Ana səhifə

New strategies for relative clauses in Azerbaijani and Apsheron Tati1


Yüklə 0.74 Mb.
səhifə3/4
tarix18.07.2016
ölçüsü0.74 Mb.
1   2   3   4

..2Use of ki in Azerbaijani head-internal RCs


The particle ki is almost never used in Azerbaijani finite relative clauses, at least in written texts. We found only two instances in a corpus of some 2000 pages, and they are typically descriptive, not restrictive RCs, as in (67) and (68):


(67)

iç-ə-k

həmin

o

məhəbbət

körpü-sü-nün

sağlığ-ı-na,







drink-opt-1pl

foc.prox

dist

love

bridge-pos3-gen

health-pos3-dat































hansı-nın

ki,

bir

uc-u

bu

dam-da-dır,

bir

uc-u







which-gen

ki

one

end-pos3

prox

roof-loc-cop3

one

end-pos3





































o

dam-da

oğlan

ev-i-ynən

qız

ev-i-nin










dist

roof-loc

boy

house-pos3-with

girl

house-pos3-gen





































ara-sı-nda!..

























interval-pos3-loc




















































‘Let’s drink to this bridge of love, [I mean] whose one end is on one of the roofs, the other end on the other roof, between the house of the groom and the roof of the bride.’ (S. Qədirzade, Bənövşə, 1969)




(68)

əlifba-mız

(hansı

ki,

Türk

#əlifba-sı-na




alphabet-pos-1pl

which

ki

Turk

alphabet-pos3-dat






















yaxın

idi)

dəyişdir-il-di.










close

coppst

change-pass-pst




























‘Our alphabet (which was close to the Turkish alphabet) was changed.’ (F. Ələkbərov, Əlyazmalar Institutu Azərbaycanda erkən əlifbalar, Azerbaijan International jurnalı, 2000)

The preceding examples should be considered derivates of the hansı construction without ki, but they seem to have moved one step forward in the direction of forming European-type relative pronouns. This is not directly comparable with the use of ki in Tati head-internal restrictive relative clauses.

..1.The head-internal strategy in Tati

The presence of an attributive participial form capable of relativising subjects, objects and most oblique positions in Tati is doubled by the non-participial, head-internal strategy. It can be headed by a pronoun in initial position (cf. [69]), or by a NP made up of the head-noun preceded by the adjective kitam meaning ‘which’ (cf. [70]).


(69)

ki

ki

burvar-tü-ne

küş-de-s,




who(nom)

ki

brother-pos2-acc

kill-perf-3



















adam

di-imu

nisdü.







person

village-1pl

negcop3






















‘The one who killed your brother is not a person from this village.’ (fn)







(70)

kitam

adam

ki

burvar-tü-ne

küş-de-s




which

person

ki

brother-pos2-acc

kill-perf-3






















ez-i

di

nisdü.










abl-prox

village

negcop3




























‘The person who killed your brother is not a person from this village.’ (fn)

As in Azerbaijani, the main asset of this strategy is the finiteness of the verb form employed, which allows for a switch in tense and mood categories (cf. [71]).




(71)

kitam

adam

ki

burvar-tü-ne

kuf-den




which

person

ki

brother-pos2-acc

beat-prs3






















ez-i

di

nisdü.










abl-prox

village

negcop3




























‘The person who is beating up your brother is not a person from this village.’ (fn)

Tati usually adds the particle ki after the head-noun marked for its syntactic function and before the verb (cf. [70] and [71] above). The matrix clause may contain a resumptive pronoun, in which case we are dealing with a correlative construction, as in (72).


(72)

[kitam

seg

ki

dendu

bzeren]

bo-u

sugum

medi !




which

dog

ki

tooth

evt.strike.3

dat-dist

bone

proh.give




‘Do not give a bone to the dog which bites.’ (fn)

Most frequently, however, and systematically if the antecedent head has subject function in the matrix clause, the latter contains a gap (cf. [73] and [74]):


(73)

kitam

nozu

ki

şir-e

xar-de-s,

ez-i

xune

nisdü.




which

cat

ki

milk-acc

eat-perf-3

abl-prox

house

negcop3




‘The cat who has drunk the milk is not from this house.’ (fn)







(74)

kitam

xune-re

(ki)

merd

üsde-re-s (...)




which

house

ki

man

buy-perf-3




‘The house that her husband has bought (does not please his wife).’ (fn)

In some instances, a shared argument other than the head noun is repeated (e.g. xune ‘house’ in [75]).


(75)

kitam

merd

ki

xune

üsde-re-s,

xune-re




which

man

ki

house

buy-perf-3

house-acc

























be-zen

xaşden

volen-den.













dat-woman

self

show-prs3


































‘The husband who has bought a house shows it to his wife.’ (fn)

Possessors can be relativised, whether or not their possessa are subjects in the relative clause (cf. [75] for a subject possessum and [76] for a non-subject possessum).


(75)

e-kitam

gede

ki

piyer-i

mür-de-s

herey

ze-ren.




abl which

boy

ki

father-pos3

die-perf-3

shout

strike-prs3




‘The boy whose father has died is crying.’ (fn)







(76)

e-kitam

kile

ki

xuniyi-re

di-rini

e-mü

xuvar-mü-nü




abl-which

girl

ki

house

see-prs2

abl-1

sister-pos1-cop3




‘The girl whose house you see is my sister.’ (fn)

If the head-noun is the possessor of an argument of the matrix clause (e.g. seg ‘dog’ and guşyeyi ‘ear’ in [77]), it appears in the case corresponding to its function in the RC, and is cross-referenced by a possessive suffix on the possessum in the matrix clause:


(77)

[kitam

seg

ki

rousden]

guş-yeyi-re

me-keş !




which

dog

ki

bark-PRS.3

ears-pl.pos3-acc

proh-pull




‘The dog which barks, do not pull his ears!’ (fn)

As can be seen in (77), in such head-internal relative clauses ki is used not as a linker morpheme, like in Persian, but as a marker of focus on the preceding word, head of the RC. Without this particle the clause takes an indefinite, more general meaning, thus compensating for the absence of a conditional form (cf. [78] and [79]):


(78)

kitam

seg

rousden...




which

dog

bark-PRS.3




‘Whichever dog barks...’ (fn)










(79)

be-kitam

kar

des

şen-dunum,

be-u

qadeğe

na-ren.







dat-which

work

hand

throw-prs.1

dat-dist

interdiction

put-prs.3







‘Whatever work I take on, he forbids it.’ (fn)

The strategy illustrated above is used whenever the head-noun is highly topical and has to be preposed to the RC, a feature quite systematically associated with the semantic role of (transitive) Agent, and the fronting movement involved by this strategy is a way to mark the head of the RC as a topic. It is, however, not restricted to filling any functional gap left by the disappearance of the Indo-European active participle, since it is also found in relative clauses in which the syntactic position of transitive subject may be relativised.

..2.Pragmatic and (non factual) modal motivation

Grammatically, the question-word using strategy may be called a “primary strategy”, since it allows for the relativization of all syntactic positions including subjects, but pragmatically, it is not dominant and highly marked for an additional value:
The use of the head-internal strategy allows speakers to

  • topicalize the head and the function relativized;

  • express non-factual modality in the relative clause.

Non-factual modality is expressed on the verb, usually in the ‘eventual’14 form; recall that the particle ki is always omitted in this case:




(80)

be-kitam

ölke

m-yo

tü-ne,

b-re-m.




dat-which

country

evt-come.3

you-acc

subj-go-1pl




‘Let’s go to whatever country you want.’ (fn)







(81)

e-kitam

beg

kiliyi-re

m-xas-di




abl-which

lord

girl.pos3-acc

evt-want-pst-2



















bu-ra-m

xas-d-um

bere-tü.







subj-go-1

ask-pst-1

for-2






















‘Whichever lord’s daughter you wish I will ask for you.’ (fn)


..3.Restrictions on the participial strategy

Three-place predicates give rise to rather heavy participial clauses, and even if the relativised position is that of a subject, the participial construction is accepted as grammatically correct when it is suggested to informants, but the translation first given by our informant uses the head-internal equivalent construction (cf. [82]).


(82)

be-ayol

muş

de-re

nozu-re

girind




dat-child

mouse

give-part

cat-acc

catch.imppl




‘Catch the cat which has given a mouse to the child!’ (fn)







(83)

kitam

nozu

ki

be-ayol

muş

de-re-s,

u-re

girind.







which

cat

ki

dat-child

mouse

give-perf-3

dist-acc

catch.imppl







= (82)




In other cases, the motivation for choosing this strategy was the categorical inability of the Tati De-participle to relativise functions lower down on the accessibility (or ‘Keenan-Comrie’) scale. The participial strategy was rejected, and the head-internal one was judged the only possibility. The functions concerned are those of

  • a Recipient marked by the dative-directive pro-clitic be- (cf. [84]);

  • a Beneficiary introduced by the preposition bere ‘for’ (cf. [85]);

  • animate argument of a verb “take” marked with the ablative proclitic (cf. [86]);

  • comitative with preposition boş (cf. [87]);

  • and possessor of a noun which is not subject of the RC (cf. [88]).




(84)

be-kitam

ayol

ki

nozu

muş

de-re-s,

be-u

deyş.







dat-which

child

ki

cat

mouse

give-perf-3

dat-dist

look.imp







‘Look at the child to whom the cat has given a mouse!’




(85)

bere

kitam

kile

ki

piyer-i

nüg-e

lupke

üsde-re-s




for

which

girl

ki

father-pos3

new-attr

dress

buy-perf-3































be-u

deyş.




dat-dist

look.imp













‘Look at the girl for whom her / whose father has bought a new dress.’ (fn)

(86)

e-kitam

nozu

ki

ayol

muş

üsde-re-s,

u-re

girind.




abl-which

cat

ki

child

mouse

take-perf-3

dist-acc

catch.imp




‘Catch the cat from whom the child has received (=taken) a mouse!’ (fn)




(87)

boş

kitam

parşah

davo

s-um,

ez-u

xak-i-re







with

which

king

fight

do.subj-1

abl-dist

earth-pos3-acc


































be turbi

es

bere

keşi-ren

avar-den

zür-mü

m-ras-ü,







dat-bag.ez

horse

for

pull-inf

carry-inf

strength-pos1

evt-reach-3


































‘Whichever king I make war with, I have the power to carry his earth away in a bag.’ (example translated from Azerbaijani)

(88)

e-kitam

eyol

ki

mumser-i-re

pare

sax-dem




abl-which

child

ki

hair-pos3-acc

cut

do-perf-1pl




‘The child whose hair we cut / have cut.’ (fn)

In some interesting cases (e.g. [89]), the markers of the two different syntactic relations (possessum and Patient argument) can scramble (the e- genitive proclitic goes with the possessive suffix in the main clause, while the –e accusative enclitic is governed by the main verb):




(89)

[e-kitam

seg-e

ki

guşye-yi-re

keş-ren-im]

mo-kuf !




of-which

dog-acc

ki

ears-pos3-acc

pull-prs-1-pl

proh-beat




(lit.) ‘The dog whose ears we pull, do not beat it!’ (fn)


..4.Double relativisation

In the case of double relativisation, the head-internal strategy has to be used in Tati. The double RCs provided above from our Azerbaijani corpus can be translated into Tati with a parallel construction:


(90)

ki-re

e-kitam

gede

xoş

ma-ren,




who-acc

abl-which

boy

well

come-prs3






















sib-e

be-u

b-şən-ü










apple-acc

dat-dist

subj-throw-3




























‘Which boy pleases to whom”, let her throw the apple to him.’ (fn)







(91)

her

şexs

e-kitam

mezheb

be-kitam

mezheb




each

person

abl-which

religion

dat-which

religion

























xas-d-ü

tan-ü

güdoş-den.













want-pst-3

can.subj-3

pass-inf


































‘Let everyone have the possibility to abide by the faith he wishes.’


1   2   3   4


Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©atelim.com 2016
rəhbərliyinə müraciət