Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T05:06:29.267Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On amharic Relative Clauses1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 December 2009

Hailu Fulass
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In what follows I would like to discuss the structure of Amharic relative clauses. In the course of the discussion, I would like to make the following three claims which I will attempt to substantiate in turn. First, I believe that relativization is a kind of pronominalization and, consequently, the particle yä- that is attached to the main verb (or its auxiliary) of the relative clause is not a relative pronoun. Second, I maintain that the ‘yä- clause’ in subject position in Amharic cleft sentences is also a relative clause with an unspecified element as its head. My third claim is that Amharic genitive phrases originate from relative clauses and that the noun (phrase) in the genitive phrase to which the particle yä- is attached in surface structure is governed by a preposition in underlying structure, and the head of a genitive phrase is the head of the under-lying relative clause. In this connexion, I also argue that there is a rule in Amharic which moves the particle yä- (to the right) over, at least, one constituent.

Type
Articles
Information
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 35 , Issue 3 , October 1972 , pp. 497 - 513
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies 1972

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

1 Abbreviations and conventions which may be unfamiliar: dm = direct object marker; Os = object suffix pronoun; P = preposition; pr = present tense marker; pt = past tense marker; rm = relative marker (a label exclusively for yä-). The symbol / is used for marking the boundary between the relative marker (which is alternately called ‘the particle yä-’) and the remaining constituents of a sentence in a bracketed representation of the underlying structure of a relative clause. The symbol φ indicates the deletion of a constituent. The term genitive phrase is merely used as a label for identifying constructions of the type yä + NPj — NPi. The symbol + between the relative marker and NPj indicates that the relative marker is affixed to NPj. For bibliography, see p. 513.

2 For example, if the relative verb is in the perfect it expresses a past tense; if the relative verb is in the imperfect, in general, it expresses either the present or the future tense.

3 In this paper, details that are not of immediate and crucial relevance are left out in a tree or labelled brackets representation of the underlying structure of a given construction. In structures such as the subject phrase in (3) where a NP node immediately dominates a S node and another NP node, the NP to the right of S is to be taken as the head of a relative clause. The same applies to the NP to the right of the S brackets in a labelled brackets representation.

4 For a discussion of NP as a recursive element of the base component to which cyclic transformational rules apply, see Chomsky (1970, 210–11; 1971); cf. Bowers (1970).

5 The simple object suffix corresponding to a 3 m. sg. NP is -w. It is realized as -t, however, after the rounded vowels /u/ and /o/, and the prepositional ‘infixes’ -bb- and -II-.

6 In a clause other than the relative, there is no concord between the auxiliary näbbär of the verb of the clause and the subject (or any other constituent noun phrase) of the clause,

e.g. (ia) l∂jočču hedäw näbbär children-the they-having gone pt ‘the children had gone’

(ib) *l∂očču hedäw näbbäru children-the they-having gone pt

(iia) l∂jočču y∂wädduh ∂ndänäbbär (sämmahu) children-the they-like-you that-pt (I heard) ‘(I heard) that the children used to like you’

(iib) *l∂jočču y∂wädduh ∂ndänäbbäru (sämmahu) children-the they-like-you that-pt-they (I heard)

(iic) *l∂jočču y∂wädduh ∂ndänäbbärk (sämmahu) children-the they-like-you that-pt-you (I heard)

7 The complement of the verb honä may be marked by the direct object marker. In such cases honä expresses ‘to change (intr) into; to transform (intr) into’; e.g. Kassa tämariyen honä ‘Kassa changed into my student’ versus Kassa tämariye honä ‘Kassa became my student’. In the first sentence Kassa and tämari ‘student’ are two distinct individuals; in the second tämari is an attributive noun of profession.

8 A situation exactly parallel to the Amharic obtains in the case of Tigrinya cleft sentences. This refutes the hypothesis of Palmer's that in Tigrinya cleft sentences ‘the two verbal forms, the form of the paradigm’ iyyu and the form with the prefix Z∂-, form a single, though discontinuous verbal phrase (or a compound verb) ‘(p. 43). Notice that the form with the prefix Z∂- occurs with an auxiliary in the presence of the copula’ iyyu: Bärhe ‘iyyu n∂M∂sgäna n∂'∂y∂wwo z∂näbärä‘ it was Bärhe who had seen Mosgäna’. More literally, ‘Bärhe he-is dm-Masgäna he-having-seen-him rm-pt-he’. (This sentence is an adaptation of Palmer's (p. 42) sentence (31). Abba Michael, whose mother tongue is Tigrinya, has verified that the adaptation is correctly formed.)

9 The relative marker yä- is realized as yämm- before the imperfect; e.g. yä + y∂hon(all) yämmihon. Note also that the person marker y∂- reduces to-i-.

10 The Cushitic languages also express possession in a similar way. For instance, in Kafinya, a Cushitic language spoken in the province of Kafa, Ethiopia, the equivalent of ‘I have a horse’ is, according to Cernlli (1951, 64):

tāc hārašō béte to-me horse there-is

11 In this connexion, it may be noted that allä is not unique in having the preposition governing its object deleted. The verb hemä in the sense of ‘to be suitable, to fit’ takes an object governed by the preposition lä- ‘to, for’. This preposition is obligatorily deleted, however, if the object noun phrase of honä ‘to be suitable, to fit’ is preposed to the initial position of its sentence. Thus, for example, in the sentences in (i), which are equivalent to ‘the sweater will be suitable for Almaz’, only (ia) and (ib) are grammatical.

(ia) šurrabu läAhnaz ydhonatall sweater-the for-Almaz it-becomes-her-suitable

(ib)Almaz šurrabu yahonataH Almaz sweat er-the it-becomes-her-suitable

(ic)*läAlmaz šurrabu yahonafall for-Almaz sweater-the it-becomes-hcr suitable