“OBJECT MARKERS” IN COPULAR CONSTRUCTIONS: THE ETHIO-SEMITIC CASE

Journal of Afroasiatic Languages (JAAL). 5:2; 297-323 (2013)

“OBJECT MARKERS” IN COPULAR

CONSTRUCTIONS:

THE ETHIO-SEMITIC CASE*

Girma A. Demeke

ABSTRACT In South Ethio-Semitic languages object markers

appear in affirmative present tense copular constructions in

identification to a subject.1 The copular elements that select object

markers, which I prefer to call them non-subject agreement

elements, henceforth NSA,2 are t- (in Harari) and n- (in the other

languages). The appearance of NSA is not uniform across the

languages, however. Only Harari and Amharic have NSA in all

conjugations of the affirmative present tense copular elements. The

other languages have a mixed agreement, i.e. NSA in some persons

and AgrS in others. There is neither syntactic nor semantic nor

pragmatic difference between AgrS-taking and NSA-taking copular

clauses. In the conjugation of the copulae n- and t-, there is only a

single agreement element: either NSA or AgrS and both in

identification to a subject. That is, when NSA appears in copular

clauses, it appears as the sole Agr element and that the notional

subject that it identifies is also a grammatical subject. In this

paper, I have attributed the existence of NSA to both the natures of

the copular elements and NSA itself.

* I thank Kefyalew Gebreigziabher for his insightful comments on an earlier

draft of this paper. 1 South Ethio-Semitic languages are divided into two groups called Outer and

Transversal. The former contains all the Gurage languages and Gafat whereas

the latter Amharic and Argobba, (Central), and Harari, Zay, Wolane and Silte

(Southern) (see Hetzron 1972). 2 Abbreviations: 1, 2, 3 = persons, Acc = Accusative, AgrS = Subject

agreement marker, Asp = Aspect, Def = definite, F = feminine, Impf =

imperfective, M = masculine, NSA = non-subject agreement element, Perf =

perfective, Pl = plural, Po = polite, PossAgr = possessive agreement marker,

Prog = progressive, S = subject, singular.

GIRMA A. DEMEKE

298 Journal of Afroasiatic Languages (JAAL). VOL.5, No.2; Winter 2013.

1. INTRODUCTION

In Ethio-Semitic verbs inflect for subject and object markers in

agreement to their respective arguments. The former is obligatory

in tensed clauses and identify a subject. The latter is obligatory in

possessive, obligation and experiential constructions and identifies

a notional subject.3 In all other constructions, however, object

markers are optional. Their appearance is often associated with

information structure (cf. Haile 1971). Object markers may

identify a direct object, an indirect object, an applied argument or a

PP with an adverbial function. Due to this, following Demeke

(2003), I prefer to call these elements non-subject agreement

markers, NSA.

In South Ethio-Semitic languages the present tense copulae n-

and (in the Harari case) t- take NSA for the identification of a

notional subject. This is true for most conjugations. North Ethio-

Semitic languages are different in this regard. Tigre and Ge'ez use

pronoun copulae (cf. Demeke 2008). Although Tigrinya uses a

verbal copula, the agreement pattern is different from the South

Ethio-Semitic languages. The copula in Tigrinya selects subject

agreement like in regular verb constructions. In Amharic and

Soddo a suppletive form is used in the negative. This suppletive

copula takes subject agreement markers of the perfective verb,

unlike its counterpart affirmative copula. In most of the other

languages the negative copula is derived from the verb hon-

'become' (or its cognate) by adding the regular negative marker and

takes subject markers. The past tense copula is a verbal element

näbbär (or its cognate) and takes AgrS of the perfective verb in all

Ethio-Semitic languages. This paper examines the distribution of

NSA and explores the reason behind its appearance in the present

tense copula n- and its variant t- in South Ethio-Semitic languages.

3 The notional subjects in these constructions are often grammatical objects.

“OBJECT MARKERS” IN COPULAR CONSTRUCTIONS

Journal of Afroasiatic Languages (JAAL). VOL.5, No.2; Winter 2013. 299

2. THE AGREEMENT FACTS

The appearance of NSA in copular constructions can be seen

from the Amharic examples in (1). For comparison, see the

examples in (2):

(1) a. saba gobäz n-at (Amharic)

S. brave/intelligent be-3fsNSA

'Saba is intelligent/ brave!'

b. kasa astämari n-äw

K. teacher be-3msNSA

'Kasa is a teacher'

(2) a. saba-n ɨ-fällɨg-at-allä-hu (Amharic)

S.-Acc 1ss-want/needimpf-3fsNSA-Aux-1ss

'I want/need Saba'

b. kasa-n ɨ-fällɨg-äw-allä-hu

K.-Acc 1ss-want/needimpf-3msNSA-Aux-1ss

'I need/want Kasa'

The elements -at in (2a) and -äw in (2b) are found in agreement

to the accusative marked objects Saba and Kasa respectively.

These same elements in (1) are found in identification to Saba and

Kasa which are nominative and non-predicate. As we will see in a

moment, the copula agreement is the same in all other person

conjugations in Amharic. NSA also appears in the other South

Ethio-Semitic languages. The appearance of NSA is not uniform in

all the languages under consideration here, however. There are

some differences even among closely related ones. I examine each

variety in this section.

2.1 AMHARIC

In Amharic the copula n- is used almost in all types of

affirmative present tense copular constructions. For instance, in

GIRMA A. DEMEKE


(1a) above the predicate is an adjective and in (1b) it is an NP/DP.

Consider also (3) where (3a) is a cleft-like construction with a

raising subject and (3b) a nominalized-clause predicate with a

semantically dummy pronoun, pro, subject. In both clauses the

copula shows NSA in agreement to the raised subject in (3a) and

pro in (3b).

(3) a. lɨjj-occ-u yämm-iy-amammɨr-u n-accäw

Child-pl-def yämm-3plsi-be.beutyfulimpf-3plsi be-3plNSA

'The children are beautiful!'

b. saba mähed-wa n-äw

S. Nz-go-3fsposs be-3msNSA

'Saba is (about) to leave'

The agreement markers -accäw in (3a) and -äw in (3b) are

those found in regular verbs identifying an object. Table 1 contains

the full list of NSA and AgrS in regular verbs as well as the

agreement elements found along with the copula n- in Amharic.

Table 1: Subject, object and the copula agreement elements in

Amharic

Persons Regular verbs The copula n- +

agreement AgrS (of the

perfective verb)

NSA

1s -ku/hu -(ä/ɨ)ññ n-äññ

1pl -n -(ä/ɨ)n n-än

2ms -k/h -h n-äh

2fs -š -š n-äš

2po -u -(w)o(t)/-hu n-ot/ n-ähu

2pl -accɨhu -accɨhu n-accɨhu



3ms - ä -(ä/ɨ)w/-t n-äw

3fs - äcc -at n-at/ n-äcc

3po -u -accäw n-accäw

3pl -u -accäw n-accäw

As we can see in Table 1, the agreement elements found along

with the copula n- are identical to the non-subject agreement

elements found in regular verbs. The exception is the 3fs case

where both alternatives are possible. In this person, the copula n-

either takes AgrS as in n-äcc or NSA as in n-at (both: „she is‟),

without bringing any known semantic difference. Note that,

however, AgrS and NSA in the first person plural and all second

persons (except the polite form) are the same.

2.2 ARGOBBA

The present tense copula in Argobba is n- like most South

Ethio-Semitic languages. The agreement elements found with this

copula in Argobba is almost identical to Amharic. The only

difference between the two languages is in the third person

feminine agreement. While both NSA and AgrS alternate for this

person in Amharic, only the latter alternative is available in

Argobba. This is true for both varieties of Argobba, i.e. Aliyu

Amba-Shoa Robit and Shonke-Tollaha. Consider first the

following table from Aliyu Amba:4

4 The Argobba data below in Tables 2 and 3 are from my fieldwork and reflect

the speech varieties spoken by the Aliyu Amba and Shonke speakers,

respectively. Unless reference is given, all the data in this work are from my

fieldwork.

GIRMA A. DEMEKE



Argobba – Aliyu Amba Variety

Persons Regular verbs The copula n- +


perfective verb)5

NSA

1s -oh/ku -(ä/ɨ/i)ññ n-äññ

1pl -en/n/än -(ä/ɨ)n(a) n-änna

2ms -eh/k/ah -ah/-k n-ah

2fs -ih/cc -ih/-ik/-cc n-ih

2pl -ehum/kum/uhum -uhum/ -ukum n-uhum

3ms -a -e/-i n-e

3fs -ad/ed/d/äd -a/-wa/-ya n-äd

3pl -u -em/-m n-em

As can be seen from Tables 2 and 3, Argobba has various

allomorphs in both NSA and AgrS. The Agr elements of the copula

in Aliyu Amba are that of NSA except for the third person

feminine. In fact in a similar way to Amharic, AgrS and NSA in

the first person plural and all second persons are the same in the

Aliyu Amba Argobba. This is also the case in the Shonke dialect,

as can be seen in the following table.

5 The subject agreement elements listed here and in the subsequent two tables

are those found word-finally.




Argobba – Shonke Variety

Persons Regular verbs The copula n-

+ agreement AgrS (of the

perfective verb)

NSA

1s -exu/ axu -(ä/ɨ/i)ññ n-äñ

1pl -ena/ana/äna -(ä/ɨ/i)n(a) n-äna

2ms -ex/ax/x -äx/-ik n-äx

2fs -eš/aš/äš -äš/iš n-äš

2pl -axu/exum/axum/xum -äxum/ ikum n-äxum

3ms -Ø -(ä)y/-iy n-äy

3fs -äcc -a/wa/(ä)ya/iya n-äcc

3pl -ay/äy -em/m n-em/ n-äym

Although there are some differences between the Aliyu Amba

and the Shonke varieties of Argobba, in both varieties the third

person feminine agreement element found along with the copula n-

is that of subject agreement found in regular verb constructions.

The Shonke 3fs subject marker is -äcc like Amharic. The copula

also takes this element for the identification of 3fs subject. In both

varieties of Argobba, unlike Amharic, the copula does not take 3fs

NSA. In this respect the two varieties of Argobba differ from their

closest relative Amharic.

2.3 HARARI

Harari uses the element t- as a copula, unlike Argobba and

Amharic that we saw above. In Harari as well, the Agr element

GIRMA A. DEMEKE


found along with this copula is that of NSA as can be seen from

the following table.


Harari

Persons Regular verbs The copula t- +


perfective verb)

NSA

1s -xu -(ä/i)ñ t-añ

1pl -na -(ä/i)nä t-ana

2ms -xi -(ä/i)x t-ax

2fs -ši -(ä/i)š t-aš

2pl -xu -(ä/i)xu t-axu

3ms -a -(e/i)w/-a/-ä t-a

3fs -ti -i/-e t-e

3pl -u -(ä/i)yu t-ayu

As can be seen in the above table the third person masculine

singular found along with the copula in Harari is -a word-finally.

This form is identical with that of the subject agreement element in

regular verbs which is also -a. However, this same form is also

attested as an allomorph for 3ms non-subject agreement in regular

verbs. This is especially the case when the subject is third person

singular feminine. Consider (4):

(4) a. nässä-t-a

takeperf-3fss-3msNSA

'She took it/him.'



b. sät't'ɨ-t-a

giveperf-3fss-3msNSA

'she gave him'

The third person feminine AgrS is -ti in Harari. Hence, the

Harari copula differs from Argobba in this person agreement, as

Harari takes NSA.

In a similar way to Amharic and Argobba, in Harari AgrS and

NSA are similar in the second persons. However in the case of

singular, there are minor differences between NSA and AgrS. As

can be seen in Table 4, AgrS comes with a final vowel, whereas

NSA without it. The copula agreement is identical with NSA of

regular verbs. Hence, Harari can be considered a language that has

NSA uniformly in all conjugations of the copula t-.

2.4 THE GURAGE LANGUAGES

Agreement markers in the Gurage languages are complicated.

NSA elements are often two types which are called heavy and light

based on their phonological content. In Soddo and Dobbi there are

elements which appear in matrix affirmative clauses fused together

with agreement elements. Such elements are referred to affirmative

main clause markers or simply main verb markers. In the following

table of Soddo the final /n/, /u/ and /i/ of the AgrS of matrix

clauses are affirmative main clause markers. The vowel /o/ in 2ms

and 3ms (AgrS of the perfective) is a result of ä plus u where the

latter is the affirmative main clause marker. 6

6 The Soddo data in the following table is from Goldenberg (1968) and Bedilu

W. Debela (2011).

GIRMA A. DEMEKE



Soddo

Persons Regular verbs The copula n-

+ agreement AgrS (of the perfective verb) NSA

Main clause

(word-finally)

Subordinate

& negative

clause

1s -ki/-hi -kw/-h

w/ -ku-

/-hu-

-e/-ye/-ññ/-i nähu/ näw

1pl -näu -nä -nä/ -nnä/ -

änä

nännä/ nä

2ms -ko/-ho -kä/-hä -hä/-nnɨhä/-

kä

nähä

2fs -šin -ši -š/-nnɨš näš

2mpl -kmun/-hmun -kɨm(u-)/-

hɨm(u-)

-hm/-

nnɨhm/-kɨm

nähm

2fpl -kman/-hman -kɨma/-hɨma -hma/-kɨma/

-nnɨhma

nähma

3ms -o/ -w -ä -u/-nn/-ä -n

3fs -ätti -ätt -wa/-nna/-a na

3mpl -mun -m(u-) -hm/-nnäm/-

äm(u-)

näm

3fpl -man -ma -hma/-

nnäma/-äma

näma

In Soddo except for third person singulars the copula n- is

followed by the vowel ä. This vowel is not part of the NSA and

AgrS elements found with regular verbs except in the first person



and third person (both masculine and feminine) plurals (cf. Table

5). It is possible to take this element as part of the copula or as an

epenthetic vowel where its appearance is triggered by

morphological or phonological conditions.7 In Amharic although

the regular epenthetic vowel is the high central vowel, the vowel ä

is used as an epenthetic vowel after stem-final geminated

consonants as in agäññ-ä-hu find.perf-ephentetic-1ss „I found‟ and

all-ä-hu exist-ephentetic-1ss „I am around‟. Leaving ä aside, when

we examine the copula agreement in Soddo the third person

feminine is clearly NSA and first person singular is AgrS. In the

third person masculine singular, the copula appears with a zero

morpheme. In the remaining cases as AgrS and NSA are similar,

the copula agreement elements could be either NSA or AgrS. In

general Soddo copular agreement is mixed like Argobba but there

is a difference between the two languages. While in Soddo 1s is

clearly AgrS, in Argobba it is NSA. Similarly while in Soddo 3fs is

clearly NSA, in Argobba it is clearly AgrS.

The copula agreement in Dobbi and the other Gurage

languages is similar to Soddo. Dobbi is Soddo‟s closest relative.

The copula in the latter is, however, enclitic. In many Gurage

languages the copula is realized as enclitic as can be seen in Table

6. Moreover in some conjugations in languages such as Mäsqan,

Muher and Gumer, the agreement may appear without the copular

element. Consider Table 6: 8

7 A similar case is found in the other Gurage languages, Amharic and Argobba.

The vowel /a/ found following the copula /t/ in Harari might be treated similarly. 8 The Table is adopted from Crass et al (2005).

GIRMA A. DEMEKE


Table 6: The conjugation of the copula *n in some Gurage

languages

Persons Dobbi Muher Mäsqan Gumer Ennämor

1s -nähu enhu -nku -nähw -nh

w

1pl -nɨnnä ennäna -nɨnnä -ɨnda -nɨra

2ms -nähä enha -nhä -nähä -nh

2fs -näš enhy -nš -nɨh

y -nšua

2mpl -nähɨmw enhɨm

w -nhu -nähu -nhua

2fpl -nähma enhɨma -nähma -nähma -nhaa

3ms -n en -u -u -n

3fs -na eya -ya -nyä -ni

3mpl -nämw enäm

w -no -no -no

3fpl -näma enäma -nnäma -näma -nna

First person subject agreement (in the perfective) is -hu or its

phonological variant in Ethio-Semitic languages and the object

agreement for this person is -ññ or its phonological variant. As can

be seen in Table 5, in the Gurage languages the copula selects

AgrS in this person agreement, unlike Argobba, Harari, and

Amharic that we saw earlier. Interesting is that the agreement

markers of third person feminine singular in Muher, both third

person singulars in Mäsqan, and third person masculine singular in

Gumer appear without the copula *n. If we examine closely the

Soddo data, the copula is missing in third person feminine singular.

The same is true for this person in Dobbi. In Soddo there are cases

where the agreement element alone is found without the copula n-

in first person plural as well. In presentational copular

constructions in Amharic the agreement elements can appear

without the copula. I will come on this point later.



2.5 SILTE, WOLANE AND ZAY

Silte, Wolane and Zay are closely related languages. They form

along with Harari the Southern branch of the Transversal group.

The relation between Silte and Wolane is very strong than any of

them to Zay. However, Wolane unlike any of the South Ethio-

Semitic languages does not show NSA in the copular

constructions. As Meyer (2006: 98) also states, the copula n- in

this language takes the subject agreement markers of the perfective

verb. Consider Table 7:


Wolane9

Persons Regular verbs The copula /n/ +


perfective verb)

NSA

1s -ku/-hu -ñ/-ññ -n-ku

1pl -nä -nä -n-nä

2ms -kä/-hä -kä/-hä -n-kä

2fs -š -š -n-š

2pl -kum/-hum -kum/-hum -n-kum

3ms -ä -y/-i -n

3fs -t/-ti -tä/-itä/-ytä -n-t

3pl -u -ym/im -n-u

In Wolane (as in Soddo, Dobbi, Muher and Ennämor) in the

third person singular masculine the copula n- appears without a

9 The data below are from Meyer (2006).

GIRMA A. DEMEKE


visible agreement marker. This is, in fact, the case with Silte and

Zay as we will see in a moment. In Wolane and in almost all South

Ethio-Semitic languages there are cases where subject agreement is

dropped in the case of masculine singular subject. That is, a bare

verb is found in third person masculine subjects. Hence, in Wolane

NSA is absent totally from the conjugation of the present tense

copular element *n.10

The case is a little bit different in Zay and

Silte.

NSA (in copular constructions) is found in Silte and Zay

almost in a similar way to the Gurage languages that we saw

above. The difference between these two and the Gurage languages

is in the 3fs where in the former two it is AgrS but in the latter

languages NSA. Consider first the Zay data:


Zay11



perfective verb)

NSA

1s -hw/-hu -(ä)ñ/-(ä)ñä n-äh

w

1pl -nä -(ä)nä/-(ä)n n-än

2ms -hä/-x -(ä)x/-(ä)hä -n-äh(ä)

2fs -š/iš -(ä)š/-(ä)šä -n-äš(ä)

2pl -hum(ä)/-hwm(ä) -(ä)h

wm/-

(ä)hwmä

-n-ähwm(ä)

10

This is with the assumption that the zero 3ms morpheme belongs to the list of

AgrS. 11

The data below are from Meyer (2005).



3ms -ä -(ä)y/-(ä)i -n

3fs -t -ä/-a -n-ät

3pl -w/-u -(ä)

wm/-(ä)

wm -n-äm

w

Second person and first person plural NSA and AgrS elements

are the same in Zay as in the case in the other languages discussed

above. Like the Gurage languages that we saw above, the first

person singular in Zay is AgrS in the conjugation of the present

tense copular construction. However, unlike the Gurage languages

the third person feminine is AgrS in Zay. This is similar to

Argobba. As can be seen in Table 8 the uncontested NSA found

along with the copula /n/ in Zay is, therefore, the third person

plural agreement marker. This is exactly the case in Silte. Consider

Table 9:


Silte12



perfective verb)

NSA

1s -ku/-hu/-w -ñ -n-ku

1pl -na -na -n-na

2ms -ka/-ha/-a -ka/-ha -n-k

2fs -š/-ši -š -n-š

2pl -kumu/-mmu -kum/-mmu -n-kumu

12

The AgrS and NSA data below are from Gutt (1986:95&102) and from my

fieldwork.

GIRMA A. DEMEKE


3ms -a/-e -y/-i -n

3fs -ta/-t -eet -n-t

3pl -u/-i

(impersonal)

-ymu/iimmu -n-iimmu

As can be seen in Table 9, in a similar way to Zay, only the

third person plural agreement marker of the copula n- is NSA in

Silte. This is excluding the first person plural and second persons

as both AgrS and NSA are indistinct in these persons like the other

languages discussed above.

2.6 SUMMARY

In the above section we have seen NSA in present tense

copular constructions. The copulae that take NSA are t- in Harari

and *n in the other South Ethio-Semitic languages. In these

languages NSA may also appear without a copular element. The

appearance of NSA is not uniform across the languages. Wolane

does not show NSA along with its present tense copula at all. In

the Gurage languages, Zay and Silte the presence of NSA in the

conjugation of the copula *n is very limited. The languages that

show NSA in all conjugations are Harari and Amharic. Note that

except minor differences that we find in Harari, AgrS and NSA are

the same in first person plural and second person (both singular

and plural) agreement elements in all South Ethio-Semitic

languages.13

Excluding first person plural and second persons and

Wolane (as Wolane takes uniformly AgrS), the copular agreement

elements discussed so far can be summarized as follows:

13

In Amharic, this similarity extends to possessive agreement elements.



Table 10: Summary of agreement elements of the copulae *n

and t-

Languages 1s 3ms 3fs 3pl

Amharic NSA NSA NSA/AgrS NSA

Argobba NSA NSA AgrS NSA

Gurage

Languages

AgrS AgrS NSA NSA

Harari NSA AgrS NSA NSA

Silte AgrS AgrS AgrS NSA

Zay AgrS AgrS AgrS NSA

In the following section, I investigate the reason for the

appearance of NSA in affirmative present tense copular

constructions.

3. EXAMINATION AND DISCUSSION

In previous works the appearance of NSA in copular clauses is

attributed to the nature of the copula (cf. Getatchew Haile 1974

and Demeke 2012) or to the nature of both NSA and the copula

(Crass et al 2005). There is a controversy with regard to the status

of the element n- which I referred to above as a copula in Silte and

Zay.14

As my major concern is the examination of NSA elements

not the copula I will not dwell on this issue.15

In this section I

examine first if there is AgrS along with NSA in the conjugation of

the copulae *n and t-. I will then try to find why NSA appears in

copular clauses in the first place.

14

See Meyer (2002) and Crass et al (2005). 15

For the examination of the copulae *n and *t see Crass et al (2005). See also

Demeke (2012) especially for the diachronic analysis of these elements in

Amharic.

GIRMA A. DEMEKE


3.1 THE ISSUE OF NSA AND AGRS

According to Getatchew Haile (1974), the copula n- in

Amharic should be listed as a type of experiencer verb and that

NSA is not the sole Agr element. For Haile there is always 3mss

marker along with NSA. The former identifies an expletive

pronoun and the latter identifies the notional subject which,

according to Haile, is a grammatical object. Demeke (2012) and

Crass et al (2005) argue that there is neither empirical nor logical

ground to support Haile‟s claim. I am not interested to repeat those

well-argued points here. However, it seems relevant to see if there

is any morphological clue for the existence of AgrS besides NSA

in the copular conjugation of Harari, which is not examined in the

previous works in detail.16

As we saw in the preceding section besides Amharic, Harari

shows NSA in all persons. Except 3fs, we find -a immediately

following the copular element in all the conjugations in Harari.

The third person subject marker in this language is also -a (Table

4). However, the element -a is found marking 3ms subject only

word-finally. If followed by object agreement, 3mss is either -i or -

e as can be seen in (5):

(5) a. nässäʔ-e-x (Harari)

takeperf-3mss-2msNSA

'He took you.m'

b. sät't'-i-x

giveperf-3mss-2msNSA

'He gave you.m'

In Harari beside NSA, there is no morphological evidence for

the existence of AgrS along with the copula t-. This is the case for

16

See for the examination of this issue on Amharic Crass et al (2005) and

Demeke (2012).



all the languages under consideration here. As pointed out in the

preceding section the copula n- in Western Gurage languages takes

AgrS in the first person. Argobba has third person feminine

singular AgrS. In Zay and Silte the copula only takes NSA in the

third person plural. Wolane takes AgrS for all persons. In general

NSA is not uniform in the conjugation of the copula n- and appears

as a sole agreement marker with a nominative subject. There is no

known syntactic or semantic difference between AgrS-taking and

NSA-taking copular constructions. As pointed out in section 2.4,

there are cases where NSA alone appears without the verbal copula

playing the linking role by its own and agreeing with the subject

similar to that of pronoun copulae in Ge„ez and Tigre. This is true

for example in Mäsqan and Muher 3fs as is also the case in

presentational copular constructions in Amharic. This means that

the existence of NSA does not require AgrS. Consider also the

following Amharic progressive constructions with the copula n-

marking tense.

(6) a. kasa ɨyyä-rot'-ä n-äw (Amharic)

K. prog-run-3mss copula-3ms

'Kasa is running'

b. tämari-wocc-u ɨyyä-rot'-u n-accäw

student-pl-def prog-run-3pls copula-3pl

'The students are running'

Kasa and the students in (6) are marked as nominative and

identified by subject agreement elements in the lexical verb run.

The copula also agrees in both (6a) and (6b) with the respective

subjects but takes NSA for this purpose. In fact, in this type of

progressive construction the copula may only take the default 3ms

GIRMA A. DEMEKE


agreement marker regardless of the subject of the main verb.

Consider (7):17

(7) a. saba mɨsa-wa-n ɨyyä-bäll-acc n-äw (Amharic)

S. lunch-her-Acc prog-eat-3fss be-3msNSA

'Saba is having (lit. eating) her lunch'

b. tämari-wocc-u mɨsa-ccäw-ɨn ɨyyä-bäll-u n-äw

student-pl-def lunch-their-Acc prog-eat-3pls be-3msNSA

'The students are having their lunch'

We can be sure that the NSA -äw found along with the copula

n- in (7) identifies a subject which is an expletive pronoun as the

negative and past counter clauses of (7) have AgrS with the same

person, i.e. 3ms. Consider (8):18

(8) a. saba mɨsa-wa-n ɨyyä-bäll-acc aydälläm

S. lunch-her-Acc prog-eat-3fss be.neg.3mss

'Saba is not having (lit. eating) her lunch'

b. saba mɨsa-wa-n ɨyyä-bäll-acc näbbär(-ä)

S. lunch-her-Acc prog-eat-3fss be.Past-3mss

'Saba was having (lit. eating) her lunch'

The appearance of NSA as a sole agreement element in copular

conjugations makes the copula unique. In Ethio-Semitic languages

AgrS is obligatory but not NSA in regular verbs, i.e. lexical verbs.

Hence, if the copula, though semantically dummy, is understood as

a verb then the non-existence of AgrS needs explanation. I address

this point in the following section.

17

The grammaticality of the structures in (6) and (7) is good evidence for the

claim that the agreement in the copula is indivisible. 18

The clauses in (7) and (8) can be understood as biclausal and literarily

translated as „It is the case that …‟.



3.2 WHY NSA?

Crass et al (2005) suggest that the copula n- is developed out of

a focus marker and NSA's presence along with it could be a result

of a combination of the two focus markers.19

In a recent paper

Demeke (2012) associates such combination to the lack of

aspectual marking on the copula.

In Ethio-Semitic languages (and in general in Semitic) subject

agreement is dependent on aspect. A change in aspectual category

brings a change in the nature of AgrS. Consider (9):

(9) a. kasa tɨlant hed-ä

K. yesterday comeperf-3mss

„Kasa came yesterday‟

b. kasa nägä yɨ-hed-all

K. tomorrow 3mss-goimpf-Aux

„Kasa will go tomorrow‟

The verb in (9a) is in the perfective aspect and in (9b) in the

imperfective. Both select different AgrS elements. The auxiliary -

all in (9b) is also specified for aspect. This is also true for the past

auxiliary näbbär (or its cognates) which is specified for perfective

and takes AgrS of the perfective verb. The copulae *n and t- are

distinct in this respect. These copular elements do not exhibit

aspectual morphology and, thus nothing forces the presence of

AgrS (Demeke 2012).

One other support for considering subject agreement as a

feature of Asp also comes from the so-called infinitives in

Amharic. Although infinitives can have sentential structure in the

same way like their counterpart tensed clauses, they do not take

AgrS for the identification of their subjects. They take instead

19

NSA is assumed to have a focus feature (see below).

GIRMA A. DEMEKE


possessive agreement elements. The common characteristic of the

copula n- and infinitives in Amharic is the absence of aspectual

morphology. There is, therefore, strong correlation between the

lack of Asp and the absence of subject agreement as Demeke

(2012) claims. However, this is not the end of the story.

As we have seen in section 2 the appearance of agreement

elements along with the copula *n is not uniform in all persons.

The Western Gurage languages select subject agreement for first

person. Both varieties of Argobba select third person feminine

subject agreement whereas Amharic has both alternatives for this

person. Moreover, in Tigrinya the copula takes subject agreement

and is neither marked for aspect. Historically, the Tigrinya copula

is developed out of a pronoun but not its counterpart *n and t- in

South Semitic languages. In the latter languages, the copulae are

developed out of focus markers. The Amharic present tense

negative copula is also a case to consider here. Although it is

assumed to be developed out of a verb, it does not show aspectual

morphology in its current form but takes subject agreement unlike

its suppletive affirmative copula. This means that although Asp

determines/ requires AgrS, the latter can appear without aspectual

specification. The claim that the copula n- in Amharic takes NSA

because of the absence of aspectual specification is, therefore, only

half true. It is half true because, if the copula were marked for

aspect, it most likely takes AgrS. As the copula *n takes AgrS in

some conjugations/ persons (especially in Silte, Zay and the

Gurage languages) and other aspect-unmarked copulae take AgrS,

the existence of NSA with the copulae *n and t- cannot totally be

attributed to the absence of aspectual specification. Moreover, as

pointed out above, in Amharic infinitives take PossAgr, not NSA,

for the identification of their subjects. The “selection” of NSA in

copular constructions, therefore, must also be triggered by another

factor.

There is an interesting point with regard to the nature of NSA.

Except for experiential verbs and verb-to-have constructions, the



presence of NSA in South Ethio-Semitic languages is strongly

associated with information structure (see Haile 1971, Demeke

2003). In these languages, NSA shows up when the object in

question is emphatically focused. Consider (10):

(10) a. kasa mäkina-w-ɨn šät‟-ä

K. car-def/his-acc sellperf-3mss

„Kasa sold his/the car‟

b. kasa mäkina-w-ɨn šät‟-ä-w

K. car-def/his-acc sellperf-3mss-3msNSA

„Kasa sold his/the car (not something else)‟

NSA is blind to the type of object that it identifies. In lexical

verb constructions, it can agree with an accusative and dative DPs,

an applied argument or an adjunct as long as the object in question

is focused (Haile 1971, Demeke 2003). In Ge„ez and Tigre

personal pronouns act as copular elements. Consider the following:

(11) a. heena sub heena (Tigre)

We men we

„we are men‟ (Beaton and Paul 1954:18)

b. dawit mämhɨr wɨʔɨtu (Ge„ez)

Dawit teacher he

„Dawit is a teacher‟

In Ge„ez nominal clauses may also appear without a pronoun

copula as in (12).

(12) dawit mämhɨr

Dawit teacher

„Dawit is a teacher‟

The addition of a pronoun copula in Ge„ez is associated with

focus. (11b), for instance, means something like “Dawit is a

GIRMA A. DEMEKE


teacher (not anything else)‟. In Old Amharic, nominal clauses

appear with or without a copula. Although we do not know much

about the difference between those nominal clauses with and

without a copula in Old Amharic, the appearance of a copula could

have started in Ethio-Semitic in general with marking focus. As the

NSA is associated with focus marking, its presence in copular

clauses could have been due to this fact as also suggested in Crass

et al (2005). Recall that NSA appears (in some persons) without a

verbal copula in some Gurage languages and Amharic, playing the

copular role, i.e. linking the subject with the predicate, itself

agreeing with the subject.20

In those cases NSA can be treated as a

copula in the same way to pronoun copulae in languages such as

Ge„ez and Tigre. This means that it is not the copula that forces

Agr to be NSA. NSA‟s presence is independent of the copula. The

copulae *n and t- cannot force or chose their agreement because,

the former lack aspect marking.

If the above suggestion is the case, we may ask a question why

the focus markers developed as copulae as NSA alone can play the

linking role. The reason comes from the very nature of the

elements *n and *t. These elements might have been appearing in

most copular conjugations at a certain period in the history of

South Ethio-Semitic as a sentential focus marker. We have cases in

Zay where *n appears as a sentential focus marker both in copular

20

Note that such presence cannot be treated as a case of concord between the

“predicate” and the subject. It is rather an agreement of a copula with a subject.

Subject – predicate concord is expressed in other way in these languages as can

be seen in (i), where in (ia) the predicate „big‟ agrees in number with the subject

„children‟ in the same way it agrees with the head noun that it modifies in (ib):

(i) a. lɨjj-occ-u tɨlɨllɨq n-accäw (Amharic)

child-pl-def/his big.pl be-3ms

„the/his children are big/ grown‟

b. tɨlɨllɨq lɨjj-occ

big.pl child-pl

„big children‟



and other clauses. 21

Hence, the combination of the sentential focus

markers and NSA to develop a fully-fledged copula seems natural.

Now, the major question left is why do different types of

agreement features exist in the first place? As we have seen in the

preceding section, it is very difficult to seek a solution based on

person. Harari and Amharic have NSA in all persons. Argobba has

NSA except in 3fs case, but the Gurage languages have AgrS on

the first person singular. The solution should, therefore, come from

another corner. As far as I can tell there is no word order or other

syntactic difference between the realization of different agreement

elements, i.e. NSA vs. AgrS. The most likely reason that I can

think of at the moment is that such mixture is a historical

coincidence. That is, AgrS on the copula is developed by analogy

to other verbs, as suggested in Crass et al (2005).

4. CONCLUSION

Except the 3fs Agr in Argobba and the alternative nature of this

person in Amharic, the selection of agreement elements with the

present tense copula in Harari, Amharic and Argobba are the same,

which is NSA. However, the appearance of NSA is not uniform in

the languages under consideration in this work. The Gurage

languages, Silte and Zay select subject agreement for first person

singular whereas Argobba selects AgrS for third person feminine.

In this paper, I argued following Crass et al (2005) and

Demeke (2012) that there is no AgrS in addition to NSA in the

21

Consider (i):

(i) a. ihiiy gaar naara-n-u. (Zay)

this house was-foc-u

„This was a house.‟ (Meyer 2002: 1803)

b. it wot‟i sarɨtɨ-n-u

she sauce made-foc-u

„She prepared sauce.‟ (Meyer 2002: 1804)

GIRMA A. DEMEKE


conjugation of the copula *n. The same goes to the copula t- in

Harari. These two developed out of focus markers and combined

with other focus-oriented pronominal features to form a fully-

fledged inflected copula. This is in line with Crass et al (2005).

From a historical perspective, the selection of subject agreement

for first person in Western Gurage and third person in Argobba

might be a recent innovation and developed by analogy with

regular verbs. From synchronic perspective, there is syntactic

explanation for the selection of NSA for the identification of

subjects. Except the copulae *n and t- all verbs (including

auxiliaries) are specified for aspect. Asp is the one that determines

the nature of AgrS in these languages, if not in all Semitic

languages. Hence, lack of Asp in the copulae is also one of the

factors why we find NSA instead of AgrS for the identification of

subjects (at least for some conjugations).

REFERENCES

Beaton, A. C. and Paul, A. 1954. A Grammar and Vocabulary of

the Tigre (as spoken by the Beni Amer). Khartoum:

Khartoum Publication Bureau. Debela, Bedilu Wakjira. 2011. Morphology and Verb Construction

Types of Kistaniniya. Trondheim, Doctoral Dissertation,

Norwegian University of Science and Technology.

Crass, J., G. A. Demeke, R. Meyer and A. Wetter. 2005. Copula

and Focus Constructions in Selected Ethiopian Languages.

ULPA; No. 25. Leipzig.

Meyer, Ronny. 2002. „To be or not to be‟: Is there a present tense

Copula in Zay? In Baye Yimam et. al. XIVth International

Conference of Ethiopian Studies. Vol. 3: 1798- 1808. Addis

Ababa: Addis Ababa University Press.

Meyer, Ronny. 2005. Das Zay: Deskriptive Grammatik einer

Ostguragesprache (Äthiosemitisch). Cologne: Rüdiger

Köppe.



Meyer, Ronny. 2006. Wolane: Descriptive Grammar of an East

Gurage Language (Ethiosemitic). Köln: Köppe.

Demeke, Girma A. 2003. The Clausal Syntax of Ethio-Semitic.

Doctoral Dissertation: University of Tromsø.

Demeke, Girma A. 2008. Copular Constructions in Ge„ez and

Tigre. In Meyer, R., A. Wetter and J. Crass (eds.). Deictics,

Copula, and Focus in the Ethiopian Convergence Area.

Cologne: Rüdiger Köpper Verlag.

Demeke, Girma A. 2012. A diachronic Analysis of Copular

Constructions in Amharic. Journal of Afroasiatic

Languages. 5:1; 105-152.

Goldenberg, Gideon. 1968. Kɨstanɨñña. Orientalia Suecana. 17:

61-102.

Gutt, Ernst-August. 1986. On the Conjugation of Silt‟e Verbs.

Journal of Ethiopian Studies. XIX: 91-112.

Gutt, Ernst-August. 1997. The Silt‟e group (East Gurage). In:

Hetzron, Robert (ed.). The Semitic Languages. London:

Rutledge, 509 -534.

Haile, Getatchew. 1971. The Suffix Pronouns in Amharic. Papers

in African Linguistics. 3:101-111.

Haile, Getatchew. 1974. The Copula näw in Amharic. In IV

Congresso Internazionale di Studi Etiopici. Tommo II. PP.

139-154. Rpma Accademia nazionale Dei Lincei.

Leslau, Wolf. 1999. Zway - Ethiopic Documents: Grammar and

Dictionary. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.

“OBJECT MARKERS” IN COPULAR CONSTRUCTIONS: THE ETHIO-SEMITIC CASE

Documents

Transcript of “OBJECT MARKERS” IN COPULAR CONSTRUCTIONS: THE ETHIO-SEMITIC CASE