) ḍammä �? (�?) u (-un) u ʊ o ʉ (ə) (-ʊn) sukūn �? – (no vowel) – šaddä �? CC (dbl. cons.) Cː

„ Í ◊ Õ “ Ë Á œ Ã » √⁄ � ÷ – Œ À ‘ — ‚ ’ · Ÿ ” Ê Â ‰ < Older traditional order (subparagraphs (a), (b), (c), etc.) Mnemonic: ’abǧad hawwaz ħuṭṭī kaliman sa‘faṣ qurišat θaxið ḍaðiɣ


Annex 4: Hebrew script – transcription variants and IPA values (Classical and Israeli Hebrew)

Alphabet Classical Hebrew Israeli Hebrew

name letter (5 have end forms) transcription IPA transcription IPA

’ālɛf א ’ ʾ ʔ ʔ (-) ’ (-) ʔ > - bēθ ב b v b bh b v b v b v gīmɛl ג g ɣ ḡ gh ɡ ɣ g g dālɛθ ד d ð d dh d ð d d he’ ה h h h h wāw ו w w v v zayin ז z z z z ħēθ ח ħ ḥ ħ ħ ḥ x kh ch ħ > x ṭēθ ט ṭ tˁ tˀ t ṭ t yōð י y j y j kaf ך-כ k x k kh ch k x k x kh ch k x lāmɛð ל l l l l mem ם-מ m m m m nūn ן-נ n n n n sāmɛx ס s s s s ‘ayin ע ‘ ʿ c ʕ ʕ ‘ ’ ʕ > ʔ > - pe’ ף-פ p f p ph p f p f ṣāðē ץ-צ ṣ sˁ ʦˀ tɬ ? c ts tz ʦ qōf ק q ḳ q qˀ kˀ ? q k k rēš ר r r ʁ ? r ʁ šīn ש š sh ʃ š sh ʃ śīn ש ś s ɕ ɬ ? s s tāw ת t θ t th t θ t t paθaħ א a a a a sɛɣōl א ɛ æ ä ɛ e ɛ səɣōl-yōð/mālē אי ɛ ǣ ǟ ɛ e ɛ ṣērē א e e e ɛ ṣērē-yōð/mālē אי ē eː e ɛ ḥīrɛq א i i i i ḥīrɛq-yōð אי ī î iː i i qāmaṣ gāðōl א ā ɔ å ɑː ɒː ɔ: a a qāmaṣ ḥāṭūf א ɔ å o ɔ o ɔ ḥōlɛm א o ō o o ɔ ḥōlɛm-wāw/mālē או ō ô oː o ɔ qibbuṣ א u u u u šūrɛq או ū û uː u u šəwā א ə ə e ə e ə ḥaṭef-paθaḥ א ă ä a a ḥaṭef-sɛɣōl א ɛ ɛ e e ḥaṭef-qāmaṣ א ɔ ɔ o o

Bəɣaðkəfaθ letters: with dāɣeš (point inside), stops: ב b ד d ג g פ p ת t כ k; without dāɣeš, fricatives: ב v ד ð ג ɣ פ f ת θ כ x (Israeli Hebrew only for v, f, x)

Gɛrɛš diacritic for non-Hebrew sounds: ג׳ j/ǧ ד׳ ð ז׳ ž ח׳ x (not ħ) 'כ x צ׳ č ע׳/ר׳ ɣ ת׳ θ.

Classical Hebrew consonants: ’, b~v, d~ð, g~ɣ, h, w, z, ħ, ṭ, y, k~x, l, m, n, s, ‘, p~f, ṣ,.q, r, š, ś, t~θ; long vowels: ā, ē, ī, ō, ū; short vowels: a, ɛ, e, i, ɔ, o, u; furtive vowels: ə, a, ɛ, ɔ

Classical > Israeli Hebrew: ð>d, ɣ>g, θ>t, w>v, ṣ> c[ʦ], ś>s, (ħ>x, ‘>’>-), double consonants > simple; no long or furtive vowels: all vowels short: ā, ă > a; ē, ɛ, ɛ, ə > e [ɛ]; ī > i; ō, ɔ, ɔ, ɔ > o [ɔ]; ū > u


Annex 5: Terminal variations in Formal Arabic nominals (nouns and adjectives – ’i‘râb lit. ‘Arabization’) FA markers

Arabic script (unvocalized) Transcription (raised letters full, formal) construct definite indefinite indefinite definite construct

XO� XO��« XO� N baitun al-baitu baitu

G baitin al-baiti baiti

U�O� ¨ÎU�O� A baitan -ā# (-#) al-baita baita

‘house’ ‘house’

W�—b� *«W�—b W�—b� N madrasätun, -h# al-madrasatu, -h# madrasätu

G madrasätin, -h# al-madrasäti, -h# madrasäti

A madrasätan, -h# al-madrasäta, -h# madrasäta

‘school’ F.SG ‘school’ F.SG

w{U� w{UI�« Ì÷U� N qāḍìn (al-)qāḍì G ÎUO{U� A qāḍìyan -iyā#) (al-)qāḍìya

‘judge’ ‘judge’

vMF� vMF*« vMF� N

ma‘nàn (al-)ma‘nà G A

‘meaning’ ‘meaning’

Èu�œ Èu�b�« Èu�œ N

da‘wà (ad-)da‘wà G A

‘call, invitation’ ‘call, invitation’

��√ ��_« ��√ N ’akbaru (al-)’akbaru

G ’akbara (al-)’akbari

A (al-)’akbara

‘biggest, most great’ ‘biggest, most great’

w�UF� w�UF*« ÌÊUF� N ma‘ānìn (al-)ma‘ānì G w�UF� A ma‘ānìya (al-)ma‘ānìya

‘meanings’ F.SG ‘meanings’ F.SG

uLK�� ÊuLK�*« ÊuLK�� N (al-)muslimūna muslimū

wLK�� *«5LK� 5LK�� G (al-)muslimīna muslimī A ‘Muslims’ M.PL ‘Muslims’ M.PL

ö�— Êö�d�« Êö�— N riǧlāni ar-riǧlāni riǧlā

wK�— 5K�d�« 5K�— G riǧlaini ar-riǧlaini riǧlai A ‘two feet’ DU ‘two feet’ DU

ULK�� ULK�*« ULK�� N muslimātun

G muslimātin

A ‘Muslims’ F.PL ‘Muslims’ F.PL


Annex 6: Formal Arabic verbs and typical ESA verb morphology (FA modal variations – ’i‘râb lit. ‘Arabization’) FA markers in script – ESA markers

Arabic script MSA transcription typical ESA

kataba, yaktubu ‘write’; (šariba, yašrabu ‘drink’)

Preterite (perfective) f m m f m f

3SG X�� V�� kataba katabat katab katabit 2SG X�� X�� katabta katabti katabt katabti 1SG X�� katabtu katabt

3PL 6�� «u�� katabù katabna katabu 2PL �7�� r�� katabtum katabtunna katabtu 1PL UM�� katabnā katabna

3DU U�� U�� katabā katabatā (širib, širbit, širbu) 2DU UL�� katabtumā

Present/Future Indicative (imperfective) 3SG V�J� V�J� yaktubu taktubu (b)yiktib (b)tiktib 2SG 5��J� V�J� taktubu taktubīna (b)tiktib (b)tiktibi 1SG V��√ ’aktubu (b)aktib

3PL 6�J� Êu��J� yaktubūna yaktubna (b)yiktibu 2PL 6�J� Êu��J� taktubūna taktubna (b)tiktibu 1PL V�J� naktubu (b)niktib

3DU ÊU��J� ÊU��J� yaktubāni taktubāni ((b)yišrab, (b)yišrabu) 2DU ÊU��J� taktubāni

Imperative 2SG ��« V��« uktub uktubī iktib iktibi 2PL 6��« «u��« uktubù uktubna iktibu 2DU U��« uktubā (išrab, išrabi, išrabu)

Subjunctive (FA) 3SG V�J� V�J� yaktuba taktuba yiktib tiktib 2SG ��J� V�J� taktuba taktubī tiktib tiktibi 1SG V��√ ’aktuba aktib

3PL 6�J� «u��J� yaktubù yaktubna yiktibu 2PL 6�J� «u��J� taktubù taktubna tiktibu 1PL V�J� naktuba niktib

3DU U��J� U��J� yaktubā taktubā (yišrab, yišrabu) 2DU U��J� taktubā

Jussive (FA) 3SG V�J� V�J� yaktub taktub yiktib tiktib 2SG ��J� V�J� taktub taktubī tiktib tiktibi 1SG V��√ aktib

3PL 6�J� «u��J� yaktubù yaktubna yiktibu 2PL 6�J� «u��J� taktubù taktubna tiktibu 1PL V�J� naktub niktib

3DU U��J� U��J� yaktubā taktubā (yišrab, yišrabu) 2DU U��J� taktubā


References and bibliography

Arabic

ABDUL-RAOF Hussein. 1998. Theme and Agent in Modern Standard Arabic. Curzon, Richmond, UK. al-Ittijāh al-mu‘ākis [The Opposite Direction]: Al-Jazeera debating programme pitting two guests against each other. Al-Jazeera: international Arabic satellite channel. ALTOMA Salih J. 1969. The Problems of Diglossia in Arabic: A comparative study of Classical and Iraqi Arabic.

Harvard Center for Middle Eastern Studies, Cambridge, Mass. BBC Arabic: international radio station and website. BLAU Joshua. 1946. Alif ha-akusativus le-tsiyyun ha-nose’ ve-ha-nasu’ be-tekstim araviyyim-yehudiyyim

[Accusative alif indicating subject and object in Jewish Arabic texts], Tarbiz 25:27-35. BLAU Joshua. 1965. The Emergence and Linguistic Background of Judaeo-Arabic: A study of the origins of Middle

Arabic. Oxford University Press. Reprinted by Ben-Zvi Institute, Jerusalem, 1981. BLAU Joshua. 1966-7. A Grammar of Christian Arabic, Based mainly on South-Palestinian texts from the first

millennium. Peeters, Louvain. BLAU Joshua. 1970. On Pseudo-Corrections in some Semitic Languages. Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities,

Jerusalem. BLAU Joshua. 1973. Remarks on some syntactic trends in Modern Standard Arabic. Israel Oriental Studies 3:172-231. BLAU Joshua. 1976. Some additional observations on syntactic trends in Modern Standard Arabic. Israel Oriental

Studies 6:158-190. BLAU Joshua. 1988. Studies in Middle Arabic and its Judaeo-Arabic Variety. Magnes Press, Hebrew University of

Jerusalem. BLAU Joshua. 2002. A Handbook of Early Middle Arabic. Hebrew University of Jerusalem. BRUSTAD Kristen. 2000. The Syntax of Spoken Arabic: A comparative study of Moroccan, Egyptian, Syrian, and

Kuwaiti dialects. Georgetown University Press, Washington D.C. FERGUSON Charles A. 1959a. Diglossia. Word 15: 325-40. FERGUSON Charles A. 1959b. The Arabic koine. Language 35/4: 616-30. GOLDZIHER Ignaz. 1994 [1878]. On the History of Grammar among the Arabs. John Benjamins,

Amsterdam/Philadelphia. al-Ħawādiθ [Events]: Arabic weekly, Beirut. al-Ħayāt [Life]: Arabic daily, London. HAIKAL Muħammad Ħasanain. 1978. Ħadīθ al-mubādara [Talking of the initiative (Sadat’s peace initiative with

Israel)]. Maṭba‘at Bairūt, Beirut. HASSELBACH Rebecca. 2013. Case in Semitic: Roles, relations, and reconstruction. Oxford University Press, 2013. HEWITT Steve. 2006. Arabic: verb-subject-object or verb-given-new? Paper presented at the Conference on

Communication and Information Structure in Spoken Arabic, University of Maryland, 16-18 June 2006. HOLES Clive. 2004 [1995]. Modern Arabic: Structures, functions and varieties. Revised and updated edition,

Georgetown University Press, Washington D.C. 1st edition, Longman, London 1995. HOPKINS S. 1984. Studies in the Grammar of Early Arabic: Based on papyri datable to before AH 300 / AD 912.

Oxford University Press. Iðā‘at aš-šarq [Radio Orient]: French-Lebanese international radio station. KINBERG Leah & Kees VERSTEEGH. 2001. Studies in the Linguistic Structure of Classical Arabic. Brill, Leiden. al-Muṣawwar [Illustrated]: weekly, Cairo. LENTIN Jérôme & Jacques GRAND’HENRY. 2008. Moyen arabe et variétés mixtes de l’arabe à travers l’histoire:

Actes du Premier Colloque International (Louvain-la-Neuve, 10-14 mai 2004). Peeters, Louvain. Ma‘a haikal [With Haikal]: Weekly hour-long reminiscences on Al-Jazeera by Muħammad Ħasanain Haikal, editor-

in-chief of al-Ahrām, Egyptian government newspaper, in the days of Nasser; Nasser’s closest confidant. MAHMOUD Abdelgawad T. 1991. A constrastive study of middle and unaccusative constructions in Arabic and

English, pp.119-36 in Bernard COMRIE & Mushira EID (eds), Perspectives on Arabic Linguistics III: Papers from the Third Annual Symposium on Arabic Linguistics. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

Mā warā’ al-xabar [Behind the News]: News background programme on Al-Jazeera satellite television. OWENS Jonathan. 1988a. Case and proto-Arabic. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, Part I:

61/1:51-73; Part I: 61/2:215-27.


OWENS Jonathan. 1988b. The Foundations of Grammar: An introduction to medieval Arabic grammatical theory. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

OWENS Jonathan. 1990. Early Arabic Grammatical Theory: Heterogeneity and standardization. John Benjamins, Amsterdam.

PARKINSON Dilworth B. 1994. Speaking Fuṣḥā in Cairo: The role of the ending vowels, pp.179-211 in Yasser SULEIMAN (ed.), Arabic Sociolinguistics: Issues and perspectives, Curzon, Richmond, Surrey, UK.

PELED Yishai. 1999. Aspects of the use of grammatical terminology in medieval Arabic grammatical tradition, pp.50-85 in Yasir SULEIMAN (ed.), Arabic Grammar and Linguistics, Routledge Curzon, London & New York.

PELED Yishai. 2004. Accusatival subjects in Arabic non-transitive constructions and the unaccusative hypothesis, A. LEVIN, S. HOPKINS, J. BLAU, et al (eds) Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 29:111-35: Studies in honour of Moshe Piamenta. Institute of Asian and African Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

PELED Yishai. 2009. Sentence Types and Word-Order Patterns in Written Arabic. Brill, Leiden. SCHEN I. 1973. Usama Ibn Munqidh’s memoirs: Some further light on Muslim Middle Arabic (Part II), Journal of

Semitic Studies 18:64-97 VERSTEEGH Cornelis H.M. (Kees). 1993. Arabic Grammar and Qur’ānic Exegesis in Early Islam. Brill, Leiden, New

York, Cologne. VERSTEEGH Cornelis H.M. (Kees). 1995. The Explanation of Linguistic Causes: Al-Zaǧǧāǧī’s theory of grammar –

introduction, translation, commentary. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia. (see Ch XVI “The theory about the lexical meaning of the ‘nominative’, accusative’ and ‘genitive’”

VERSTEEGH Cornelis H.M. (Kees). 1997. Landmarks in Linguistic Thought III: The Arabic Linguistic Tradition. Routledge, New York/London.

VERSTEEGH Cornelis H.M. (Kees). 2001. The Arabic Language. Edinburgh University Press. VERSTEEGH Cornelis H.M. (Kees), Konrad KOERNER, Hans-J. NIEDEREHE (eds). 1982. The History of Linguistics in

the Near East. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. al-Waṭan al-‘arabī [the Arab Homeland]: weekly, Paris. WRIGHT William. 1859-1862. A Grammar of the Arabic Language. 2 vols. Simon Wallenberg, London. Numerous

editions and reprints. Zack Liesbeth & Arie Schippers. 2012. Middle Arabic and Mixed Arabic: Diachrony and synchrony. Brill, Leiden.

Unaccusativity; grammatical/thematic roles/relations; split auxiliary systems

ALEXIADOU Artemis, Elena ANAGNOSTOPOULOU, Marin EVERAERT (eds). 2004. The Unaccusativity Puzzle: Explorations of the syntax-lexicon interface. Oxford University Press.

ARANOVICH Raúl (ed.). 2007. Split Auxiliary Systems: A cross-linguistic perspective. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/ Philadelphia.

DONOHUE Mark & Søren WICHMANN (eds). 2008. The Typology of Semantic Alignment, Oxford University Press. DOWTY David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection, Language 67/3:647-619. BURZIO L. 1986. Italian Syntax: A Government and Binding approach. Reidel, Dordrecht. LEVIN Beth. & Malka RAPPAPORT-HOVAV. 1995. Unaccusativity at the Syntax-Lexical Semantics Interface.

Cambridge, Massachusetts. LEVIN Beth. & Malka RAPPAPORT-HOVAV. 2005. Argument Realization. Cambridge University Press. PALMER Frank R. 1994. Grammatical Roles and Relations. Cambridge University Press. PERLEMUTTER David M. 1978. Impersonal passives and the unaccusative hypothesis, pp. 157-90 in Proceedings of

the 4th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. RAPPAPORT-HOVAV Malka, Edit DORON, Ivy SICHEL (eds). 2010. Syntax, Lexical Semantics, and Event Structure.

Oxford University Press. SORACE Antonella. 2000. Gradients in auxiliary selection with intransitive verbs, Language 76/4:859-90.

Welsh, Celtic

BALL Martin & Nicole MÜLLER. 1992. Mutation in Welsh. Routledge, London. [esp. 3.3 Direct Object Mutation (and others) revisited, pp.136-161]

BORSLEY Robert D. 1986. Prepositional complementizers in Welsh, Journal of Linguistics 20:277-302. BORSLEY Robert D. 1989. An HPSG approach to Welsh, Journal of Linguistics 25:333-54. BORSLEY Robert D. 1995. On some similarities and differences between Welsh and Syrian Arabic. Linguistics 33:99-

122.


BORSLEY Robert D. 1997. Mutation and case in Welsh, Canadian Journal of Linguistics 42/1-2:31-56 (special issue, E. GUILFOYLE (ed.) Topics in Celtic Syntax).

BORSLEY Robert D. 1999. Mutation and constituent structure in Welsh, Lingua 109:267-300. BORSLEY Robert D. & Ian ROBERTS. 1992. The Syntax of the Celtic Languages: A comparative perspective.

Cambridge University Press. BORSLEY Robert D. & Maggie TALLERMAN. 1996. Phrases and soft mutation in Welsh, Journal of Celtic Linguistics

5:1-33. BORSLEY Robert D., Maggie TALLERMAN, David WILLIS. 2007. The Syntax of Welsh, Cambridge University Press. COMRIE Bernard. 1977. In defence of spontaneous demotion: The impersonal passive. pp.25-55 in Peter COLE &

Jerry SADOCK (eds), Syntax and Semantics, vol. 8, Grammatical Relations. Academic Press, New York. EVANS D. Simon. 1964. A Grammar of Middle Welsh. Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies. HAMP Erich. 1951. Morphophonemes of the Keltic mutations, Language 27:230-47. HANNAHS S.J. 1996. Phonological structure and soft mutation in Welsh. pp.46-69 in U. KLEINHENZ (ed.), Interfaces

in Phonology. Akademie Verlag, Berlin. HANNAHS S.J. 2011. Celtic mutations, pp.2807-30 in Marc VAN OOSTENDORP, Colin EWEN, Beth HUME, Keren RICE

(eds), Blackwell Companion to Phonology, vol. V. Wiley-Blackwell, Boston. HANNAHS S.J. forthcoming. Celtic initial mutation: Pattern extraction and subcategorisation. Word Structure 5/2:… HARLOW Stephen J. 1981. Government and relativization in Celtic, pp.213-54 in Frank HENRY (ed.), Binding and

Filtering. Croom Helm, London. HARLOW Stephen J. 1989. The syntax of Welsh soft mutation, Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 7:289-316. HARLOW Stephen J. 2009. Syntactic soft mutation in Welsh: A constraint-based alternative to the XP Trigger

Hypothesis. Handout of talk given on 26 May 2009 at the Department of Linguistics and Modern Languages, Chinese University of Hong Kong.

HEWITT Steve. 2001. Qu’est-ce qu’une langue ? pp. 155-7 in Parlons du breton ! – Petra nevez g’ar brezhoneg ? [What’s new with Breton?] Exhibition catalogue, Association Buhez / Ouest France, Rennes.

HEWITT Steve. 2002. The impersonal in Breton, Journal of Celtic Linguistics 7:1-39. HUDSON Dick. 2009. Welsh soft mutation and Word Grammar. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Linguistics

Association of Great Britain, 6-9 September 2009. IOSAD Pavel. 2006. Some observations on the grammaticalization of ICM [initial consonant mutation] in Welsh.

Moscow Student Conference in Linguistics, 14 April 2006. IOSAD Pavel. 2007a. AllWordsLeft: The development of Welsh mutation. Presentation at the Fifth Celtic Linguistics

Conference, 7-9 September 2007, Plas Gregynog, Wales. IOSAD Pavel. 2007b. Grammatikalizovannyje čeredovanija načal’nyx soglasnyx: Tipologija, teorija, diaxronija

[Grammaticalized alternations of initial consonants: Typology, theory, diachrony]. MA thesis, Moscow State University.

IOSAD Pavel. 2007c. Phonological processes as lexical insertion: More evidence from Welsh and elsewhere. Old World Conference in Phonology 4, University of the Aegean, Rhodes, Greece, 19-21 January 2007.

IOSAD Pavel. 2010. Right at the left edge: Initial consonant mutations in the languages of the world. pp.105-38 in Michael CYSOUW & Jan WOHLGEMUTH (eds), Rethinking Universals: How rarities affict linguistic theory, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin.

JONES Bob Morris. 2010. Tense and Aspect in Informal Welsh. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin/New York. KIBRE Nicholas J. 1997. A Model of Mutation in Welsh. Indiana University Linguistics Club, Bloomington. KING Gareth. 1993. Modern Welsh: A comprehensive grammar. Routledge, London. 2nd edition 2002. KING Gareth. 1995. Basic Welsh: A grammar and workbook. Routledge, London. KING Gareth. 1996. Intermediate Welsh: A grammar and workbook. Routledge, London. KING Gareth. 2003. Colloquial Welsh. Routledge, London. 2nd edition 2008. LIEBER Rochele. 1983. New developments in autosegmental phonology: consonant mutations, pp.165-75 in Michael

Barlow, Charles A. Ferguson, Daniel Flickinger, M. Westcoat (eds), Proceedings of the West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.

LONGOBARDI Giuseppe & Ian ROBERTS. Forthcoming. The parametric comparison method and the Celto-Semitic puzzle.

MANNING H. Paul. 1995. Fluid intransitivity in Middle Welsh: Gradience, typology and “unaccusativity”, Lingua 74:171-94.


MORGAN T.J. 1952. Y Treigladau a’u Cystrawen [Mutations and their Construction]. Gwasg Prifysgol Cymru [University of Wales Press], Caerdydd [Cardiff]; syntactic mutation: esp. pp. 182-233.

MORRIS-JONES John. 1913. A Welsh Grammar, Oxford University Press. MORRIS-JONES John. 1931. Welsh Syntax: An unfinished draft. University of Wales Press, Cardiff. POPPE Erich. 2013. Syntactic variation in Middle Welsh: New perspectives. Presentation at the First European

Symposium in Celtic Studies, Trier, Germany, 5-9 August 2013. RHYS JONES T.J. 1977. Teach Yourself Living Welsh. Hodder and Stoughton, London. ROBERTS IAN. 2004. Parametric comparison: Welsh, Semitic and the Anti-Babelic principle. Handout, University of

Cambridge. ROBERTS Ian. 2005. Principles and Parameters in a VSO Language: A case study in Welsh, Oxford University Press. ROBERTS Ian. 1997. The syntax of direct object mutation in Welsh, Canadian Journal of Linguistics 42/1-2:141-68

(special issue, E. GUILFOYLE (ed.) Topics in Celtic Syntax). ROUVERET Alain. 1994. Syntaxe du gallois: Principes généraux et typologie. CNRS Éditions, Paris. SADLER Louise. 1988. Welsh Syntax: A government-binding approach. Croom Helm, London. SCHRIJVER Peter. 2010. “‘Free lenition’ in Middle Welsh: Problems of function and origin”, handout for history of

Welsh lectures, Cambridge University, 19-20 March 2010; http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/let/2011-0304-200624/Cambridge%20MWFreelenition%20_2_.pdf

STRACHAN John. 1909. An Introduction to Early Welsh. Manchester University Press. STUMP Gregory. 1995. Nonlocal spirantization in Breton. Journal of Linguistics 24:457-81. TALLERMAN Maggie. 1987. Mutation and the syntactic structure of modern colloquial Welsh. PhD dissertation,

University of Hull. TALLERMAN Maggie. 1990. VSO word order and consonantal mutation in Welsh, Linguistics 28:389-416. TALLERMAN Maggie. 1998. The uniform case-licensing of subjects in Welsh. The Linguistic Review 15:69-133. TALLERMAN Maggie. 1999. Welsh soft mutation and marked word order, pp.277-94 in Michael DARNELL, Edith

MORAVCSIK, Frederick NEWMEYER, Michael NOONAN, Kathleen WHEATLEY (eds), Functionalism and Formalism in Linguistics, vol.2, Case Studies, John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia.

TALLERMAN Maggie. 2001. A (very!) preliminary look at unaccusativity in Welsh. Talk given at the Eighth Welsh Syntax Seminar, 4-5 July 2001, Plas Gregynog, Wales.

TALLERMAN Maggie. 2006. The syntax of Welsh “direct object mutation” revisited, pp.1750-76 in Robert D. BORSLEY, Ian G. ROBERTS, Louisa SADLER, David WILLIS (eds), Celtic Linguistics, special issue of Lingua 116.

TALLERMAN Maggie. 2009. Phrase structure vs. dependency: The analysis of Welsh syntactic soft mutation, Journal of Linguistics 45:176-201.

THOMAS Peter Wyn. 1996. Gramadeg y Gymraeg [Grammar of Welsh]. Gwasg Prifysgol Cymru, Caerdydd [University of Wales Press, Cardiff].

THORNE David. 1993. A Comprehensive Welsh Grammar/Gramadeg Cymraeg Cynhwysfawr. Gwasg Prifysgol Cymru, Caerdydd [University of Wales Press, Cardiff].

WILLIAMS Stephen J. 1980. A Welsh Grammar. University of Wales Press, Cardiff. WILLIS David. 1998. Syntactic Change in Welsh: A study of the loss of verb-second. Oxford University Press. WILLIS David. 2007. Historical syntax. Chap. 9, pp.286-337, in BORSLEY, TALLERMAN, WILLIS, The Syntax of Welsh. ZWICKY Arnold. 1984. Welsh soft mutation and the case of object NPs, pp.387-402 in J. DROGO, V. MISHRA,

D. TESTEN (eds), Proceedings of the Twentieth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago Linguistic Society, Chicago.

http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/let/2011-0304-200624/Cambridge%20MWFreelenition%20_2_.pdf

Date post:	13-Apr-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	steve-hewitt
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

Hewitt - 8CLC Edinburgh - Welsh Syntactic Mutation - Arabic Faulty Accusative-REV-1

Documents