Structural and Typological Variation in the Dialects of Kurdish 9783030788360, 9783030788377

Citation preview

Structural and Typological Variation in the Dialects of Kurdish Edited by  Yaron Matras · Geoffrey Haig · Ergin Öpengin

Structural and Typological Variation in the Dialects of Kurdish

Yaron Matras  •  Geoffrey Haig Ergin Öpengin Editors

Structural and Typological Variation in the Dialects of Kurdish

Editors Yaron Matras Aston Institute for Forensic Linguistics Aston University Birmingham, UK

Geoffrey Haig Department of General Linguistics University of Bamberg Bamberg, Germany

Ergin Öpengin English Language Department University of Kurdistan-Hewlêr Erbil, Kurdistan Region of Iraq, Iraq

ISBN 978-3-030-78836-0    ISBN 978-3-030-78837-7 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78837-7 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2022 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover illustration: Jean-Philippe Tournut/Getty This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Contents

Introduction  1 Yaron Matras, Geoffrey Haig, and Ergin Öpengin  Lexical Variation and Semantic Change in Kurdish 13 Jaffer Sheyholislami and Rahim Surkhi Phonological Variation in Kurdish 65 Erik Anonby Case in Kurdish111 Songül Gündoğdu  Pronominal Clitics Across Kurdish: Areal Distribution, Structural Variation, and Diachrony181 Ergin Öpengin and Masoud Mohammadirad  Cross-Dialect Account of Kurdish Past Tense Categories, A with Special Reference to Southern Kurdish239 Sara Belelli Adpositions in Kurdish291 Maximilian Kinzler v

vi Contents

 Post-Predicate Constituents in Kurdish335 Geoffrey Haig  The Typology of Connectivity and Complex Constructions in Kurdish Dialects379 Yaron Matras Index455

Notes on Contributors

Erik Anonby is Professor of Linguistics and French at Carleton University and visiting researcher at the Leiden University Centre for Linguistics. His work focuses on description, documentation, and mapping of languages in the Middle East and north-central Africa. He is the author of numerous publications including A Grammar of Mambay (2011), Adaptive Multilinguals: Language on Larak Island (2011), Bakhtiari Studies: Phonology, Text, Lexicon (2014), and Bakhtiari Studies II: Orthography (2018). In 2016, Anonby received the Humboldt Fellowship for Experienced Researchers and in 2021 was elected to the Royal Society of Canada’s College of New Scholars, Artists and Scientists. He is leading a research team with over 60 members in the Atlas of the Languages of Iran (ALI) research programme (http://iranatlas.net). Sara Belelli is a postdoctoral researcher in Iranian Philology at “L’Orientale” University (Naples, Italy) and ISMEO (Rome, Italy). She holds a PhD (2016), with a thesis titled A Study on Language and Folklore in the City of Harsin (Kermānshāh Province, West Iran), to appear shortly as a monograph in the Bamberg Studies in Kurdish Linguistics (BSKL) series. She authored articles and book chapters on Southern Kurdish and Laki, in both English and Italian. Her research interests cover various topics in the fields of dialectology, language documentation and description, lexicography and lexicology, etymology, and oral literature of the vii

viii 

Notes on Contributors

Iranian area with a primary focus on Kurdish and closely related languages. She is working at the Etymological-­Comparative Dictionary of Balochi under the direction of Adriano V. Rossi. Songül Gündoğdu  is a faculty member in the Department of English Language and Literature at Muş Alparslan University in Turkey. She holds a PhD in Linguistics from Boğaziçi University and she was awarded the Elahé Omidyar Mir-Djalali Postdoctoral Fellowship in Iranian Linguistics at the University of Toronto. Her research interests include (morpho)syntactic aspects of Iranian languages—specifically Kurdish, such as the Ezafe constructions, case and ergativity, argument structure, and negation. She has published several chapters in edited volumes and co-edited the Current Issues in Kurdish Linguistics. Geoffrey Haig  Since 2010, Geoffrey Haig has been a professor of linguistics at the Institute of Oriental Studies at the University of Bamberg. His research interests include corpus-based approaches to language typology and language documentation, historical syntax, and contact linguistics, drawing primarily on the languages of the extended Middle East, with a focus on Kurdish. He has published in a wide range of journals including Language, Lingua, Linguistics, and Linguistics Vanguard, and he has authored and (co-)edited 10 books, most recently The Languages and Linguistics of Western Asia: An Areal Perspective (with Geoffrey Khan; 2018). Maximilian Kinzler  is a PhD student of Iranian studies at University of Hamburg. His research focus is on Early New Persian, especially Early Judaeo-Persian, and West Iranian dialectology. Yaron Matras  is Honorary Professor at the Aston Institute for Forensic Linguistics. He was Professor of Linguistics at the University of Manchester until 2020, where he coordinated the research project on Structural and Typological Variation in the Dialects of Kurdish (2014–2017) and was the founder of the Romani Project and the Multilingual Manchester research unit. His research interests include contact linguistics, language and linguistic typology, languages of the Middle East, Romani, and German dialects. He is the author of several monographs including Language Contact (2009/2020), Romani: A

  Notes on Contributors 

ix

Linguistic Introduction (2002), and A Grammar of Domari (2012) and editor of numerous volumes and has held guest appointments at the universities of Cambridge, La Trobe, Paris-Sorbonne, Berlin-Humboldt, Haifa, and others. Masoud Mohammadirad holds a PhD in general linguistics from Sorbonne-Nouvelle Paris 3. His research interests include comparative morphosyntax of contemporary West Iranian languages with a primary focus on Kurdish, contact linguistics, and language documentation. As of September 2021 he is a postdoctoral researcher at University of Cambridge in an ERC project on linguistic contact between Kurdish and Neo-Aramaic. Ergin Öpengin  is a lecturer at the English Language Department of the University of Kurdistan-Hewlêr. He holds a PhD in Linguistics from the Sorbonne Nouvelle Paris 3, France, and the University of Bamberg, Germany (2013). His research focuses on the structural and sociolinguistic aspects of Kurdish. He is the author of The Mukri Variety of Central Kurdish (2016) and co-editor of the volume Current Issues in Kurdish Linguistics (2019). He is a co-editor for the journal Kurdish Studies and Derwaze: Kurdish Journal for Social Sciences and Humanities. Jaffer Sheyholislami  is a faculty member in the School of Linguistics and Language Studies at Carleton University. In both Kurdish and English, he has published extensively on a variety of topics concerning the Kurdish language, especially in sociolinguistics. He is the author of Kurdish Identity, Discourse and New Media (Palgrave, 2011) and co-editor of a special issue of the International Journal of the Sociology of Language (IJSL) devoted to the sociology of Kurdish (2012). In addition to over a dozen chapters in edited volumes and major handbooks, he has published in IJSL, Language Policy, Discourse & Society, and Language and Politics. He is co-editing the Oxford Handbook of Kurdish Linguistics. Rahim Surkhi  holds a PhD from Salahaddin University, Erbil, Iraqi Kurdistan (KRG), specializing in Kurdish language and sociolinguistics, where he taught discourse studies, semantics, and pragmatics for 14 years. Since 2017 he has been an adjunct research professor in the School of Linguistics and Language Studies at Carleton University in Canada. He

x 

Notes on Contributors

is the author of Critical Discourse Analysis of Kurdish Journalism (1918–1932), 2013, and of Process of Mass Communication (Language, Model and Methodology), 2008, and translator of Pragmatics by George Yule from English to Kurdish, Jamal Erfan, Sulaymaniyah 2016, and has also published several articles in Kurdish academic journals. His research focuses on critical discourse analysis, language policy, and Kurdish ethnicity and culture.

List of Figures

Lexical Variation and Semantic Change in Kurdish Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4 Fig. 5 Fig. 6 Fig. 7 Fig. 8 Fig. 9 Fig. 10 Fig. 11 Fig. 12

Kurdish variety groups map Child Girl Boy/Son Mountain River River (Based on data from Table 1 and MDKD) Snow Green Red Factory Mother

14 25 29 32 34 38 38 40 41 43 45 48

Pronominal Clitics Across Kurdish: Areal Distribution, Structural Variation, and Diachrony Fig. 1

The dialects of major Kurdish varieties with pronominal clitics 184

Post-Predicate Constituents in Kurdish Fig. 1

Post-predicate PLACE constituents in the MDKD (Matras et al. 2016), based on the test sentences in (20)

347

xi

xii 

Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4 Fig. 5

List of Figures

Post-predicate non-local OBLIQUE constituents in the MDKD (Matras et al. 2016), based on the test sentences in (21) Post-predicate Goals of verbs of motion in the MDKD (Matras et al. 2016), based on the test sentences in (29) Post-predicate Goals of verbs of caused motion in the MDKD (Matras et al. 2016), based on the test sentences in (30) Post-predicate Addressee arguments in the MDKD (Matras et al. 2016), based on the sentences in (37), Northern Kurdish only

348 351 352 355

List of Tables

Lexical Variation and Semantic Change in Kurdish Table 1 Table 2

Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 Table 12

Data collected by authors from 29 participants Frequency table for the lexical expressions for child in Kurdish varieties Frequency for the lexical expressions for girl in Kurdish varieties Frequency for the lexical expressions for boy in Kurdish varieties Frequency for the lexical expressions for mountain in Kurdish varieties Frequency for the lexical expressions for snow in Kurdish varieties Frequency for the lexical expressions for green in Kurdish varieties Frequency for the lexical expressions for river in Kurdish varieties Frequency for the lexical expressions for car in Kurdish varieties Frequency for the lexical expressions for red in Kurdish varieties Frequency for the lexical expressions for factory in Kurdish varieties Frequency for the lexical expressions for mother in Kurdish varieties

52 54 54 55 55 56 56 57 57 58 58 59 xiii

xiv 

List of Tables

Phonological Variation in Kurdish Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4

Conventions for transcription of NK and CK vowels, with example words NK and CK vowel inventory in the Database Conventions for transcription of NK and CK consonants, with example words NK and CK consonant inventory in the Database

Case in Kurdish Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6

Case markers in Standard NK Free personal pronouns in SK dialects Free personal pronouns in Central Kurdish dialects Personal pronouns in NK dialects The form of the goal constituents across CK dialects The use of Oblique case across CK dialects

72 73 81 85 115 116 117 117 125 128

Pronominal Clitics Across Kurdish: Areal Distribution, Structural Variation, and Diachrony Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10

Forms of pronominal clitics in Northern Kurdish dialects 186 Forms of pronominal clitics in Central Kurdish dialects 190 Forms of pronominal clitics in Southern Kurdish dialects 199 Forms of pronominal clitics in Laki dialects 203 Forms of pronominal clitics in Gorani dialects 211 Forms of pronominal clitics across Kurdish varieties (simplified)222 Clitic functions across Kurdish 224 Possible clitic hosts in Kurdish dialects 228 Multiple cliticization and mobility of oblique clitics across Kurdish229 The ordering of argument indexes on past tense verb stems 230

A Cross-Dialect Account of Kurdish Past Tense Categories, with Special Reference to Southern Kurdish Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6

NK and CK Past personal suffixes CK bound pronouns SK Past personal suffixes NK and CK imperfective markers SK imperfective markers Kurdish Past Participle formants

246 247 248 254 256 266

  List of Tables 

Table 7 Table 8 Table 9

Present clitic Copula used in NK and CK Perfects Past Copula used in NK and CK Pluperfects SK Past Copula bases

Adpositions in Kurdish Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 Table 12 Table 13 Table 14

Core adpositions I Core adpositions II Core prepositions—Northern and Central Kurdish Core prepositions—Southern Kurdish Frequent non-core prepositions Postpositions Circumpositions in Northern Kurdish Absolute prepositions Meanings of absolute adpositions in Southern Kurdish Ablative and locative in Southern Kurdish Further spatial adpositions Northern Kurdish without south-east South-eastern Northern Kurdish Central Kurdish

xv

266 275 276 295 295 309 310 311 312 313 316 317 323 324 325 325 326

Post-Predicate Constituents in Kurdish Table 1 Table 2

The correlation of flagging type and position, Addressees of ‘say/tell’ in Northern Kurdish Percentages of pre- and post-predicate placement of recipients and addressees in Vafsi (Stilo 2010)

358 369

List of Maps

Phonological Variation in Kurdish Map 1

Map 2 Map 3 Map 4 Map 5 Map 6 Map 7 Map 8 Map 9 Map 10 Map 11 Map 12 Map 13 Map 14 Map 15 Map 16 Map 17

Northern Kurdish (NK) and Central Kurdish (CK) research sites in the Database 67 Geographic distribution of yː in the Database 75 Geographic distribution of œː in the Database 76 Variation in the vowel found in *duːr ‘far’ 77 Variation for glide and vowel in *ɡoːz ‘walnut’ 78 Variation in the vowel found in soːr/suːr/(etc.) ‘red’ 79 Medial labial consonant in ħɛ[v]dɛ (etc.) ‘seventeen’ 88 Allophones of ʧ and ʤ in the Database 89 Geographic distribution of ʁ in the Database 90 Geographic distribution of all locations in the Database with questionnaire responses containing transcriptions of kʰ91 Geographic distribution of all locations in the Database with questionnaire responses containing transcriptions of pʰ92 Word-initial aspirated stop in ‘when’ in the Database transcriptions93 Geographic distribution of rˤ in the Database transcriptions 94 Reflexes of *r in ‘two days’ in the Database transcriptions 95 Geographic distribution of lˤ in the Database transcriptions 96 Reflexes of *l in *saːl ‘year’ in the Database transcriptions 97 Geographic distribution of all locations in the Database with questionnaire responses containing transcriptions of tˤ98 xvii

xviii 

List of Maps

Map 18 Geographic distribution of all locations in the Database with questionnaire responses containing transcriptions of sˤ99 Map 19 Geographic distribution of ħ in the Database 100 Map 20 Geographic distribution of ʕ in the Database 101 Map 21 Initial consonant in ‘Arab’ (from A. ʕarab)102 Map 22 Medial consonant in ‘hour’ (from A. saːʕa(t))103

Case in Kurdish Map 1 Map 2

The distribution of Obliue case across CK dialects The form of O in the past across NK dialects

129 168

Introduction Yaron Matras, Geoffrey Haig, and Ergin Öpengin

1 The MDKD in the Context of Kurdish Linguistics The present volume brings together contributions with an innovative focus on a systematic, comparative approach to the study of Kurdish dialects. They rely heavily on the Manchester Database of Kurdish Dialects (MDKD), a resource for the documentation of Kurdish varieties covering mainly Northern and Central Kurdish (Kurmanji-Bahdini and Sorani).

Y. Matras (*) Aston Institute for Forensic Linguistics, Aston University, Birmingham, UK e-mail: [email protected] G. Haig Department of General Linguistics, University of Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany e-mail: [email protected] E. Öpengin English Language Department, University of Kurdistan-Hewlêr, Erbil, Kurdistan Region of Iraq, Iraq e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 Y. Matras et al. (eds.), Structural and Typological Variation in the Dialects of Kurdish, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78837-7_1

1

2 

Y. Matras et al.

From its beginnings, Kurdish linguistics has been conducted on the margins of better-established disciplines, with a chronic shortage of institutional support. Nevertheless, it has flourished over the last decades, as evidenced in a growing outcome of publications, the establishment of an international conference series (International Conference on Kurdish Linguistics, ICKL), and most recently, the MDKD.1 The earliest research on Kurdish published in the West stems from what can broadly be referred to as the European Orientalist tradition of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, for example, the work of Karl Hadank and Oskar Mann on Gorani and Zazaki (Mann and Hadank 1930, 1932), Prym and Socin (1887, 1890), or Fossum (1919); see Blau (2009) for an excellent summary. The mid-twentieth century marked the era of what have been known as ‘sensibly prescriptive’ grammars (Gündoğdu et al. 2019, p.  1), for example, Sorani (Wahbi 1929) and Kurmanji (Bedir-­ Khan and Lescot 1970), or Bakaev (1965), which were often the precursors to efforts at codifying and standardizing orthographies (Matras and Reershemius 1991). The first attempts to apply a structuralist/descriptivist approach to Kurdish, largely divorced from didactic considerations, were the studies by McCarus (1958) and MacKenzieʼs (1961–1962) landmark survey of Kurdish dialects, which covered most of the Sorani and Bahdini-Kurmanji dialects of Iraq. MacKenzieʼs work not only identified a number of important isoglosses that served to define the main varieties of Kurdish, it also became an important reference for comparative historical syntax, sparking the line of diachronic research initiated by Bynon (1979, 1980), which has continued to the present (Haig 2008, 2017; Karimi 2014, among many others). Early generative approaches to Kurdish include Fattahʼs dissertation (1997) for Sorani, while Dorleijn (1996) is a pioneering study that combines a Government-­and-­Binding analysis of Kurmanji syntax with an empirical study of language contact effects in Kurmanji. Generative approaches have more recently gained traction, for example, through recent work on Sorani syntax by Karimi (2007, 2014), and Atlamaz and Baker (2018) and Gündoğdu (2018) on Kurmanji. In parallel to the formal and structuralist approaches, the 1980s and 1990s witnessed growing scholarly interest in the sociolinguistic context of the Kurdish speech community. Within linguistics, research on

 Introduction 

3

language planning, language ideologies, minority languages, and multilingualism burgeoned in the 1970s and 1980s, and it was abundantly evident that the situation of Kurdish speakers in their respective nation states offered rich insights for these sub-disciplines. Work within sociology and anthropology on identity was likewise influential, in particular the seminal study of van Bruinessen (1992, based on his thesis submitted in 1978), which continues to inspire sociological and anthropological research on Kurdish to this day. Prominent publications by Skutnabb-­ Kangas and associates (Skutnabb-Kangas and Bucak 1994; Hassanpour et  al. 1996) within a linguistics human rights paradigm brought the Kurdish predicament to the attention of the broader scientific community, while Hassanpourʼs (1992) dissertation highlighted the role of nationalist ideologies in shaping the current sociopolitical context of Kurdish. This line of research, blending linguistics, cultural anthropology, political history, and critical discourse theory, continues to thrive and diversify (Sheyholislami 2011; Jamison 2016). Somewhat surprisingly, empirical variationist sociolinguistic case studies, aiming at identifying correlations of linguistic features with social factors, remain in short supply, with the noteworthy exception of Öpengin (2012) and Çağlayan (2014), both in the context of Turkish Kurdistan. Within the diverse and vibrant research landscape sketched in the preceding paragraphs, serious work on regional variation is most noteworthy for its comparative absence. In the sixty years since the publication of MacKenzie (1961–1962), the sole survey of comparable scope is Fattahʼs (2000) overview of the varieties loosely referred to as Southern Kurdish. For Northern Kurdish, two papers by Öpengin and Haig (Öpengin and Haig 2014; Haig and Öpengin 2018) provide a provisional dialect division of Northern Kurdish. Although Fattahʼs overview of Southern Kurdish equals MacKenzieʼs in sheer volume, it exhibits certain methodological and analytic shortcomings, while Haig and Öpenginʼs work projects to a broad-brush dialect classification from a comparatively small, though probably fairly representative, cross-section of dialects, and is thus more tentative in nature. However, it is largely restricted to Northern Kurdish dialects of Turkey, while dialects of Syria and Armenia were not sampled. Consideration to Syrian Kurmanji is given for the first time in Matras (2019), based on an initial evaluation of MDKD data,

4 

Y. Matras et al.

also offering a new approach to the postulation of major isoglosses and diffusion zones of structural innovations.

2 MDKD Design and Methodology MDKD emerged as the principal output of two research projects led by Yaron Matras at the University of Manchester, in collaboration with Andrew Koontz-Garboden, Salih Akin, and Ergin Öpengin.2 At the time of writing MDKD is publicly accessible via a University of Manchester website.3 The project’s approach was inspired by the Romani Morpho-­ Syntax (RMS) database (Elšík and Matras 2006; Matras et  al. 2009), which used questionnaire elicitation to capture dialect variation producing a comprehensive online database. A pilot questionnaire tested in 2011–2012 contained around 200 items, selected based on variation in samples of connected speech from around 50 recorded interviews with speakers from Turkey, Iraq, and Iran and on variation documented in the literature. Elicitation was carried out in south-eastern Turkey and northern Iraq as well as among recent migrants in Europe. The questionnaire was then extended in 2014–2017 to cover 400 items (lexemes and phrases). The questionnaire items were read out to speaker-consultants in a second language (Turkish, Arabic, and Persian, and in some cases English and French) prompting verbal translations into their home dialect of Kurdish. This was accompanied by semi-structured interviews prompting narrations and descriptions of village life, marriage customs, migration, personal history, and traditional tales. The project collaborators trained native speaker fieldworkers, students of Kurdish language and linguistics at universities in Europe, south-eastern Turkey, and northern Iraq, to record data. Over 200 speaker consultants were recorded in over 150 locations. The material was transcribed by trained native speaker transcription assistants using a system based on the Hawar alphabet used for literary Kurmanji, but marking additional phonological distinctions. This was intended to ensure accessibility to wider audiences while keeping a uniform, cross-dialect system that reflected relevant phonological distinctions (for a critical discussion see Anonby, this volume). The questionnaire

 Introduction 

5

phrases were entered into a template that was pre-tagged for anticipated structures. The data were imported into an open-source database (utilising MySQL database and PHP web interface software) made accessible online. The interface allows the user to filter transcribed phrases by sample number and location, the content of Kurdish forms, English elicitation phrase, and a system of morphological tags. Sections of 5–7 minutes were selected for transcription and translation from the free speech samples and included in the MDKD online resource. MDKD thus offers the first comprehensive comparative overview of Kurdish dialects, with a much denser grid of data points particularly for Northern and Central Kurdish than had been previously available, and samples of both free speech and controlled elicitation freely accessible online. Nonetheless the project and its digital output have a number of limitations. First, the questionnaire reflects the project’s theoretical research questions, which were impacted by the conditions set by the funding policy of UK research councils at the time. These required the project to adopt a formal linguistic hypothesis in addition to a functional-­ typological and general documentation agenda. The hypothesis was adopted that morphological alignment may correlate with a scale of predicates and participant roles, one that reflects participant affectedness as described by Beaver (2011). Given the limitations on resources for fieldwork and transcription, testing that hypothesis took up considerable space within the questionnaire, reducing opportunities to explore other areas of structure. The corpus shows a slight bias towards young, educated males, reflecting in part the profile of the fieldworkers and their access to speaker consultants. Influence of the Standard languages (Kurmanji and Sorani) has been minimized thanks to the spontaneous elicitation using a second language as source, but cannot be entirely ruled out, though the emerging geographical patterns of structural features offer strong evidence of the non-randomness of speakers’ responses. In a small number of cases, the effect of the source language can be detected in the organization of complex clauses (see Matras, this volume). Some structures were lost due to mistranslations or other misunderstandings in individual samples, marginally limiting the ability to compare, as it was not always possible to return to speakers in order to obtain clarifications. Protocols and

6 

Y. Matras et al.

control stages were used to minimize variation in transcription, but some variation inevitably remains due to a variety of influences on transcription assistants including standard language norms and different levels of experience. The data collection and archiving relied on the input of fieldwork and transcription assistants who were native speakers. The project was able to engage speakers of Northern and Central Kurdish, but gaps remain for Southern Kurdish as well as Zazaki, which might be supplemented in the future. While the grant application contained a data management and sustainability plan as required by the funding body, in recent years UK higher education institutions have been adopting a policy of offering long-term maintenance for digital outputs only if continuous funding can be secured. However, funding schemes dedicated for long-term maintenance of established resources are virtually non-­existent. At the time of writing the MDKD remains accessible online but its long-­ term future is unclear. The extended survey was launched just as ISIS’ campaign of terror was spreading across many of the Kurdish regions making some locations inaccessible. We were unable to carry out fieldwork in Syria, but our assistants approached recently displaced persons in their places of refuge across the borders and in some cases family members and friends from Syria who had recently taken refuge in Europe. This allowed the project to collect the first-ever systematic set of data on Kurdish from Syria (see Matras 2019). By making verifiable control samples available, the online resource also allowed the creation of a new forensic protocol for Language Analysis for the Determination of Origin (LADO) that was applied successfully in numerous appeals to the English courts by Kurdish refugees (Matras 2018). The MDKD has also inspired various new research initiatives and has been drawn on in a number of recent research publications (e.g. Haig and Bulut 2017; Matras 2019; Haig 2018; Akin and Bouveret 2021).

 Introduction 

7

3 The Chapters The collection of chapters seeks to give representation to a range of different structural phenomena in lexicon, phonology, and morpho-syntax, with all chapters taking a cross-dialect comparative approach and relying heavily on the MDKD resource as well as on other sources. It opens with Jaffer Sheyholislami and Rahim Surkhi’s contribution on Lexical variation and semantic change. Examining a selection of lexical forms it finds that about half of the items are shared between all or most Iranian languages, while identifying some that are unique to Kurdish, and identifies the factors that correlate with lexical variation including geography, political division, population movement, cultural borrowing, and modernization. Erik Anonby discusses phonological variation in Kurdish, pointing out a stable set of core vowels and consonants, alongside peripheral phonemes that demonstrate a high level of variation in geographic distribution and frequency. Segments with significant distributional restrictions include front rounded vowels, uvular consonants, a contrastive aspirated stop series, emphatic alveolar obstruents, and the pharyngeals /ʕ/ and /ħ/. An analysis of these patterns gives modest confirmation of the well-­ known Northern vs. Central Kurdish dialect division, but shows that the phonological distinction between the two is best characterized in terms of tendencies rather than exact, regular correspondences, pointing to the local nature of phonological changes. In her chapter on case in Kurdish, Songül Gündoğdu points out the major isogloss separating those dialects that make use of the oblique case, which include all of Northern Kurdish and a few dialects of Central Kurdish, from those that have lost it. The marking of semantic cases is subject to considerable areal variation following an approximate north/ south cline with prepositional marking increasingly dominant in the south. Ergin Öpengin and Masoud Mohammadirad discuss the areal distribution, structural variation, and diachrony of pronominal clitics. Among their findings is that in the more conservative Northern Kurdish and Gorani dialects the absence of subject-marking pronominal clitics correlates with the retention of oblique case in nominal subjects, which

8 

Y. Matras et al.

in turn attests to the originally pronominal status of clitics. Sara Belelli provides a cross-dialect account of Kurdish past tense categories with special reference to Southern Kurdish. She concludes that the traditional approach to the system of Kurdish past tense/aspect forms as structured on an aoristic preterit core expressing both general and perfective events, in contrast with a marked imperfective tense (imperfect), is simplistic and does not do full justice to the facts; instead, the dynamism of categories needs to be considered more carefully, especially fluctuation around the functions and indeed the presence or absence of the category ‘imperfect’. Maximilian Kinzler describes the inventory of adpositions in Kurdish as composed of a relatively small set of core and other adpositions, including several types of compound adpositions. There is considerable variation, with extreme ends in parts of the south (mostly prepositions) and the north (more postpositions). Variation is also found in meaning, and items may overlap with other adpositions and means of expressing semantic functions. Area-particular features are found across neighbouring varieties in both Northern and Central Kurdish. Geoffrey Haig investigates the areal distribution of post-predicate constituents across Kurdish. He finds that while direct objects are rarely postposed, certain other constituents regularly follow the predicate. Semantics appears to be the best predictor for post-predicate placement: constituents that express the endpoints of a state of affairs (goals and recipients) are overwhelmingly post-predicate, while the placement of addressees varies, and locational phrases with no implication of movement are overwhelmingly pre-­ predicate. In the final chapter, Yaron Matras discusses connectivity and complex constructions in Kurdish dialects, paying attention to clause linking, sequentiality, complements, and relative and adverbial clauses. He notes broader areal features such as finiteness and the factuality distinction as well as a shared inventory of connectors, general traits of Kurdish, differences between the principal dialect groups and some specific regional and contact developments.

 Introduction 

9

Notes 1. For more detailed overviews of earlier research see e.g. Haig and Matras (2002), Blau (2009), and Gündoğdu et al. (2019). 2. The pilot phase was funded by the British Academy (award number SG101803). The extended survey was carried out as part of a research project entitled ‘Structural and typological variation in the dialects of Kurdish’ funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (award number AH/K007084/1; Principal Investigator: Yaron Matras, Co-Investigator: Andrew Koontz-Garboden). 3. http://kurdish.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/, last accessed 1 April 2021.

References Akin, Salih, and Myriam Bouveret. 2021. Grammar in usage and grammaticalization of dan ‘give’ constructions in Kurmanji Kurdish. In Give constructions across languages, ed. Myriam Bouveret, 223–243. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Atlamaz, Ümit, and Mark Baker. 2018. On partial agreement and oblique case. Syntax 21 (3): 195–237. Bakaev, C. 1965. Jazyk azerbajdzanskich kurdov. Mosvka: Akademija Nauk. Beaver, John. 2011. On affectedness. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29: 335–370. Bedir-Khan, Emir Djeladet, and Roger Lescot. 1970. Grammaire kurde (dialecte kurmandji). Paris: Maisonneuve. Blau, Joyce. 2009. Kurdish Language ii. History of Kurdish. Encyclopaedia Iranica. Online edition, 2009, available at: https://iranicaonline.org/articles/ kurdish-­language-­ii-­history-­of-­kurdish-­studies. Accessed on 24 Apr 2021. Bynon, Theodora. 1979. The ergative construction in Kurdish. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 42: 211–224. ———. 1980. From passive to active in Kurdish via the ergative construction. In Papers from the 4th international conference on historical linguistics, ed. Elisabeth Traugott, Rebecca Labrum, and Susan Shepherd, 151–163. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Çağlayan, Handan. 2014. Same home, different languages. Intergenerational language shift: Tendencies, limitations, opportunities. The case of Diyarbakır. Translated from Turkish by Leyla TonguÇ Basmaci. Diyarbakır: DISA Publications.

10 

Y. Matras et al.

Dorleijn, Margreet. 1996. The decay of ergativity in Kurdish. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press. Elšík, Viktor, and Yaron Matras. 2006. Markedness and language change. The Romani sample. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Fattah, Muhammad Maruf. 1997. A generative grammar of Kurdish. PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam. Fattah, Ismail K. 2000. Les dialectes kurdes méridionaux: Etude linguistique et dialectologique. Acta Iranica 37. Leuven: Peeters. Fossum, L.O. 1919. A practical Kurdish grammar with English phonetic pronunciation exercises for translation into Kurdish, short stories illustrating Kurdish composition and syntax, and vocabulary. Minneapolis. Gündoğdu, Songül. 2018. Argument-adjunct distinction in Kurmanji Kurdish. PhD dissertation, Bogazici University, Istanbul. Gündoğdu, Songül, Ergin Öpengin, Geoffrey Haig, and Erik Anonby. 2019. Introduction. In Current issues in Kurdish linguistics, ed. Songül Gündoğdu, Ergin Öpengin, Geoffrey Haig, and Erik Anonby, 1–8. Bamberg: University of Bamberg Press. Haig, Geoffrey. 2008. Alignment change in Iranian languages. A construction grammar approach. Berlin: De Gruyter. ———. 2017. Deconstructing Iranian ergativity. In The Oxford handbook of ergativity, ed. Jessica Coon, Diane Massam, and Lisa Travis, 465–500. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 2018. Northern Kurdish (Kurmanji). In The languages and linguistics of Western Asia. An areal perspective, ed. Geoffrey Haig and Geoffrey Khan, 106–158. Berlin: De Gruyter. Haig, Geoffrey, and Necle Bulut. 2017. Hearing, speaking, looking and learning: A pilot study of lexical variation across Kurmanji Kurdish. Wiener Jahrbuch für kurdische Studien 5: 99–109. Haig, Geoffrey, and Yaron Matras. 2002. Kurdish linguistics: A brief overview. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung / Language Typology and Universals 55 (1): 3–14. Haig, Geoffrey, and Ergin Öpengin. 2018. Kurmanji Kurdish in Turkey: Structure, varieties and status. In Linguistic minorities in Turkey and Turkic-­ speaking minorities of the peripheries, ed. Christiane Bulut, 157–229. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Hassanpour, Amir. 1992. Nationalism and language in Kurdistan, 1918–1985. San Francisco: Mellen Research University Press.

 Introduction 

11

Hassanpour, Amir, Tove Skutnabb-Kangas, and Michael Chyet. 1996. The non-­ education of Kurds: A Kurdish perspective. International Review of Education 42: 367–379. Jamison, Kelda. 2016. Hefty dictionaries in incomprehensible tongues: Commensurating code and language community in Turkey. Anthropological Quarterly 89: 31–62. Karimi, Yadgar. 2007. Kurdish Ezafe construction: Implications for DP structure. Lingua 117 (12): 2159–2177. ———. 2014. On the syntax of ergativity in Kurdish. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 50 (3): 231–271. Mann, Oskar, and Karl Hadank. 1930. Kurdisch-persische Forschungen, Abteilung III, Band 2: Mundarten der Gûrân, besonders das Kändûläî, Auramânî und Bâdschaälânî, bearbeitet von Karl Hadank. Berlin: De Gruyter. ———. 1932. Kurdisch-persische Forschungen Abteilung III. Band 4: Mundarten der Zaza. Berlin: De Gruyter. Matras, Yaron. 2018. Duly verified? Language analysis in UK asylum applications of Syrian refugees. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 25 (1): 53–78. ———. 2019. Revisiting Kurdish dialect geography: Findings from the Manchester database. In Current issues in Kurdish linguistics, ed. Geoffrey Haig, Ergin Öpengin, and Songül Gündoğdu, 225–241. Bamberg: Bamberg University Press. Matras, Yaron, and Gertrud Reershemius. 1991. Standardisation beyond the state: The cases of Yiddish, Kurdish and Romani. In Standardization of national languages, ed. Utta von Gleich and Ekkehard Wolf, 103–123. Hamburg: UNESCO Institute of Education Reports 5. Matras, Yaron, Christopher White, and Viktor Elšík. 2009. The RMS database and web resource. In Linguistic databases, ed. Martin Everaert and Simon Musgrave, 329–362. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. McCarus, Ernest. 1958. A Kurdish grammar: Descriptive analysis of the Kurdish of Sulaimaniya, Iraq. New York: American Council of Learned Societies. Öpengin, Ergin. 2012. Sociolinguistic situation of Kurdish in Turkey: Sociopolitical factors and language use patterns. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 217: 151–180. Öpengin, Ergin, and Geoffrey Haig. 2014. Regional variation in Kurmanji: A preliminary classification of dialects. Kurdish Studies 2 (2): 143–176. Prym, E., and A. Socin. 1887. Kurdische Sammlungen, Erzählungen und Lieder in den Dialekten des Tūr ‘Abdin. St. Petersburg.

12 

Y. Matras et al.

———. 1890. Kurdische Sammlungen, Erzählungen und Lieder in den Dialekten des Tūr ‘Abdin und von Bohtan. St. Petersburg. Rhea, Samuel. 1872–1880. Brief grammar and vocabulary of the Kurdish language of the Hakari District. Journal of the American Oriental Society 10: 118–155. Sheyholislami, Jaffer. 2011. Kurdish identity, discourse, and new media. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Skutnabb-Kangas, Tove, and Sertac Bucak. 1994. Killing a mother tongue  – How the Kurds are deprived of linguistic human rights. In Linguistic human rights. Overcoming linguistic discrimination, ed. Tove Skutnabb-Kangas and Robert Phillipson, 347–370. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. van Bruinessen, Martin. 1992. Agha, Shaikh and state: The social and political structures of Kurdistan. London: Zed Books. Wahbi, Tawfiq. 1929. Destûrî zimanî kurdî. Baghdad: al-Hadith.

Lexical Variation and Semantic Change in Kurdish Jaffer Sheyholislami and Rahim Surkhi

1 Introduction Recent years have witnessed a burgeoning interest in investigating variation across the linguistic varieties collectively known as Kurdish. This chapter examines lexical variation across Kurdish language varieties including NK, CK, SK, Hawrami/Gorani, and Zazaki, another major variety often included under the wider umbrella of ‘Kurdish’, but which is not represented in the MDKD.  This chapter also complements the MDKD coverage in this respect (see Fig.  1). We explore variation in about a dozen every-day lexical expressions from four categories: persons (‘child’, ‘girl/daughter’, ‘boy/son’), environment/nature (‘mountain’, ‘river’, ‘snow’), colour (‘green’ and ‘red’) and technological-lexical innovation (‘factory’). Our main interest is not to weigh in on the debate over which Kurdish varieties exist, which ones can be viewed as separate languages, or whether they or which ones comprise a historical Kurdish J. Sheyholislami (*) • R. Surkhi Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 Y. Matras et al. (eds.), Structural and Typological Variation in the Dialects of Kurdish, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78837-7_2

13

14 

J. Sheyholislami and R. Surkhi

Fig. 1  Kurdish variety groups map

dialect continuum (Assaf and Abdulrahman 2015; Haig and Öpengin 2014; Hama Khurshid 2018; Hassanpour 1992, 1998; Matras 2019; Öpengin and Haig 2014). Instead, we wish to explore the nature of variation among the selected items across these Kurdish varieties to illustrate how this observed lexical variation has consequences for Kurdish dialectology and lexicology. We will discuss not only the lexical items’ linguistic properties, but also their historical, socio-cultural, and geographical significance. While we acknowledge that investigations of phonology, morphology, and syntax have proven very fruitful in dialectology, we aim to show that the study of lexical variation and their semantic change is also crucial in our understanding of language variation (Arlotto 1972; Campbell 2013). We begin by presenting our theoretical assumptions about language change in general, as well as extra-linguistic factors motivating change, followed by a brief discussion of semantic change. We then introduce our methodology, and describe our data, and explain how and why we complemented the MDKD data with our own. Subsequently,

  Lexical Variation and Semantic Change in Kurdish 

15

we elaborate on how our own knowledge as native speakers of CK plays an important role in our observations and interpretations. After presenting our observations of the geographical distribution of each lexical item, we will conclude with a discussion of our findings.

2 Overview of Previous Research Although there has been some interest in investigating variation in Kurdish in recent years, the study of lexical variation has been meagre. In descriptive linguistics literature published in Kurdish, there has been limited research on dialectal variation (Bassir 1984; Bassir et al. 1987; Assaf and Abdulrahman 2015), and none have focused on lexical variation and semantic change in any significant way, nor have any of the sources intended to assess the extent and nature of variation. With the aim of creating Zimanî Neteweyî Kurdî (‘the Kurdish national language’), Bassir (1984) compares lexical items from Central Kurdish (also known as Sorani, henceforth CK) and Lori, which he labels a Southern Kurdish (henceforth SK) variety. He perceives the existence of lexical variation as an obstacle to the Kurdish national language and focuses more on similarities among Kurdish varieties (p. 74). Bassir et al. (1987) have compiled a textbook entitled Zare Kurdîyekan (Kurdish Dialects) for students in the Kurdish Department of Salahaddin University with the objective of creating a unified literary Kurdish language by comparing four language varieties that fall under the umbrella of Kurdish: CK, Northern Kurdish (also referred to as Kurmanji, henceforth NK), SK and Hawrami in terms of phonology, morphology and syntax (p. 3). From the outset the authors postulate that the main task of all Kurdish linguists, including the authors of the current publication, is to develop and enrich a ‘unified Kurdish language’ – based on CK – and the most scientific way to do so is to compare Kurdish dialects with the goal of recording and implementing similar features and to analyse but then harmonize differences (p. 3). Finally, employing the wave theory and the concept of dialect continuum, Assaf and Abdulrahman (2015) compare selected phonological, morphological and syntactic features to establish the claim that the regional dialect of the Soran region in Iraq, including Erbil

16 

J. Sheyholislami and R. Surkhi

(K. Hewlêr) and Rowanduz (K. Rewandiz) is a transitional area between Badini and the rest of the CK regions, for example, Sulaymaniyah (K.  Silêmanî). Similar to all Kurdish sources that we are aware of this study backgrounds the significance of variation in Kurdish and maintains that regardless of the degree of differences between Kurdish regional varieties, they are dialects of the Kurdish language, and that even if attention is paid to their differences, it must be in the service of the creation and development of a unified literary Kurdish language. This bias towards the standard Kurdish language has also affected the quality of lexicography in Kurdish (Chyet 2003, p. vii). Many Kurdish dictionaries have deliberately purged words of Arabic, Persian and Turkish origins and have replaced them with newly coined Kurdish terms (Hassanpour 2012). These dictionaries are highly prescriptive. Other dictionaries, for example, Hejar’s Hanbane Borine (1990), have made an attempt to include Kurdish words in use regardless of their origins or presence in literary standard varieties. However, since the lexicographer does not include etymological or dialectal information about any of the entries, such dictionaries may not be helpful in studying lexical variation either. In contrast, there are descriptive dictionaries that record Kurdish vocabulary in use regardless of their origin, identify the dialect sources of lamas and their synonyms, and provide etymological information, for example, Chyet (2003), Nanvazadeh (2017, 2020a, b), and Zabihi (1988). These dictionaries can be very useful and reliable sources of data for studying lexical variation. In fact, in this chapter, we have made several references to Chyet (2003) and Nanvazadeh’s multi-volume dictionary. Mackenzie (1961a), who conducted his research in Kurdistan-Iraq in the late 1950s, is the first important English-language work on Kurdish dialect geography. Comparing phonological, morphological, and syntactic features of Kurdish varieties in over a dozen locations helped him to identify a general division between NK and CK variety groups. At the same time, he identified several features distinguishing the varieties spoken in the Soran region, with Erbil as its centre, from the dialects of Sulaymaniyah, Warmawa, and Halabja. However, MacKenzie’s focus was not on lexical variation nor was his work extended to Kurdish-speaking communities outside Iraq. Building on MacKenzie (1961b), Leezenberg (1993) reinforces the suggestion that some of the differences between CK

  Lexical Variation and Semantic Change in Kurdish 

17

and SK, on the one hand, and NK, on the other, are due to the Gorani variety’s influence on the former varieties. Revisiting the linguistic features in question (e.g. the passive voice), in addition to lexical items (e.g. ‘green’ and ‘black’) (p. 16), Leezenberg argues that the influence does not constitute substratum but ‘prestige borrowing’ (p. 20). Of more relevance to our chapter is the observation made by both MacKenzie and Leezenberg that Gorani (represented by Hawrami in our dataset) shares many more lexical items with CK and SK than with NK. Lexical borrowing is also the focus of Hasanpoor’s research (1999), who examines lexical borrowing in CK from the state languages of the region, especially Arabic and Farsi. He relies mostly on data collected from poems by two prominent contemporary CK poets: Hemin and Hejar. He concludes that lexical borrowing in CK reflects ‘the complexity of the linguistic life of a people divided by international borders, dialects, nation-states, and political movements, but at the same time subjected to the pressures of the dominant languages, Arabic, Farsi, and Turkish’ (p. 162). Many examples in this chapter illustrate the validity of this point. The studies we have reviewed here thus far have mostly focused on CK. Öpengin and Haig (2014) provide an initial classification of NK varieties based on lexical, phonological, and morphosyntactic data gathered from five regions in south-eastern Turkey. Their data includes 33 items concerning lexical change, most of which are verbs with variants across NK.  Among other things, their results show that the Southeastern Kurmanji (SEK) variety, which includes Badini here taken in a larger linguistic sense rather than a geographic-administrative entity restricted to Duhok, has the lowest number of lexical items in common with other NK varieties, especially the ones spoken in the Kahramanmaraş (K. Meraş), Malatya (K. Meletî), and Sivas (K. Sêwaz) regions of Turkey. In many respects, the lexicon of SEK reflects its geographic proximity to CK (p. 164). Overall, when comparing NK dialects, Öpengin and Haig observe that regional dialects that are geographically closer to each other share the greatest number of lexical cognates. This explains some of the similarities that Assaf and Abdulrahman (2015) identify between Badini and the CK variety spoken in the adjacent region of Erbil and Rawanduz. However, whereas Asaf and Abdulrahman take these similarities as evidence of a historical

18 

J. Sheyholislami and R. Surkhi

NK and CK dialect continuum, Öpengin and Haig (2014) believe that a number of the similarities are contact related, due to the physical proximity of the two regions. They also acknowledge that the geographical proximity is also reflected in the varieties’ linguistic similarity. This observation is reinforced in Matras (2019), who focuses on structural analysis of Kurdish varieties based on the Manchester Database survey. In accordance with the principle that ‘it is innovation that creates differences among related varieties, and that individual innovations differ in the extent to their geographical spread, and so there are no predetermined dialect boundaries’ (p. 230), Matras (2019) confirms McKenzie’s (1961a) suggestion that there is a ‘Great Divide’ between the NK and CK dialects on either side of the Great Zab River. However, Matras (2019) also accounts for several lexical features that transcend the Great Divide and concurs with Öpengin and Haig (2014) that ‘the Kurmanji frontier dialects are subject to Sorani influence’ (p. 232). We will show that many of these observations turn out to be relevant to our study. Another study, which is directly related to our chapter, was conducted by Haig and Bulut (2017), who focus on vocabulary and semantic aspects of vocabulary, albeit in the NK context only. They examined variation in verbal expressions for the concepts ‘speak’, ‘hear’, ‘look at’, and ‘learn’ as a way of documenting lexical variation and illustrating their geographic distribution (p. 100). Combining their online collected data with that of the Manchester Database of Kurdish Dialects (MDKD), they inventoried between six and nine variants for each of the four verbal expressions, and concluded that ‘all four concepts are represented by a large number of distinct lexical variants across Kurmanji’ (p. 107). However, they also note that most of the expressions are not based on native verbal lexemes: these are either light verb constructions (e.g. xeber dan ‘speak’) or borrowed (e.g. alimtin ‘learn’). A further relevant finding by Haig and Bulut (2017) is the observation that this lexical variation is unevenly spread. For example, there are verbal concepts such as ‘see’ that are represented by the same cognate dîtin across NK-speaking regions. On the other hand, other verbal concepts (e.g. ‘speak’) display significant variation. The reason behind this difference, they suggest, could be a historical accident or it could be due to semantic or other dynamics (p. 108). Haig and Bulut (2017) do not offer explanations for most of the variation but they

  Lexical Variation and Semantic Change in Kurdish 

19

document the range of variation. Apart from speculating on the possible lack of inherited lexemes for some of the concepts (‘learn’, for example), they cannot explain why some concepts are realized through so many diverse lexical items, while others (‘see’, for example) have basically the same cognate across all varieties. An important point underlying this finding is the fact that not all lexical variation cases are readily explainable. We will show several examples of this.

3 Theoretical Underpinnings Language is characterized by ‘orderly heterogeneity’ in the sense that ‘variation is not random but strictly controlled, often by extra-linguistic factors’ (McMahon 1994, p. 226; see also Singleton 2000). These factors include: geographical features; social class; gender; context and cultural beliefs; and, in the case of Kurdish, one can also add urbanization, population movement, political turmoil, and socio-cultural changes over the past several decades. Although we should not dismiss the internal dynamics of language responsible for various linguistic changes, it is these extralinguistic factors that are often responsible for lexical variation, especially semantic change that ‘concerns the changes in lexicon or vocabulary, the most variable and shifting part of any language’ (Arlotto 1972, p. 165; emphasis in original). We will discuss some of these factors in more detail in a subsequent section of this chapter. We assume that lexical change takes place at two levels: form and meaning (Anttila 1989; Johnson 1996; Traugott and Dasher 2002; Geeraerts 2010). Furthermore, there are two perspectives in the literature – semasiology and onomasiology – from which these changes can be viewed. Semasiology involves studying various meanings of a single form, while onomasiology involves examining one meaning which manifests itself in different forms (Anttila 1989; Johnson 1996). An example of semasiology is how the semantic domain of the English word ‘queen’, which originally meant wife and/or woman, was narrowed to ‘king’s wife, or female sovereign’ (Geeraerts 2010, p.  27). Onomasiology, on the other hand, focuses on the development or restructuring of coded representations of a particular domain, such as

20 

J. Sheyholislami and R. Surkhi

colour (Traugott and Dasher 2002, p. 25) as seen in multiple synonyms for ‘green’ in Kurdish: kesk/kesik, şîn/heşîn, and sewz/sebiz/sebz. In addition to these language-internal changes, new lexical expressions in a variety can be borrowed from another language variety. When looking at occupational terms in relation to gender in NK, Haig and Öpengin (2015) illustrate that borrowings are not just external changes, but contribute towards the restructuring of semantic domains. Semantic change could also engender lexical variation. One reason for this might be the notion that ‘there is less resistance to change in the semantics than in other areas of the grammar, … so that meaning changes relatively easily and quickly’ (McMahon 1994, p.  174; Arlotto 1972). The meaning of a word may become narrower (restricted), as in the example having to do with ‘queen’ in English, which was mentioned in the preceding paragraph, or broader (extended) in scope because of semantic change. For example, the word mesîne in CK and misîn or mesîn in NK, which means a ‘metal pitcher with long, narrow neck’ (Chyet 2003, p. 392), originally meant ‘copper’ or a ‘pitcher with long, narrow neck that was made of copper’. Today, however, one can use the term to refer to any long-spouted water pitcher regardless of its composition, whether it is made of metal, plastic, or clay. Paradoxically, when speakers use a word in several contexts, that word provides more meaning about an idea within the restricted context. However, the opposite behaviour can be seen with extension (McMahon 1994, pp. 178–179). Other types of semantic change include pejoration and amelioration. In CK, ker used to be a very productive suffix to create human agent: nan-ker ‘bread+ker=baker’, raw+ker ‘hunt+ker=hunter’, şerr+ker ‘fight+ker=figher’, and so on. However, ker as a noun means donkey, which symbolizes stupidity in Kurdish culture. Because of this, there is a tendency to overlook ker and instead use kar ‘work’ and other suffixes (e.g. fêr+kar ‘stem of learn+kar=trainer’) to coin standardized Kurdish terms. Amelioration can be viewed as the opposite of this, as the value assigned to a lexical item instead increases over time. For example, in English, the word ‘knight’ originally meant ‘boy, servant’, alluding to a much lower social position than what it currently enjoys (Geeraerts 2010, p. 28).

  Lexical Variation and Semantic Change in Kurdish 

21

As stated earlier, language variation is closely connected to geographical or environmental, historical, and socio-political factors (Chambers and Trudgill 2004; Mesthrie et al. 2000). The importance of geographical features in marking regional dialect boundaries and engendering lexical variation is well known (Trudgill 2000, pp. 23–24). Social class can also motivate or influence certain manifestations of variation (ibid.). For example, in the Mahabad and Bukan (K.  Bokan) regions, it was once relatively easy to distinguish between the patterns of language use of peasants and that of landowners, especially those who were educated and had aristocratic and/or religious ties. While, for example, peasants would simply say a or ay and na for English ‘yes’ and ‘no’ respectively, landowners would say bełê and nexêr (following Farsi’s belê and nexeir), signifying a higher social prestige. In the same region, one can use at least two honorifics for women: xat and xanim. Whereas the former is for women with lower socio-economic backgrounds, the latter is reserved for women who are more educated and enjoy a higher socio-economic status. In addition, gender is another meaningful factor in lexical variation. For example, one of the meanings of the word kaban in CK is female cook, and it is never used for a male cook possibly due to the fact that it means ‘matron, mistress of a house, housewife’ (Chyet 2003, p. 312). Instead, one may use the Farsi aşpez (in Iran) or the English/French şêf (in Iraq). Language variation is also context related. For example, in the Mukri variety, depending on context, one may invite someone to talk about something with the imperative biłê or the more formal fermû (or when making reference to the past, kutit or gutit ‘you said’ vs. fermût ‘you stated’ or even fermûtan ‘you-plural stated’). A teacher or student in Kurdistan-Iraq, where Kurdish is an official language, may use a standard Kurdish language free of Arabic vocabulary in school that is different from what would be heard in their household or at the market. Thus, whereas students in school often call their teachers mamosta, the same students outside school may refer to their teachers using the Arabic words mu’allim or ustaz. Population movement, whether forceful or voluntary, has become characteristic of Kurdish-speaking areas and has made the Kurdish language landscape diverse and heteroglossic. Furthermore, a society’s diversity in cultural beliefs and social norms could be a cause for lexical variation. For

22 

J. Sheyholislami and R. Surkhi

example, in most sub-dialects of CK, ‘brother-in-law’ is called jinbira (wife+brother=brother of wife). However, in a variety of CK spoken in the Erbil region, the same person is referred to as kurî xezûr ‘the son of fatherin-law’ because in this variety, it is more important for speakers to indicate who the father-in-law is than who the brother-­in-­law is.

4 Method The main source of data used in this chapter is the Manchester Database of Kurdish Dialects (MDKD) (Matras et  al. 2016). We have collected Kurdish equivalents for several English lexical items from four categories: persons (‘child’, ‘girl/daughter’, ‘boy/son’), environment/nature (‘mountain’, ‘river’, ‘snow’), and colour (‘green’ and ‘red’). The ninth item (‘factory’) can be categorized as modern and contemporary, referring to items or constructs that are from a time after Kurdish-speaking areas started to be ruled by states with different national languages. We will show that variation patterns with these modern lexical items are different from other items under investigation here. We generated several Excel files from the MDKD, each containing variants of the specific words we had chosen. With these data, we generated maps using the open-source GIS software QGIS (https://qgis.org). Each map illustrates several pieces of information: differently shaped data points represent varieties of words that are distinct from one another but express the same concept (e.g. ‘child’); the numbers within each datapoint represent the ranked frequency of each variety’s surface forms, with 1 representing the most frequent form; and the names of selected settlements. We have also identified significant isoglosses. Isoglosses can be useful in demonstrating how language variation is closely connected to various factors discussed above. The variations for each word are shown in the legend, which organizes them according to their word-initial phonemes (e.g. B variety encompasses lexical variants that start with the sound /b/ and/or its phonological variation, such as /w/ in the case of befir, berif, wefir). Such maps are important in providing a clear picture of the distribution of lexical items throughout different regions of Kurdistan and breathing new life into data otherwise only available in

  Lexical Variation and Semantic Change in Kurdish 

23

spreadsheets (Mühlhäusler 2011). It is worth noting that the MDKD is accompanied by a comprehensive map resource on the same website that shows much of the data variants, including lexicon and lexico-phonology. While some of our maps overlap with those, many of the items we have chosen do not, making our choice of maps complementary. Tables 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 (see Appendix) show how frequently the variants of each word occur in the data provided by the MDKD. Each variant’s classification is shown in the Lexical Expression column; the actual forms of each variant are shown in the Item column; the following column shows the number which corresponds to that variant’s location on the map or figure; the number in the next column corresponds to how often they occur; and the percentage of the occurrence of each form of the particular variant is shown in the % Total column. Different forms that occur with the same frequency are placed in the same row. We faced several challenges in collecting data from the MDKD. First, despite our best intentions, we could not gather lexical items from just a single domain, such as colours or kinship, because the database did not contain enough items for each domain. Since we needed to gather items from at least three domains plus a ‘modern world’ concept, it might be more difficult to generalize our findings. The second challenge is that the data are not equally reported across all geographical areas. For example, the most common expression for ‘river’ in the Mukri region, which is çom, has not been recorded in that area. Similarly, surprising items are found particularly with respect to the data from CK and SK.  Possible mistakes in the MDKD could have been made in either the data collection or transcription processes.1 To overcome these challenges, we have drawn on two other sources as well. First, we have relied on our own knowledge of various Kurdish varieties, as we are both native speakers of CK and have lived in both Iran and Iraq, and as such have some working knowledge of NK, Hawrami, and SK. Second, for the purposes of this chapter, we solicited information from 27 people both online and offline who came from different parts of Kurdistan. The majority of them were male and between 35 and 60 years of age (see Table 1). We presented them with the lexical items (e.g. ‘child’) and asked them about their equivalents in their mother tongue and where that variety was spoken. This information is not

24 

J. Sheyholislami and R. Surkhi

plotted on the maps in this chapter unless specified otherwise. However, we will draw on it when we interpret and explain our description of the data generated from the MDKD database. Our aim of doing this is twofold: on the one hand we want to enrich our own interpretations, and on the other, we want to be able to account for anomalies and puzzling cases in the MDKD data. Finally, a note on transcription: in this chapter we employ the same transcription styles used by the MDKD database whether we report on the data from this source or from our own informants. Isoglosses here are not meant to indicate clear boundaries between dialects but rather to emphasize lexical distributions and the clustering of lexical variation.

5 Results In this section, we first describe the lexical distribution of each item based on the MDKD data. Then, to make further observations and interpretations, and to probe puzzling cases, we refer to the information we have obtained from our own volunteer participants.

5.1 ‘Child’ Figure 2 shows a relatively clear pattern of the distribution of four lexical expressions for ‘child’: minał, biçîk, zarok, and zawłe. In the following sections, we refer to the lexical expression minał as M variant, biçîk as B variant, and so forth. What we refer to as the M variant comes in three major forms: minał, mindał, and mindar. The former is the most frequent variant and is used exclusively in Central and SK. In almost all Ardelani (e.g. as found in Sanandaj, Saqqez, Kamyaran, Marivan), Babani (e.g. in Sulaymaniyah, Halabja), Germiyani (e.g. in Kirkuk and Southern Kermanshah)-speaking regions, the voiced alveolar stop /d/, also known as the ‘Zagros d’ (Mccarus 2009, p. 597) is dropped in several environments. For example, it goes through complete assimilation following nasals /m/ and /n/ as in qend -> qen ‘sugar cube’, chend -> chen ‘how much’, and mindał -> minał

  Lexical Variation and Semantic Change in Kurdish 

25

Fig. 2  Child

‘child’ (McCarus 1958). It is safe to suggest that except for a thin area between Saqqez and Bukan, this phonological process is absent within the Mukri variety and other areas of CK north of Sulaymaniyah and Kirkuk in Iraq, and north of Saqqez and Baneh (K. Bane) in Iran. Mindał is used in the Mukri dialect in addition to the towns and areas along the Iraqi border such as Soran, Raniya, and Qalat Dizah (K.  Qeładizê). Although this is not the dominant form of the M variant, in recent years it has started to be preferred in the CK written standard on the grounds that minał is a phonological variation of mindał but not the other way around. Mindar is exclusively used in what we term here as the Soran region with the settlements of Erbil and Rowanduz as its centre. An interesting occurrence of the M variant is in Urmia (K. Wirmê), which is home to NK rather than CK. It is safe to say that mindał is not the default word for ‘child’ in that region but it could be a secondary occurrence. Another explanation is that Urmia, as the capital of the province, has attracted residents of other provincial towns, including those of

26 

J. Sheyholislami and R. Surkhi

the adjacent Mukri-speaking region, for whom mindał is the default word for ‘child’, for employment, education, and other means of achieving upper social mobility. Furthermore, since the 1980s, when Mahabad and other surrounding towns experienced armed conflict between the central government and the Kurdish oppositional groups, many speakers of the Mukri variety sought refuge in Urmia. Thus, the data for ‘child’ in Urmia can be explained by population movement. As shown in Fig. 2, the B variant, with biçîk as its most common form, is mostly used in the Badini speaking area and the neighbouring Hakkâri (K. Colemêrg) province of south-east Turkey. We shall call this region, following Öpengin and Haig (2014), Southeastern Kurmanji (SEK). Biçîk and its phonological variants effectively form an isogloss separating CK and NK from one another. An exception here is Zakho, where both biçîk and zarok are used, which could be for a variety of reasons. One is that it is located between the zarok and biçîk regions and thus behaves as a transitional area. Another reason is that, linguistically, Zakho shares more features with Cizre than the typical Badini variety, while at the same time it shares features with Duhok because administratively it is a part of the Duhok governorate. Biçîk has also been recorded in the town of Salahaddin (K. Pîrmam), which is much closer to Erbil than to the Badini-speaking region. The reason for this could be the fact that since 1992 the town has become a residential centre for people from the Barzan region further in the north on the border with Turkey, where a dialect of Badini Kurmanji is spoken. They now comprise the majority population. This phenomenon has also taken place in Soran, Diana, and to a lesser degree in Erbil. Finally, biçîk or biçuk simply means ‘small’ in most language varieties. In fact, biçûk with this meaning is quite common in standard CK, and can occur in several similar forms: çûk, çûke, çûkełe, çikołe, biçkołe, bîçkol, and so on. Thus, we can say that biçîk is a lexical fusion of the CK biçûk meaning ‘little’ or ‘small’. This leads us to make two final observations. First, this example may demonstrate Badini has been influenced by CK over the course of centuries. Second, the words for ‘child’, ‘boy’, and ‘girl’ are notorious for semantic change, hence relatively rapid replacements. There is a well-known semantic path according to which the word for ‘boy’ becomes the general term for ‘child’, which happened with Turkish

  Lexical Variation and Semantic Change in Kurdish 

27

çocuk. In Polish dzieciak ‘kid’ is derived from dziecko ‘child’ which could be considered a category in transition as it shows semantic characteristics of both ‘child’ and ‘boy’ (Grygiel 2004 p. 157). There are also cases where words for ‘child’ are derived from vocabularies denoting smallness like the Serbian mladič, which also means ‘youth’ (ibid.). A similar case in Kurdish will be explained in a subsequent section where the word kurrik or kurr meaning ‘son’ and/or ‘boy’ in most Kurdish speech varieties has become a generic word for child in the NK dialect spoken in Kâhta (K. Kolîk) (see also lawik in a subsequent section entitled ‘son/boy’). The Z variant is mostly found in Turkey and Syria with zarok as the dominant form. This also happens to be the preferred expression for ‘child’ in written standard Kurmanji. Overall, it seems that the Z variant has the greatest areal distribution, as it is not just found in NK speaking areas, but also throughout Kurdistan in general. For example, according to one informant from Çemshar, a region of Sanandaj, zarrûk and zarrûłe is also an acceptable form. Furthermore, although we cannot say for certain whether the Hawrami variants zawłe and zawłê are cognates of zarok, we suspect that they might be related. According to our participants, in Hawaraman they use zarołe and also its short version zaro in many villages including Tewêłe and Biyare, the largest settlements in Hawraman in Kurdistan-Iraq. In addition, the term zaro can also be found in Ilami Kurdish. Finally, although the dominant lexical expression among Badini speakers is the B variant (e.g. biçîk), in Mosul we encounter zarîk since the NK variety spoken there is Southern Kurmanji, which is also spoken in Mardin (K. Mêrdîn) and Qamishli. We finally hypothesize here that the cognate for all these lexical expressions is zar, which means ‘child’. Two main diminutives (i.e. -ok/−o/−ik and -ole/−ule/−le) with their own variants have populated this semantic domain with a wide range of lexical expressions. Sebî, which is Arabic for ‘child’, is used in the regions of Sîlvan and Karakoçan (K. Dep). In the case of Sîlvan, its occurrence can be explained by its physical proximity to the town Siirt where Arabic is still widely spoken. Another expression that was entirely new to these authors is ayl. Combining the MDKD data and our own knowledge, we can confirm that this expression for ‘child’ exists in the Khizli (K. Xizłî) variety of the Ilam region, in Laki speaking areas, in Harsin (K.  Hersîn), Sahneh

28 

J. Sheyholislami and R. Surkhi

(K. Seħne), and also among the Failis of Khanaqin. This term seems to have originated from the Arabic ayl which means ‘a family’ and is thus a case of restriction or narrowing in semantic change. Another noteworthy expression, which at least in this dataset seems to be unique to the Western Kurmanji region (i.e. Elbistan) (ibid.), is dêlik.2 This word means a ‘female dog’ (i.e. a bitch) in some other NK dialects (Chyet 2003, p.  147). This is also a derogatory term used to refer to females in many regions of CK, and occurs in different forms such as dêlik,3 dêlê, or dêle seg. Another variant that refers to the gender of ‘child’ is qiçik in Rajo and Jindires in northern Syria. Finally, there is giçke, which is used as an adjective in the phrase kiçî giçke to refer to ‘little girl’ in Dibis, and it is worth noting that giçke is also used in the Erbil area to mean ‘small’ and ‘little.’ The three areas where kurik, kurrik, and dêlik are used are adjacent to one another. Finally, a few of the expressions are odd: kurik in Gaziantap, and kurrik in Kâhta (K. Kolîk). Since both expressions can mean either ‘boy’ or ‘son’, one wonders if it is simply a misinterpretation by the informants. On the other hand, as discussed previously, this is likely an example of semasiology. To conclude, we find it noteworthy that while it is rare to see other Kurdish expressions for ‘child’ (e.g. bîçik/biçûk, minał/mindał) beyond their main geographical zone (Badinan and Mukri regions, respectively), variants of zarok are encountered not only throughout these NK-speaking areas but also in the Central, Southern, Hawrami/Gorani, and Zazaki zones.

5.2 ‘Girl/Daughter’ Throughout Kurdish-speaking areas there are three distinct lexical expressions for ‘girl/daughter’. Qîz is found particularly in the Northeastern and Northern Kurmanji zones in Turkey (Öpengin and Haig 2014) and its variants have been borrowed from the Turkish giz (kiz in the standard code) (Chyet 2003, p. 492). In addition, düwêt and its variants are used in SK. Kiç with about 17 variants, including kiçik (NK regions), kinaçî (Hawraman), kîj (Rowanduz), and kenîşk (Sanandaj), is used throughout the region. Other lexical expressions recorded in the MDKD database for

  Lexical Variation and Semantic Change in Kurdish 

29

Fig. 3  Girl

‘girl/daughter’ include qüak and pîz, which we have found difficult to rationalize. In addition, our informants from the Kermanshah region could not confirm that they have heard of qüak. One possibility is that it is a transcription mistake for düwêt, and similarly pîz for qîz (Fig. 3). Aside from this description, a few observations can be made in relation to düwêt, düet, or dêt, which have cognates in Indo-European languages including English (daughter), Swedish (dotter), and Farsi (dokhtar). While one may expect the word to be used not just in Kermanshah but also throughout other Kurdish speaking regions, this is not the case. Based on our analyses, however, we suggest the word was used historically throughout Kurdish speaking areas, but gradually went through semantic changes because of the emergence of competitors. In a number of CK dialects (e.g. Mukri), the item is a cognate for do, a girl or woman who is partaking in a traditional Kurdish group dance.4 When the form dot changes its relevance from signifying ‘girl’, an absolute noun, to ‘dance girl’ in CK, a relational noun, we observe a case of semasiological change or more

30 

J. Sheyholislami and R. Surkhi

specifically an instance of metonymy. Here, the meaning of the word has been restricted to a female who dances holding the hands of male dancers, and at the same time, it is irrelevant whether she is married or not, whereas in Kalhuri, the word is reserved for females who are young and unmarried regardless of the activity in which they are involved. The forms düwêt, düet, or dêt are also common in the regions between Bokan and Shahindezh (K.  Sainqeła) where one can hear the expression ‘dayik bibîne u dote bixwaze’ ‘see the mother first then ask for the girl’s hand’. Interestingly, the word seems to have had the same fate in NK. In many NK-speaking-regions it is common to encounter ‘dot-mam’ (a female cousin from the father’s side), ‘dot-xal’ (a female cousin from the mother’s side), and ‘dot-mîr’ ‘princess.’ As far as we are aware in our findings, the use of dot to denote ‘girl/daughter’ is not commonly used on its own, at least not in daily language. The fact that Cigerxwîn, a Kurdish poet, used this word in his poems suggests that this word might have been in use around the Mardin and Amûd areas several decades ago (Deniz Ekici, Personal communication, April 19, 2018).5 Overall, in NK and CK, it is rare to hear variations of dot/ do on their own to mean ‘girl’ or ‘daughter’. Given this, it is safe to suggest that variants of dot were more widespread in earlier stages of Kurdish, but the process of replacement must have involved competitor items (e.g. the K variant) which acquired a more general meaning, and dot either became restricted to specialist niches, or disappeared entirely in other regions. Johnson (1996, p. 102) suggests that ‘when concepts have an excessive number of words that can be used to describe them, the set of synonyms becomes too crowded and some of them drop out of use’ (see also Anttila 1989, p. 102). This would explain why they remain in compounds like ‘dot-mam’. Another interesting point is that according to the MDKD, in Mahabad, ‘girl/daughter’ is rendered differently (i.e. kiç) from other Mukri regions such as Bukan and Oshnaviyeh (K. Şino) (kits). On the one hand, this is surprising when we know that /ts/ is the dominant allophone of /ç/ in Mahabad (see Öpengin 2016). Based on media reports (e.g. Fotoohi 2010) and these authors’ close observation of language change and development in that region, it is safe to suggest that as part of the ongoing influence of Farsi, especially among educated populations and in urban centres, lexical, discursive, and particularly phonological changes have become more pronounced recently. Among these include a change from

  Lexical Variation and Semantic Change in Kurdish 

31

/ç/ (as in çêw ‘mountain’) to /k/, a change from /dj/ (as in giya ‘plant’) to /g/, and less frequently a change from /ts/ (as in kits ‘girl/daughter’) to /ç/. Finally, there is something peculiar about the variant kîj, which, according to the MDKD, has only been recorded in Rowanduz. It is safe to suggest that the lexeme is commonly used in other parts of the Sorani region such as Erbil, Sulaymaniyah, Germiyan, Mukriyan, and Ardelan. In addition, and for reasons unknown to us, it is perhaps the most frequently used lexeme to mean ‘girl’ (less frequently ‘daughter’) in Kurdish literature, songs, and ballets regardless of the authors’ or artists’ origins. Thus, we can say that kîj is an example of ameliorative change in which the semantic position of a form is elevated by, for example, acquiring an emotive meaning in literature.

5.3 ‘Son/Boy’ The lexical expression for ‘son/boy’ with the widest areal distribution is kurr, with over ten variants ranging from kurik to zarokê kurrîn. Except for western NK (e.g. Elbistan), it is used throughout Kurdistan and south and east of Kermanshah. It is also used in the Zazaki and Hawrami varieties. According to Nanvazadeh’s Dictionary of Kurdish Etymology (2020b), the expression has cognates in the forms of the Proto-Iranian kaur and kur to mean ‘origin’ and ‘blood-related’. Equivalents for the word in other Iranian languages include korr in Bakhtiari, kor in Luri, kula ‘kid’ in Mazandarani, kula in Tati, and kurr in Sivandi, spoken in north-west Shiraz, Iran. Interestingly, variants of kurr have not found their way into standard Farsi, where pesar is the common lexical expression. However, traces of pesar can be found in Kurmanji pis ‘male child or boy’ (Farqînî 2011, p.493) and pismam ‘male cousin, from the father’s side’ (ibid., p.494) or pisaxa ‘a male descendant of a landowner/lord’ used in the Hakkari region. To the best of our knowledge such traces are not present in CK or SK. This is different when it comes to the term ‘girl/daughter’ as previously discussed (Fig. 4). The second most frequently encountered lexical expression for ‘boy/ son’ is lawik, which is used exclusively in NK-speaking regions. Compared to the word kurr, it is less frequent, but it is noteworthy that Öpengin and Haig (2014) identify it being used across NK regional varieties. It

32 

J. Sheyholislami and R. Surkhi

Fig. 4  Boy/Son

should be noted that in both NK and CK the lexeme law means ‘young’. We suggest that this is the root for lawik (law+ik=small youth); ik being the diminutive suffix. This is another example of a generalized meaning ‘young’, originally applicable to both genres, narrowing to a meaning that only applies to young males. Two lexemes recorded in the MDKD are difficult to explain: zarok and bav used in Rimêlan, a town in the al-Hasakah (K. Heseke) Governorate in northeast Syria, bab used in in Duhok, and bawuk used in Kirkuk and Khanaqin. We know that zarok means ‘child’ and bab means ‘father’, but it is also a sign of affection towards a boy when he is called by this name. In fact, in the authors’ region (Mukri) fathers commonly call their sons ‘babekem’, ‘bab î min/xom’, ‘bab î babekem’, or ‘babelê’ (to mean ‘my father’ with some semantic variation). Similarly, it is also common to call a girl or daughter ‘daikekem’ ‘my mother’, or ‘xuşkekem’ ‘my sister’. The expression genc, which is used in Sulaymaniyah, is borrowed from Turkish genç to mean ‘young male’ which is another example of semantic

  Lexical Variation and Semantic Change in Kurdish 

33

change from ‘young (general)’ > ‘young male’. However, it is noteworthy that the region uses the word to mean ‘boy/son’ instead. Other much less frequent expressions include civan ‘youth’, sebiyê lawik ‘older child’, minał ‘child’, and gede ‘boy’ in Muradiye and Bêgirî. The expression gede, according to our informant from Urmia, carries negative connotation.

5.4 ‘Mountain’ According to the MDKD, there are four variants of lexical expressions for ‘mountain’ with the widest areal distribution: (1) çiya and related variants, such as çîya and tsiya; (2) çêw and other variants such as kêw, kiyêf, and kü; (3) şax, and (4) k’aş and/or kiş with a narrower distribution localized in Hawraman. While in most of the Mukri region the word ‘mountain’ occurs as çêw, we have not grouped this with the Ç variety (e.g. çiya) because çêw is a variation of kêw, kêf, and kü. In the Mukri variety, /k/ is palatalized before close front and close-mid front vowels such as /ê/ and /î/. As Öpengin (2016, p. 42) notes, ‘with most of the speakers, and especially in spontaneous non-controlled speech’, /k/ is ‘pronounced as alveo-­ palatal affricate [ç]’ (Fig. 5). Number 1 is used throughout NK dialectic regions in addition to the CK region of the Erbil governorate, likely due to its geographical proximity to the Badini-speaking area. It is also used in Sulaymaniyah, albeit less frequently, where as an example, one can hear ‘Çîyay Ezmer’ ‘The Azmar Mountain’ looking over the city. However, another mountain similarly looking over the city is not called ‘Çiyay Goyje’ but ‘Şaxî Goyje’. A similar example is encountered in the Mukri region where between Mahabad and Sardasht a mountain is called Çîyay Nistan (Nistan Mountain). In our opinion, çîya, along with its variants, does not seem to be indigenous to CK (including the Sulaymaniyah and Mukri varieties), or it has not been used for a long time. To the best of our knowledge, it is rare to come across the word in classical literature from those regions. For example, Nali and his contemporary Salim use the word only once in their collections of poems. Interestingly enough, it is believed that the poem in which Nali uses the world çîya was written in Istanbul (Nali 1976, p. 127). We can also encounter çîya in the works of modernist poets such

34 

J. Sheyholislami and R. Surkhi

Fig. 5  Mountain

as Haji Qadir Koyî (1817–1897) who travelled to Istanbul and was in contact with Kurmanji intellectuals including the Badirkhan family. In one of his poems, he writes: ‘Le girmegirmî şehab u le hajeyî baran / çiyaye pirr le hera u nuwalle pirr le seda’ (From the thunder of clouds and the patter of the rain / the mountains are filled with cries and the plains with sound) (Haji Qadir 1986, p. 31). In Kurdistan-Iran, except for the Northern Kurmanji region around Urmia, Khoy, Maku, and Salmas, it is almost impossible to encounter the word çiya, even in written texts, until the 1940s, when pan-Kurdish nationalist ideas emerged prior to and during the Kurdistan republic (1945–1946). From the 1960s onwards, the word started to become a household lexeme for CK writers and poets: ‘Şerreba ye le çiyakan u hewa tŭşe, dena / wekû şĕtan demwîst rŭ le çiyay estem kem’ (The winds are fighting in the mountains and the weather is inclement, if not / I would have headed for the rugged mountain like a madman) (Hêmin 2003, p. 139). With the revival of the Kurdish nationalist movement in Iran in

  Lexical Variation and Semantic Change in Kurdish 

35

1979, çiya became one of the most popular Kurdish names for boys. Thus, we can posit with a degree of certainty that the diffusion of çîya or tsiya to most CK areas (especially Mukriyan) has been socio-politically motivated. Although the map based on the MDKD data shows şax as being predominant in the CK-speaking areas of Kurdistan-Iraq, the word is used without any phonological variation throughout the Mukri region, where it sometimes collocates with dax as in ‘şax u dax’. Dax is borrowed from Turkish and appears in the names of many villages and mountains in the Sulaymaniyah region and the Mukri-speaking region, such as with Qeredax and Axdax respectively. According to our informants from the Urmia region, ‘şax u dax’ is also used in parallel with çiya in areas that border CK (e.g. towards Oshnaviyeh). While şax is the generic term for ‘mountain’ in the Sulaymaniyah region, it has a narrower meaning in the Mukri region according to our informants and based on our own personal experience. In Mukriyan, while çêw/kêw can be used to refer to any mountain, şax is reserved for rugged mountains or mountains with sharp and pointy summits. This is similar in the eastern part of the Badini-­ speaking region, Şemdinli, and Urmia, albeit in the form of ‘şax û dax’. Interestingly enough, şax also means ‘horn’ (of animals such as goats or deer) in Badini, and ‘branch’ further to the west in Kurmanji (Chyet 2003, p. 570). These lexical items seem to have close semantic relations in their characterizations of sharpness, edge, or roughness. Another expression for ‘mountain’ in Hawraman is k’aş and kiş, used on both sides of the Iran-Iraq border. According to four of our informants, the variant keş is commonly used in Hawrami, especially the Lahon variety (e.g. in Pawa and Nawsud). In the Jaf variety keş changes to kej. The latter is commonly used in Mariwan, Sanandaj, and Kermanshah and is often collocated with kêw, kef, or ko. This is exemplified in the lyrics of this Kurdish folk song: ‘Keftote beinman ĥew kej u ĥew ko / meger bay şemał min bênê bo to’ (Seven mountains set us apart / perhaps only the southern wind could take me to you). In the Mukri variety the collocation changes to kêw u ko. In the MDKD database, kiş is also used in NK, for example, in the Sheran settlement near Rojava. Aside from these descriptions, we should add that whereas in the MDKD seven variants of kêw/çêw have been recorded, çiya is represented by

36 

J. Sheyholislami and R. Surkhi

fourteen variants, and k’as/kiş by four. Şax demonstrates no variation despite being used throughout Iranian and Iraqi CK regions in addition to the NK areas of Tergewer and Mergewer (i.e. the eastern part/half of the Badini speech zone), which borders the CK region of Oshnaviyeh. A similar observation about kêw could be made even though its use in CK on the Iraqi side is not evident in the MDKD. Within the lexical variation in the northern parts of the CK region (i.e. Mukri) and in Iraq reaching south of Sulaymaniyah, çêw becomes more prevalent, but it gradually changes to kêw towards Sanandaj where it transfers to kiyêf (or, kêf). This trend continues to ko, kü, and kûh in SK (on both sides of the Iran-Iraq border). Here, one can clearly see the ‘dialect continuum’: kü (Laki), ko (Luri), and kuh (Farsi). Şax and çîya appear to be unique to Kurdish varieties. We would like to close this section with a note on collocations. Of the various lexical expressions for ‘mountain’, only certain ones collocate with each other. For example, one may hear çîya collocating with çoł (as in çoł u çîya), but not with kêw or şax. While it is very common to encounter şax collocating with kêw/çêw or dax, it is rare to hear the collocation şax u kej. One reason for this is that şax and kêw exist side by side in some regions and thus collocate with each other: şax u çêw. Since kej does exist side by side with terms such as kêw or kief, it also collocates with them: kej u ko, kej u kief, and so on.

5.5 ‘River’ Based on the MDKD entries for ‘river’, the two most common expressions throughout Kurdistan are rîbar (heard especially in Duhok and the surrounding area) or rûbar along with their other five variants (rubar, rûbar, rrûbar, rro, rrobar, rrubarr), as well as çem or çim. A variant of the latter, çom, is the most common lexical expression for ‘river’ in the Mukri variety, but is not recorded in the MDKD. Instead, the expression şat is recorded for Mahabad, which is borrowed from Arabic along with several other Arabic expressions used throughout Kurdistan: baḥr, beḥr, nehîr, bahad, seyare, xabîr, and şet. Less frequent expressions include av, derîya, and firroxane. The first two are likely used but the third one seems to be a transcription mistake. This is very likely rroxane, which, according to

  Lexical Variation and Semantic Change in Kurdish 

37

our informants, is used in Hawrami Lahon (e.g. in Pawa) and in the adjacent Sanandaj region. It is likely a phonological variation of the Farsi rudxaneh or vice versa. Based on the data we have gathered, two more variants are common in Hawrami: dere and rro. The latter, in our judgement, has the same root as Farsi rûd. The lexeme rro is also recorded in Khanaqin, Kermanshah, and in NK-speaking regions such as Siirt. In Zazaki it is rro (Nanvazadeh 2020a). Based on this description, a few observations can be made: Badini and CK in Iraq share the same lexical expression, phonological variation notwithstanding (rîbar or rûbar). At the same time, NK, the Mukri variety, and SK share the çem variant. Çem is found throughout NK, including Badini, where it is also used to describe ‘cultivated land by the lands of a river’ (Chyet 2003, p. 103), and variations of both lexical expressions are used throughout other Iranian languages. For example, rûbar has a cognate in the Pahlavi term rod (MacKenzie 1971, p. 72) with a number of phonological variations in sister languages such as Farsi rûdbahar or rûdbar; Gilaki rûbar; Taleshi rîvar; and so on. The other item, çem, has a cognate in Pahlavi, çaşmag, to mean ‘the source of water and spring’ (MacKenzie 1971, p. 21). In Lori and Mazandarani, çem (čam) means ‘spring’, akin to the Farsi çeşmeh.6 We can think of one case in Kurdish where çem means ‘spring’ instead of ‘river’, as in the name of the mountain range Çilçeme in Kurdistan-Iran, which is called čehel češmeh or ‘forty springs’ in Farsi. According to our informants, the lexeme zê is used in Badinan. If nowhere else, it is evident in the name of the two major rivers: ‘Zê y Biçîk’, which means ‘The Little Zab’ and ‘Zê y Gewre’ or ‘Zê yê Badînan’, which means ‘The Great Zab’. To the best of our knowledge, the word is not used elsewhere in Kurdistan. However, the use of zê in reference to ‘river’ is found in CK literary works. Our informants from Kurdistan-Iran also helped us to map out more equivalents for ‘river’ (see Fig.  7). A different picture emerges in Fig. 7 when compared to Fig. 6. Here, NK north of Şemdinli shares more cognates with CK and SK than it does with Badini. Finally, except for a few instances that prove to be exceptions to the rule, ‘river’ appears to be a useful lexeme in identifying regional varieties and sub-varieties. However, not all lexemes that refer to nature enjoy the same level of variation.

Fig. 6  River

Fig. 7  River (Based on data from Table 1 and MDKD)

  Lexical Variation and Semantic Change in Kurdish 

39

5.6 ‘Snow’ Remarkably, ‘snow’ is expressed with one lexical item throughout the Kurdish-speaking area, but has six phonological variants: befir, berif, berf, bef, befr, and wefir. Of these, three are of interest for this study: berf, befir, and wefir. An initial glance may suggest that this is a case of phonological variation only but not of lexical variation. While this is linguistically true, the changes in form are so great (e.g. between befir and werw, or verve, from our supplementary data set) that the degree of phonological variation has resulted in onomasiological change. In other words, a CK speaker may not understand Hawrami speakers uttering the word werwe. According to Anttila (1989), sound changes affect the number or distribution of units, leading to the split of paradigms that results in one concept being expressed in many forms. This means that an increase in the number of synonyms results in onomasiology manifested in allomorphic alternation, and thus lexical change. Berf is used throughout NK areas and occurs in 55% of all instances, except for the Southeastern Kurmanji (SEK) area (Öpengin and Haig 2014), where the use of befir is found all the way south to Kermanshah, with a frequency of 45%. Overall, berf has a greater areal distribution as it is also used in SK, for example, in Sehne and Kermanshah. Wefir is used in only Khanaqin, according to the data available from the MDKD.  However, our informants have reported that wefir is also used in Kermanshah (the Kalhuri variety), and according to Hawramiand SK-speaking informants, the variants verbe, werwe, and werb are also used to express ‘snow.’ Other informants have reported that bewir is used in the Germiyan region (e.g. in Derbendixan, Chemchemal, and Kifri). According to Kambuziya and Sobati (2014, p. 211), the semivowel /w/ at the beginning of words such as werf ‘snow’, waran ‘rain’, and wa ‘wind’ become the labiodental and voiced consonant /b/. Thus, we then have berf, baran, and ba, respectively. There is a fortition process (a consonantal change from a weak to a strong sound) from /w/ to /b/, for example, in wefir in the SK variation and to berif in the CK and NK varieties. Öpengin and Haig (2014, p. 157) also note that /b/ and /w/ are allophones of the same phoneme in the northern dialect of NK. Consequently, it seems plausible to suggest that in this context /b/, /w/, and /f/ are all

40 

J. Sheyholislami and R. Surkhi

Fig. 8  Snow

allophones of the same phoneme. More examples of this kind could support the hypothesis that there is a Kurdish continuum, despite major geographical divisions (e.g. the Zab River) and socio-political ones (e.g. political borders) (Fig. 8).

5.7 ‘Green’ There are three common expressions for the English concept ‘green’: kesk/ kesik, şîn/heşîn, and sewz/sebiz. Variations of the first two are used side by side throughout NK and CK. However, the use of these two is gradually replaced by variations of sewz or sewiz, which are common in the southern areas of CK and throughout SK where sewnz, according to our informants, is also used. In addition to these three common expressions, less frequent expressions include the Turkish borrowing yeşîl or yeşil in northern parts of NK and sebs or sabiz in the Mukri region (Mahabad). One last and peculiar expression is şûşe from Sulaymaniyah (Fig. 9).

  Lexical Variation and Semantic Change in Kurdish 

41

Fig. 9  Green

A few interesting observations should be highlighted. First, an instance of sewiz is recorded from Urmia. This seems to have originated from the same speaker previously identified as a Mukri speaker in a region known to be home to Azeri Turkish and NK speakers. However, according to our own informants, this data is more questionable because neither a Mukri nor a NK speaker would use this expression for ‘green’. Instead, they would use kesik/kesk or êşîn, şîn/heşîn, and possibly sebiz/sebz in the case of a Mukri speaker (e.g. in Mahabad). For this same reason, we question the validity of another instance of sewiz recorded in Mahabad, where instead of sebiz, kesk, and şîn are used, albeit in a complex semantic network. For example, while mostly urbanized and educated people would use sebiz/sebz to refer to anything green, it is rare to use kesk to describe trees or plants. However, sebiz/sebz can be used to describe the green colour of clothes, among other things. Furthermore, the semantic field of şîn is often the opposite of kesk. For example, plants and trees can be described using şîn but sabiz or kesk should be used when talking about

42 

J. Sheyholislami and R. Surkhi

a shirt. However, if şîn is used to refer to a shirt or the sky, it is used to mean ‘blue’. Depending on the context, şîn could mean both ‘green’ and ‘blue’ in both Mukri and Sulaymaniyah Kurdish. For instance, one can hear ‘asman î şîn’ ‘blue sky’, but also ‘deşt u çêw î şîn’ (green mountain and prairie). This is not unique to Kurdish since many languages in the world do not distinguish between green and blue lexically, such as Xhosa, Japanese, and Vietnamese (Kay and Maffi 2013). In other languages, there might be an overlap in labelling red, brown, and orange. South of Erbil in Iraq and Bukan in Iran, the word kesik/kesk is absent, where variants of sewz/sewiz are the predominant expressions instead. Here, sewiz seems to be a part of the language continuum towards south and central Iran: savz (Bakhtiari), sowz (Baluchi), sabz (Farsi). In contrast to the sewz/sebz variants, the kesk/kesik variants have cognates in Northern Iranian language varieties: kask (Zazaki); kas (Taleshi); and kas (Gilaki), rooted in the Proto-Iranian kasakan and Pahlavi kasaken (Nanvazadeh 2020b; see also MacKenzie 1971). Although there are transitional areas where a lexeme might be shared between two or three regional varieties (e.g. şîn and kesk variants between CK and NK), overall, ‘green’ seems to be a strong marker for identifying Kurdish geographical dialects. In addition, sewiz/sewz and its other variants are only used in SK, Hawrami, and some areas of CK. Sabiz/sabz is used only in the Mukri variety, which is surprising given that it is more geographically distant from the main zone (Farsi) where sebz is used. Furthermore, the zone between Farsi and Mukri uses sewz/sewiz, while the expression kesk/kesik is shared between the Mukri and NK varieties. Hêşîn is only used in NK while its phonological variation şîn is used in CK but not in the SK varieties. This reinforces previous suggestions (e.g. by Matras 2019) that the Mukri region acts as a transitional area between NK and SK. However, such lexical variation may not exist in expressions for other colours, such as ‘red’.

5.8 ‘Red’ Except for two other expressions, qirmiz (or qermez) and one instance of almaz in SK, sor/sûr is the only lexical expression for ‘red’ throughout Kurdistan and in all Kurdish varieties including Zazaki and Hawrami.

  Lexical Variation and Semantic Change in Kurdish 

43

Fig. 10  Red

Variants of sor/sûr are also used in other Iranian languages, such as sohr in Baluchi and sorkh in Gilaki and Farsi. Additionally, our informants have confirmed the use of qirmiz in Baghdad, Khanaqin, and Sahneh. This item may have been borrowed from some Turkic language and adopted by Kurdish, although the ultimate source of the word remains debated. It is also very common in Farsi. Finally, we have been unable to verify the authenticity of almaz reported in the MDKD database (Fig. 10).

5.9 ‘Factory’ We added this item to show the impact of political divisions on lexical variation. The basic Kurdish vocabulary on each side of political borders is more or less identical except for terms that entered Kurdish societies after the second division of Kurdistan in the aftermath of WWI (e.g. ‘car’, ‘refrigerator’, ‘electricity’), and abstract concepts originating from modern education and institutions (e.g. ‘homework’, ‘exam’, ‘practice’, ‘register’, ‘records’). To communicate about or within these domains, Kurds on

44 

J. Sheyholislami and R. Surkhi

different sides of political borders borrow from the lexical catalogue of the official languages of each country. For instance, whereas Iranian Kurds call a lawyer wekîl, a variation of Persian vakîl, Kurds from Turkey say ebûqat, a variation of Turkish avukat, and Kurds from Iraq and Syria use meħamî; in written standard CK, parêzer ‘defender/protector’ is also common. The MDKD provides a similar picture with respect to our chosen term, ‘factory’. Under the influence of Turkish, almost all Kurdish-­ speaking regions in Turkey use variants of fabrîqa/ fabrîka. In Iran, following Farsi, they use variants of karxane and karga/karge, while in Iraq and Syria, following Arabic, they use variants of meʕmel, mesneʕ, and şerîka, albeit less frequently. At least until recently, these lexical expressions clearly marked linguistic borders between Kurdish in Turkey and Kurdish in Iran, as well as in both Iraq and Syria. In other words, lexical choices in technological and modern domains reinforced political divisions except between the Iraqi-Syrian border because the choices were both influenced by Arabic. In recent years, however, the border has become more pronounced because coined terms such as karge and pîşesazî in the CK region of Iraq and kargeh in the Badini region have become more common predominantly in written standard Kurdish. Both expressions, kar+ge and pîşe+saz+î, have cognates in Farsi. Aside from these observations plotted on the map in Fig. 11, it is necessary to comment on a few interesting instances. The variant karxane from Farsi is also recorded in Kanyder near Barzan, and in Sulaymaniyah (both in Kurdistan-Iraq). The informant here could be a Kurd of the Kurdistan Region in Iraq who had grown up in Iran. Since the early 1990s, thousands of Badini speakers from Iran returned to Iraq and settled in that region (Barzan, Kanyder, Soran, etc.). Many of the youth grew up in Iran and speak Farsi as one of their native tongues, and it would not be surprising if they had also brought new words to the region. The use of karxane in Sulaymaniyah is also interesting, and may occur for a variety of reasons. It is well known that in the province of Sulaymaniyah, Farsi loanwords are preferred over Arabic (e.g. karxane over meʕmel), which could be explained by population movement. After the establishment of the Kurdistan Regional Government in Iraq (KRG), tens of thousands of Kurds from other parts of Kurdistan, especially Iran, moved temporarily or permanently to the KRG mainly in pursuit of employment and investment.

  Lexical Variation and Semantic Change in Kurdish 

45

Fig. 11  Factory

Another interesting observation is the use of the Arabic meʕmel in Baneh, for which there is only one explanation: in the past two decades, the town of Baneh has been a major and lucrative market for the exchange of goods and services between Kurdistan-Iran and the Kurdistan region in Iraq. Perhaps the informant is an Iraqi Kurd in Baneh or an Iranian Kurd who has used meʕmel in following Iraqi Kurds to avoid the Farsi karxane, which is a frequent occurrence among many language purists. In the absence of native vocabulary, those from Iran prefer Arabic words over Farsi ones (e.g. zakht from al-zaght over fishar ‘pressure’), but those from Iraq prefer Farsi words over Arabic ones (e.g. qeshang over jamil ‘beautiful’). There are several less frequent expressions such as kompaniya and kompani in Iraq, which seem to be mistranslated by informants because variants of the English word ‘company’ are typically used to replace Arabic şerîke. The use of karger alongside fabrîqa, in Şemdinli, is peculiar. We think it has been influenced by Iranian Kurds’ use of karge or karga, and has been mispronounced as karger, which means worker and labourer,

46 

J. Sheyholislami and R. Surkhi

not a place of work. Interestingly, this has been literally translated as ciyê kar in Jindires in the MDKD data set. However, we doubt that this coinage is common in Kurdish Syria. Finally, we are not able to provide any rationalizations for the use of the expressions medrese/makteb ‘school’, henedan, and basirgeh.

6 Discussion and Conclusion Our objective in this chapter was to show how extra-linguistic factors in addition to semantic changes contribute to lexical variation. We utilized the MDKD to obtain our data, which consisted of geographical distribution of nine items from different categories such as person (e.g. ‘child’) to a modern term, ‘factory’. This was complemented by the information we solicited from 27 participants coming from various regions of Kurdistan. Our data analysis was informed by the current literature on Kurdish variation in addition to theories on lexical variation and semantic change. Our findings reinforce Chambers and Trudgill’s (2004) observation that isoglosses differ in their level of similarity or difference ‘in the sense that some mark distinctions “felt” to be culturally important while others do not, some persist while others are transitory, and the like. It is equally obvious that some bundles [, sets of isoglosses identifying a special geographic region or community of speakers representing a distinguished language variety,] are more important than others, in the same sense’ (Chambers and Trudgill 2004, p. 97). However, the lack of ‘a satisfactory procedure or a set of principles to determine which isoglosses or which bundles should outrank some others’ (ibid.) is a significant gap in dialectology. Unfortunately, despite our efforts, we were unsuccessful in addressing this concern in this chapter. Nonetheless, we believe that many important observations have been made here. Equivalents for ‘child’ or ‘green’ clearly reinforce the geographical boundaries between NK and CK/SK, and they reflect geographical divisions between sub-varieties within these major dialect groups. For example, the lexeme biçîk/biçûk separates Badini not only from CK but also from most of the NK varieties. The deletion of /d/ in mindał in southern parts of CK separates the Mukri-speaking region from Sulaymaniyah,

  Lexical Variation and Semantic Change in Kurdish 

47

Ardalani (Sanandaj), and Germiyani (Kirkuk) varieties. The rhoticization of /ɫ/ →/r/ in mindar separates the Soran region (Erbil, Rowanduz) not only from the Mukri variety, but also from the rest of CK. The variant sewz for ‘green’ separates Sulaymaniyah, Ardelani, and Germiyani from the Soran and Mukri regions where kesk, or sebz in the case of Mukri, is preferred. On the other hand, there are single lexemes that express the same concept across all dialect groups, such as ‘red’, ‘boy/son’, and ‘snow’. Despite this, sometimes their variation in form might be strong indicators of linguistic division, such as wefir (Hawrami), befir (CK), or berf (NK, identical to standard Farsi). Most of the lexical items that are similar across Kurdish varieties are also common to other Iranian languages and dialects. There are other isoglosses that are different from these two groups discussed in the sense that dynamics of the variations here are much more complex. Examples of this kind are ‘girl/daughter’ and ‘river’. These appear to demonstrate a much more random distribution throughout Kurdish dialect groups. For example, rûbar for ‘river’ is in use in SK. However, when closer to NK areas, it is replaced by çom in the Mukri variety, but then resurfaces in southwestern NK as rîbar. Similarly, çem is common in SK and most of CK, changes to çom in the Mukri variety, and disappears in south-eastern NK (based on the MDKD), but then resurfaces in the rest of NK. Finally, expressions for technological and modern innovations are indicators of political divisions, which demonstrate the clearest patterns. Kurdish neologisms for these terms in Iraq (e.g. karge or pîşesazî for ‘factory’, or qutabxane for ‘school’) notwithstanding, the dominant official languages (Arabic, Farsi, and Turkish) determine which expressions are used for these concepts in different countries where Kurdish is spoken. As a result, a basic conversation about contemporary urban issues such as traffic conditions might be smoother between two people from Duhok and Erbil (both in Iraq) speaking two varieties that are very different morphosyntactically versus two people from Erbil and Mahabad who speak varieties that are morphsyntactically much similar, but they happen to be on either side of the political border between Iraq and Iran and are thus influenced by two different languages, Arabic and Farsi, respectively. In contrast to the former pair, the latter will use different vocabulary for

48 

J. Sheyholislami and R. Surkhi

car, traffic, traffic light, stop, and so on. These items are clear indicators of linguistic division because of lexical borrowing from the majority languages in each country. It is interesting to note that some of the expressions in all Kurdish varieties are easily identified in other Iranian languages such as rûbar/ rîbar ‘river’, befir/berf ‘snow’, sûr/sor ‘red’, sebiz/sewiz ‘green’, and düet/ dot ‘daughter’. However, about half of the expressions we have discussed in this chapter are not easily traced back to other Iranian languages, such as şîn/hêşîn for ‘green’ and ‘blue’, mindał for ‘child’, şax for ‘mountain’, kiç for ‘girl/daughter’, lawik for ‘son/boy’, and so on. It is also interesting to note that many kinship expressions, for example, that of nuclear family members, are identical across all Kurdish varieties, especially between NK, CK, and SK, but are separate from most other Iranian language varieties. These kinship terms include: kur/kurr for ‘son/boy’; k­iç/kiçik/kenîşk for ‘girl/daughter’; and dayk/dayîk/dî/dałig for ‘mother’ (see Fig. 12).

Fig. 12  Mother

  Lexical Variation and Semantic Change in Kurdish 

49

The evidence for variation may not be, and often is not, solely linguistic in nature. The example of ‘factory’ is quite telling. In the aftermath of WWI and the spread of public education in the Middle East, Kurdistan effectively became home to bilingual, and in some cases multilingual, communities in part because public education took place in languages other than Kurdish, especially in Iran, Turkey, and Syria. Since lexical borrowing is one of the most natural by-products of bilingualism, where the minority language borrows from the official language of the state (Sankoff 2013), it is quite natural to see examples of borrowing, especially in peripheral Kurdish varieties. As the example of ‘factory’ demonstrated, however, this is most evident when it comes to modern phenomena such as the name of technological inventions, services, activities, and constructs related to modern life. Research on loanwords in languages such as Sakha, a Turkic language of Siberia, in the Russian Federation, shows that most of the loanwords in the language belong to Russian modern vocabulary (Pakendorf and Novgorodov 2009, p.  505). It is interesting to note, however, that there is less lexical borrowing in some Kurdish regions of Iraq such as Sulaymaniyah than in other parts of Kurdistan. There is a clear reason for this: Kurdish is an official language both in Iraq and in KRG areas. For years, there have been deliberate efforts by individual authors and lexicographers (see Abdullah 1980; Hassanpour 2012) and public institutions including schools and the media to ‘purify’ Kurdish. Whereas in Kurdistan-Iran borrowing of the Farsi lexicon and expressions into Kurdish speech might be regarded as a sign of sophistication and being educated, this may not be the case with Arabic in KRG. Our findings also illustrate that population movement has affected language variation in Kurdistan. For example, the previous Iraqi regime razed hundreds of villages on the Iraqi border to the ground and resettled its residents either in existing towns or newly built settlements hundreds of kilometres away from their original location. Furthermore, during the civil war between Kurdish factions in Iraq between 1994 and 1997, thousands of households that supported one faction over the other (i.e. Kurdistan Democratic Party-KDP vs. Patriotic Union of Kurdistan-­ PUK) had to flee to the areas where their supported party was in power. Moreover, since the 1990s, the KRG has been a temporary (and often

50 

J. Sheyholislami and R. Surkhi

permanent) destination for Kurdish speakers from other parts of Kurdistan. Finally, in recent years, in almost all areas of Kurdistan, either for similar reasons or in search of a better life and employment opportunities, thousands of families have left their villages and small towns either for major cities in the Kurdish region or for more industrial cities outside Kurdistan (e.g. Turkey). These examples of population movement have influenced Kurdish lexical variation in significant ways. Researchers need to be aware of this phenomenon for at least two reasons. First, not every informant surveyed at a location might be native to that linguistic community. Thus, information gathered could be misleading for it may not be representative of that linguistic community. Second, awareness of the history of settlement in a location may put the researcher in a better position to interpret variation in the data. For example, it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to interpret why someone in Salahaddin near Erbil should call a child biçîk instead of mindar if one is not aware of the settlement of thousands of Barzani/Badini families in that town that occurred during the 1990s. Our data illustrated three mechanisms with respect to lexical semantic change. First, there were semasiological innovations, which engender new meanings or concepts expressed in existing words (Geeraerts 2010, p. 26) including polysemy, or one word with many meanings. Second, there were onomasiological innovations that occur when new forms expressing existing concepts enter the lexical inventory of the language. This leads to synonyms (i.e. one meaning for many words). We have also shown examples of borrowing that has resulted in giving new names or forms to things or concepts. In conclusion, our study confirms findings by other studies that linguistic and extra-linguistic connections between Kurdish variety groups are complex. To appreciate this complexity and find ways to understand it better, dialectologists and sociolinguists need to have access to comprehensive and accurate data, and to demographic, geographical, socio-­ cultural, political, and historical information about Kurdish communities. Appreciating these aspects of lexical items under investigation needs to be accompanied by analyses of semantic change, etymology, usage in various cultural domains, and lexical borrowing.

  Lexical Variation and Semantic Change in Kurdish 

51

Acknowledgments  We are thankful to the editors for their reviews of earlier drafts of this paper, Erik Anonby for providing feedback on an earlier draft, and to the University of Ottawa and Carleton University for supporting this project with a grant.

Notes 1. For example, in Baneh pird and in Merivan (Meriwan) pirt have been recorded to mean ‘house’ when they both mean ‘bridge’; in Mahabad sewz has been recorded to mean ‘green’ where in reality three other expressions, sabz, kesk or şîn, are used to mean ‘green’ in that town; also in Mahabad, bahad is recorded for ‘river’, where people commonly say çom; îçvart has been recorded as ‘never’ (possibly a wrong transcription of the Farsi hîçvaxt), le dêy mizgewteke is inferred to mean ‘there is a mosque in the village’ when this Kurdish utterance actually means ‘in the village of the mosque’. In Bokan, bałê is recorded for ‘car’ instead of maşên or maşîn; mindal is used to denote ‘child’ instead of mindał; êwarê (afternoon/evening) for ‘noon’ instead of nîwerro. 2. Öpengin and Haig (2014) have recorded this item as dêl (p. 153). 3. In central Kurdish /ik/ is a diminutive suffix. 4. Hêmin (2003), the prominent CK poet from Mahabad writes: kiwanê ew rojey ke sercopîm degirt bangim dekird / dom dewê, doy qol be bazne u pence nexsînim dewê (p. 265). In the dictionary Henbane Borine (Hejar 1990, p. 297) defines do as ‘a girl who takes a young man’s hand in dance’. 5. ‘Kurd perîşan maye îro têk de bûn serqot û rot / Dijmin ew dane ber hev dil bi ateş wan disot / Têk li ber topan biriştin kal û xort û bûk û dot / Ger dipirsî tu li halê miletê meqhûrê xot / Horî bedbext û xiflet girt û dil hoşarê kurd’ (my emphasis: http://www.pen-­kurd.org/kurdi/mustefa-­reshid/ taybetmendiyen-­helbesten-­cegerxwin.html) 6. According to Vazheyab, čam is also an abbreviated form of čašm in Dari: https://www.vajehyab.com/?q=‫&مچ‬d=en

Sardasht çom Halabja çem Sulaymaniyah çem

befir befir befir

befir

kêf, yał, kej kêw şax Şax, kêw

herd, yał

werve

zê/Riubar çem, roxane gwero, şet, şetaw çem

Selahaddin Sanandaj, Chamshar Sanandaj, Jawero;

Sanandaj

kej, çiya, şax çiya yał

berif

rûbar

Selahaddin

sûr

sor

sûr

sor sor

sor

Red

sewiz, sîn sewz sewiz

sewz

sûr sûr sûr

sûr

kesik sûr şînayî, sûr sewzełanî sewz sûr

kesik, sewiz kesik

şax

befir

berif berif

kesik

çiya

kesik kesik

kesik

befir

çiya

çiya çiya

berif

Mountain Green

berif berif

çem

Snow

Kobane çem Al-Malikiyah / çem Dêrik: Surya Urmia çem, rûbar, ribar, nihêl Erbil çem

Riha

River

Table 1  Data collected by authors from 29 participants

Appendix

mindał minał minał

zarrołe, zarro, rrołe minał

biçîk; biçuk biçuik bûçik

zarû; zarûk; zarik, biçîk mindar

zarok; gede; qiçik; çêle zaro zarok

Child

kurr kurr kurr

kurr

kurr

kurr kurr

kurr

kuri, lawk, kur, gede kurr

kur kur

law, lawik

Boy

kiç kiç kiç

kenîşk

kenîşk

kîj kenîşk

kîj

kiç

qîz,

qîz keç

kiç, kiç, qiz

Girl

karxane Meʕmel meʕmel

karxane

karxane

meʕmel karxane

meʕmel

meʕmel

karxane

masnaʕ masnaʕ

fabrîqe

Factory

maşîn seyare seyare

maşîn

maşîn

trombêl maşîn

trombêl

seyare

makîne trombêl/ seyare maşîn

èrebe

Car

52  J. Sheyholislami and R. Surkhi

çom

çom çom çom Roxane/ dere çem

çem

gawero, werve şet,şetaw

Mahabad

Mahabad Bukan Bukan Hewraman; Pawe Hewramn, (KRGI)

Pawe (Cafi)

Jawero. Sanandaj

Gilan; çem Kermanshah Ilami ruwar, çem Kermanshah çem, roxane

Marivan

kej/kuye kue/ko kwe, keş

wefir

wefir

yał

kej, kêw, ma

ko

kêw kêw kêw Keş/herd

kêw

yał/ kêw

kêf/yał/ kej

şax, kêw/ ko kuê

wefir

bewir

werve/ verve

werwe werbe, verve werwe, verve werwe werwe befir verve

befir

çem, roxane, ro çem

Kermanshah: Erdełani

KhanaqinFAylî rro

bewir, befir wefir

Khanaqin, jafî çem

sewz

soz

sewnz

sewz

sewz

soz

sewiz sewiz sewiz sewz

sewiz

soz, sewz

sewz

sewiz

sewiz

zawłe; zarrołe; rołe zawłe; zarrołe; Rołe zarro; zarrołe, zaro biçûk

mindał mindał mindał Zawro;

mindał

minał

ayl, zarrû qirmiz miłał/ minał

sûr

swêr

sûr

sûr

sûr

sûr sûr sûr sûr

sûr

sûr

minał/ zaro qirmiz minał/ zarû sûr minał

sûr

karxane

meʕmel

kiç kiç kiç kinaçê

kiç

karxane karxane karxanee karxane

karxane

kinaçê karxane

kenîşk

dwêt

kenîşik meʕmel

kurr

kurr

kurr

kurr

kurr

karxane

dwêt

det

dwêt

karxane

karxane

karxane

kinaçê karxane

kenîşk

kurr, kinaçê meʕmel kurrołe

kurr kurr kurr kurr

kuur

kurr

kurr

kurr

kurr

maşîn

maşîn

maşîn

maşîn

maşîn

seyare/ trrombêl

maşîn maşîn maşîn maşîn

maşîn

maşîn

maşîn

seyare

seyare

  Lexical Variation and Semantic Change in Kurdish 

53

54 

J. Sheyholislami and R. Surkhi

Table 2  Frequency table for the lexical expressions for child in Kurdish varieties Lexical expression B Variant

M Variant

K Variant Z Variant

ZA Variant Borrowed Other

Item biçîk biçûk – piçûk biçik – biçuk – biçük – piçuk minał mindał mindal mindar minal mełał mîndał kurik – kurrik zarok zar zarî – zaro – zarrok – zarûk zari – zarîk – zˁarok – zarr – zarruk – zarû zawłê zawłe sebî qiçik dêlik – giçke – lawik – ayl

Number on figure

Frequency

1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 1 2 3 4

7 2 (each) 1 (each) 19 15 7 5 4 3 1 1 (each) 33 4 2 (each) 1 (each)

47 23 7 (each) 35 28 13 9 7 4 2 50 (each) 65 8 16 2 (each)

1 2 1 1 2

1 1 2 2 1 (each)

50 50 100 33 17 (each)

% Total

Table 3  Frequency for the lexical expressions for girl in Kurdish varieties Lexical expression K Variant

D Variant Borrowed Other

Item kiç kits kiçik keç kîç – kenîşk kîş – kinaçî – çîj kets – kîj – keçîk – k’eçîk – k’eçik – keçkek – çij – çîş düet düwêt – dêt qîzik qîz pîz

Number on figure

Frequency

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

35 7 6 4 3 (each) 2 (each) 1 (each)

1 2 1 2 1

2 1 (each) 9 6 1

% Total 49 10 8 6 2.5 (each) 1.5 (each) 1.5 (each) 50 25 (each) 60 40 100

  Lexical Variation and Semantic Change in Kurdish 

55

Table 4  Frequency for the lexical expressions for boy in Kurdish varieties Lexical expression K Variant

Z Variant L Variant

B Variant Borrowed Other

Item kurr kûrr kurik kur kurrik zar kurîn – zara kurîn – zarokê kurrîn – zarokê kurrîn – zarokên kurrik- zaryê kurik zar – zarok zelam lawik law lawuk, zarê law, zaryê lawik bav bab – bawuk – bawk genc – gents civan – sebiyê lawik – minał, gede

Number on figure

Frequency

1 2 3 4 5 6

20 8 7 6 4 1 (each)

43 17 15 13 9 2 (each)

1 2 1 2 3

2 (each) 1 5 2 1

17 (each) 8 63 25 13

1 2 1 1

2 1 (each) 1 (each) 1 (each)

40 20 (each) 33 (each) 100 (each)

% Total

Table 5  Frequency for the lexical expressions for mountain in Kurdish varieties Lexical expression Ç Variant

Ş Variant K Variant

KI Variant Borrowed Other

Item çiya çîya tsiya ç’iya çeya – ciya – çîyê şax çêw kêw k’üa – kapa – kirr – kiş – kiyêf – kû – kü – küa – küe – kûh – kyêaw – kyêw kiş k’aş cebel dax bax

Number on figure

Frequency

% Total

1 2 3 4 5 1 1 2 3

53 19 3 2 1 (each) 23 8 3 1 (each)

66 24 4 3 1 (each) 100 35 13 4 (each)

1 2 1 2 1

2 1 2 1 1

66 34 66 34 100

56 

J. Sheyholislami and R. Surkhi

Table 6  Frequency for the lexical expressions for snow in Kurdish varieties Lexical expression

Item

Number on figure

Frequency

% Total

Item

berf befir bef – befr – berif

1 2 3

44 39 1 (each)

51 45 1 (each)

Table 7  Frequency for the lexical expressions for green in Kurdish varieties Lexical expression S Variant

Ş Variant

K Variant

Borrowed Other

Item sewz sawz sewiz saws ṣewz – soz sawuz – sawûz – sewis – ṣewiz – sowz – swez – sebs – sabiz hêşîn şîn hêşin heşîn şînayî – şînkay – êşîn – ḥêşîn – hêşinayî – hêşînayî – hişin – hişîn – ḥişîn kesk kesik k’esk kasêk – k’esik yeşîl yeşil şûşe

Number on figure

Frequency

% Total

1 2 3 4 5 6

14 8 7 3 2 (each) 1 (each)

32 18 16 7 5 (each) 3 (each)

1 2 3 4 5

7 6 3 2 1 (each)

24 21 10 7 3 (each)

1 2 3 4 1 2 3

25 17 14 1 (each) 3 1 2

43 29 24 2 (each) 50 17

  Lexical Variation and Semantic Change in Kurdish 

57

Table 8  Frequency for the lexical expressions for river in Kurdish varieties Lexical expression R Variant

Ç Variant

Borrowed

Other

Item rîbar – rûbar rubar rrûbar ro – robar – rrubarr çem çom çim – çom/ rrubar – çom/ çem Şat baḥr – beḥr – nehîr – bahad – seyare – xabîr – şet firroxane derîya – av

Number on figure

Frequency

1 2 3 4 1 2 3

4 (each) 3 2 1 (each) 9 7 1 (each)

25 (each) 19 13 6 (each) 47 37 5 (each)

1 2

2 1 (each)

22 11 (each)

1 2

2 1 (each)

% Total

Table 9  Frequency for the lexical expressions for car in Kurdish varieties Lexical expression S Variant

O Variant M Variant E Variant W Variant T Variant B Variant

A Variant

Item

Number on figure Frequency

% Total

seyare sêyara seyara sêyare sîyar – seyarre – sêara/otombêl otomobêl otomobîl – otombîl/sêyarê maşîn maşên – maşîn/sêara/otomobîl erebe ereba wesayit wasayît tromobîl bełê bełe belê – bełî aa

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 3 1

31 25 13 13 6 (each) 50 25 (each) 71 14 (each) 89 11 66 34 100 64 18 9 (each) 100

5 4 2 2 1 (each) 2 1 (each) 5 1 (each) 8 1 2 1 1 7 2 1 (each) 1

58 

J. Sheyholislami and R. Surkhi

Table 10  Frequency for the lexical expressions for red in Kurdish varieties Lexical expression

Item

Number on figure

Frequency

S Variant

sor sûr sur sohr sür – swehr qermez – qirmiz

1 2 3 4 5 1

75 36 12 2 1 (each) 2 (each)

Borrowed

% Total 59 28 9 2 1 (each) 50 (each)

Table 11  Frequency for the lexical expressions for factory in Kurdish varieties Lexical expression F Variant

Karg. Variant

Karx. Variant Meʕ. Variant

Mes. Variant

K Variant P Variant Ş Variant Other

Item fabrîqa fabrîqe fabrîka fabriqa fabrîxa – fawruqa karga kargeh karge karrga karxane karxana meʕmel maʕmel maḥmal – me’mel – maʕmil / karga – maʕmal – maʕmel / kargê – meʕmel / karxane – meʕmile mesneʕ meṣneʕ mesˁneʕ – meʕemel kompani – kompaniya pîşesazî şerîka medrese – mekteb – basirgeh – ciyê kar – hanedan – karger / fektorî/meʕmel

Number on figure

Frequency

1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 1 2 1 2 3

17 15 5 2 1 (each) 6 3 2 1 11 6 16 7 1 (each)

41 37 12 5 2 (each) 55 27 18 9 65 35 53 23 3 (each)

1 2 3 1 1 1 1

8 3 1 (each) 1 (each) 1 1 1 (each)

62 23 8 (each) 50 (each) 100 100 14 (each)

% Total

  Lexical Variation and Semantic Change in Kurdish 

59

Table 12  Frequency for the lexical expressions for mother in Kurdish varieties Lexical expression

Item

Number on figure

Frequency

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

48 16 15 10 8 4 3 (each) 1 (each)

42 14 13 9 7 3 3 (each) 1 (each)

1 1 1 2

1 (each) 1 6 (each) 1

50 (each) 100 46 (each) 8

% Total

D Variant

A Variant T Variant C Variant

dayk dîya diya dak deyk dayik deyik – dayîk dêyk– dalag – dałag – dałeg – dałik – dayê – dêk – dîy ał – ao ta ca – ciya cîya

Abbreviations CK KDP MDKD NK PUK SEK SK

Central Kurdish Kurdistan Democratic Party Manchester Database of Kurdish Dialects Northern Kurdish Patriotic Union of Kurdistan Southeastern Kurmanji Southern Kurdish

References Abdullah, Jamal J. 1980. Some aspects of language purism among Kurdish speakers. Unpublished dissertation. University of York. Anttila, Ramio. 1989. Historical and comparative linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Arlotto, Anthony. 1972. Introduction to historical linguistics. New  York: Houghton Mifflin.

60 

J. Sheyholislami and R. Surkhi

Assaf, Hiwa A., and Omar A. Abdulrahman. 2015. Şêwezarî Soranî le nêwan zarî nawerast u jûrû da – The Sorani variety between the central and northern varieties. Raperin University Journal 2 (5): 241–264. Bassir, Kamil H. 1984. Zmanî Netewayetî Kurdî – The Kurdish national language. Baghdad: Chapkhaney Kori zanyari Iraq – Iraqi Academy Press. Bassir, Kamil H., Kurdistan Mukiryani, Sadiq B.  Amedi, and Hama Amin Hawramani. 1987. Zare Kurdîyekan  – Kurdish Dialects. Erbil: Salahaddin University Publication. Campbell, Lyle. 2013. Historical linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Chambers, Jack, and Peter Trudgill. 2004. Dialectology. 2nd ed. London: Cambridge University Press. Chyet, L. Michael. 2003. Kurdish-English dictionary = Ferhenga Kurmancı̂Inglı̂zı̂. New Haven: Yale University Press. Farqînî, Zana (2011). Ferhenga Kurdî Tırkî - Tırkî Kurdî=Kürtçe Türkçe - Türkçe Kürtçe sözlük (Kurdish-Turkish=Turkish-Kurdish Dictionary). Istanbul: Enstîtuya Kurdî ya Stembolê (Kurdish Institute of Istanbul). Fotoohi, Siware. 2010. Em gijebaye brew kuweman deba? ‘Where is this tornado taking us?’. Mahabad Magazine 9 (107): 14–15. Geeraerts, Dirk. 2010. Theories of lexical semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Grygiel, Marcin. 2004. Semantic changes within the domain boy in panchronic perspective. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia: International Review of English Studies 40: 153–161. Haig, Geoffrey, and Necle Bulut. 2017. Hearing, speaking, looking, and learning: A pilot study of lexical variation across Kurmanjî Kurdish. In Language-­ migration-­ cohesion: Kurdish and its diaspora, ed. Kathrina Brizic, Agnes Grond, Christoph Osztovics, Thomas Schmidinger, and Maria Six-­ Hohenbalken, 99–109. Wien: Praesens Verlag. Haig, Geoffrey, and Ergin Öpengin. 2014. Introduction to special issue: Kurdish: A critical research overview. Kurdish Studies 2 (2): 99–122. ———. 2015. Gender in Kurdish: Structural and socio-cultural dimensions. In Gender across languages, ed. Marlis Hellinger and Heiko Motschenbacher, vol. 4, 247–276. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Haji Qadir. 1986. Diwanî Hajî Qadirî Koyî. Lêkołînewe u lêkdanewey Serdar Hmîd Mîran u Karim Şareza. Pêdaçûnewey Masûd Mohammad  – Haji Qadir Koyi’s collection of poems. Analysis and interpretation by Sardar Hamid Miran and Karim Shareza. Revised by Masud Mohammad. Baghdad: Emîndarêtî Giştîî Rroşnbîrîî Lawanî Nawçey Kurdistan.

  Lexical Variation and Semantic Change in Kurdish 

61

Hama Khurshid, Fuad. 2018/1983. Zimani Kurdi u Dialektekani: Lekolineweyeki Cugrafi ye ‘Kurdish and its dialects: A geographical investigation.’ Trans. From Arabic, Sudad Rasool. Erbil: Rojhelat Publications. Hassanpour, Amir. 1992. Nationalism and language in Kurdistan, 1918–1985. San Francisco: Mellen Research University Press. ———. 1998. The identity of Hewrami speakers: Reflections on the theory and ideology of comparative philology. In Anthology of Gorani Kurdish Poetry, ed. Anwar Soltani, 35–49. London: Soane Trust for Kurdistan. ———. 1999. Berengarî barî baw bûn: Awirrêk le jiyanî Ebdulrrehmanî Zebîhî “ulema” (1920–198?) (Resisting the “status quo”: A look at the life of Abdulrahman Zabihi “Ulama” (1920–198?)). In Jiyan û Beserhatî ‘Ebdulrrehmanî Zebîhî “Mamosta Ulema” – Life and biography of Abdulrahman Zabihi “Mamosta Olama”, ed. Ali Kerimi, 15–51. Goteborg: Zagros Media. ———. 2012. Book review: Politics and language ideology in Kurdish lexicography. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 2012 (217): 189–194. Hejar (Abdulrahman Sharafkandi). 1990. Henbane Borîne: Ferhengî Kurdî-Farsî (Henbane Borine: Kurdish-Persian Dictionary). Tehran: Soroush. Hêmin (Seid Muhammad Emin Shêxulisalmi). 2003. Bargey yaran: Sercemî şi’rî Hêmin, bergî yekem. Erbil: Aras. Johnson, Ellen. 1996. Lexical change and variation in the Southeastern United States, 1930–1990. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press. Kambuziya, Aliyeh Kord Zafaranlu, and Elham Sobati. 2014. Phonological processes of consonants in Kalhori Kurdish dialect. Language Related Research 5 (1): 191–222. Kay, Paul, and Louisa Maffi. 2013. Green and blue. In The world atlas of language structures online, ed. Matthew S.  Dryer and Martin Haspelmath. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/134. Accessed on 09 Nov 2020. Leezenberg, Michiel (1993). Gorani influence on central Kurdish: Substratum or prestige borrowing? ILLC Prepublication Series, X-93-03, 1–22. Amsterdam: Institute for Logic, Language and Computation, University of Amsterdam. MacKenzie, David N. 1961a. Kurdish dialect studies I. London: OUP. ———. 1961b. The origins of Kurdish. Transactions of the Philological Society: 68–86. ———. 1971. A concise Pahlavi dictionary. London: Oxford University Press. Matras, Yaron. 2019. Revisiting Kurdish dialect geography: Findings from the Manchester database. In Current issues in Kurdish linguistics, ed. Songül Gündoğdu, Ergin Öpengin, Geoffrey Haig, and Erik Anonby, 225–242. Bamberg: University of Bamberg Press.

62 

J. Sheyholislami and R. Surkhi

Matras, Yaron, et al. 2016. The dialects of Kurdish. Web resource, University of Manchester. http://kurdish.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/ McCarus, Ernest. 1958. A Kurdish grammar: Descriptive analysis of the Kurdish of Sulaimaniya, Iraq. New York: American Council of Learned Societies. ———. 2009. Kurdish. In The Iranian languages, ed. Gernot Windfuhr, 587–633. London: Routledge. McMahon, M.S. 1994. Understanding language change. New York: Cambridge University Press. Mesthrie, Rajend, Joan Swann, Ana Deumert, and William L.  Leap. 2000. Introduction to sociolinguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Mühlhäusler, Peter. 2011. Mapping linguistic typology. In Language and space: An international handbook of linguistic variation, ed. Alfred Lameli, 355–387. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Nali. 1976. The collection of Nali’s poetry (Mala Khdr Ahmad Shaways Mikaili). Collated and explained by Mala Abdulkareem Mudarris and Fatih Abdulkareem. Revised by Muhammad I Mala Kareem. Baghdad: Kurdish Academy Press. Nanvazadeh, Ali. 2017. Kurdish etymological dictionary: Kurdish-Kurdish, vol. 1, a, b. Tehran: Hamseda. ———. 2020a. Kurdish etymological dictionary: Kurdish-Kurdish, vol. 4, r, ř, z, ž, s, š, ą, ĝ. Tehran: Hamseda. ———. 2020b. Kurdish etymological dictionary: Kurdish-Kurdish, vol. 5, f, v, q, k, g, l, ł. Tehran: Hamseda. Öpengin, Ergin. 2016. The Mukri variety of Central Kurdish: Grammar, texts, and lexicon. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag. Öpengin, Ergin, and Geoffrey Haig. 2014. Regional variation in Kurmanji: A preliminary classification of dialects. Kurdish Studies 2 (2): 143–176. Pakendorf, Brigitte, and Innokentij N. Novgorodov. 2009. Loandwords in the world’s languages: A comparative handbook, ed. Martin Haspelmath and Uri Tadmor, 496–521. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Sankoff, Gillian. 2013. Linguistic outcomes of bilingualism. In The handbook of language variation and change, ed. J.K. Chambers and Natalie Schilling-Estes, 2nd ed., 501–518. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Singleton, David. 2000. Language and the lexicon: An introduction. London: Oxford.

  Lexical Variation and Semantic Change in Kurdish 

63

Traugott, C.  Elizabeth, and Richard B.  Dasher. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Trudgill, Peter. 2000. Sociolinguistics: An introduction to language and society. 4th ed. London: Penguin Books. Zabihi, Abdulrahman. 1988. Qamûsî zimanî Kurdî (Kurdish language dictionary), a–b. Urmia: Salahaddin Publications.

Phonological Variation in Kurdish Erik Anonby

1 Introduction1 Kurdish is often portrayed as a linguistic unity, and there are features— many of them areal—that unite the varieties that are collectively referred to under this label (MacKenzie 1961b; Korn 2003). An examination of the phonological systems of these varieties confirms key patterns of convergence, but also points to areas of considerable internal diversity. Existing phonological descriptions of Kurdish dialects are for the most part limited to a short section in the grammatical description of a single variety (see bibliography in Haig and Öpengin 2014). Studies that mention or treat the phonology of more than one variety, while

E. Anonby (*) School of Linguistics and Language Studies (SLaLS), Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, Canada Leiden University Centre for Linguistics (LUCL), Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 Y. Matras et al. (eds.), Structural and Typological Variation in the Dialects of Kurdish, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78837-7_3

65

66 

E. Anonby

making an invaluable contribution to the field (the best examples are MacKenzie 1961a; Blau 1989b; Fattah 2000; McCarus 2009; and Öpengin and Haig 2014), are still selective and cursory in the overviews that they provide. In this paper, we inventory and analyse the geographic distribution of selected phonological structures from 125 Northern Kurdish (NK) and Central Kurdish (CK) research locations in the Database of Kurdish Dialects (hereafter ‘the Database’; Matras et al. 2016), as shown in Map 1. This study picks up from Matras’ (2016, 2019) overview of key findings on geographic variation in the Database. Matras identifies major as well as localized areas of innovation and retention with reference to convergences among an array of lexical, phonological, and grammatical items. While the Database has a primary focus on the interaction of morphological

Map 1  Northern Kurdish (NK) and Central Kurdish (CK) research sites in the Database. (Map design and construction by Adam Stone and Erik Anonby, 2017. Map data from the Database of Kurdish Dialects, Matras et al. 2016)

  Phonological Variation in Kurdish 

67

alignment with verb semantics2 (see also Matras 2019), the wealth of searchable data enables a fine-grained overview of key aspects of phonological variation in a way that has never been achieved in the existing literature on Kurdish. The present study therefore focuses specifically on the contribution of the Database to an understanding of phonological variation in Kurdish. The data confirm the presence of typically Kurdish sound changes and phonological structures throughout NK and CK, which help in distinguishing Kurdish from various other branches of the Iranic family, among others (see Oranskij 1979; Blau 1989b; Anonby 2004/2005; and Windfuhr 2009): z in zaːn- ‘know’; ʒ in ʒɪn ‘woman’; m in zɪmaːn (etc.) ‘language’; a core vowel inventory with eight basic units (Sect. 3); the voiceless uvular stop as a widespread and basic phoneme (Sect. 4); and a strong representation of emphatic liquids and pharyngeal consonants (also Sect. 4). However, the focus of the present study is on geographic variation within the Database, as it patterns in these two major dialect groupings. After defining the scope and limitations of the present study (Sect. 2), we explore variation in the phonological inventories of individual NK and CK varieties, along with specific cases of historical sound correspondences, whenever homogenous cognate sets are available. Our analysis, which refers to and complements the series of phonological maps in the Database,3 addresses the overarching questions: Are there discernible phonological features that correspond to each of these two main dialect groups of Kurdish? Is the boundary between them abrupt or gradual? Are other linguistic areas, or dialectal subgroups, evident from the distribution of segments across the language area? And finally, does the phonology of varieties at the periphery of the Kurdish language area show evidence of contact with neighbouring languages? Vowels, for which variation in the basic phonological inventory is limited, are treated in Sect. 3. A highlight here is the geographic distribution of front rounded vowels in the Database, and a wide range of variability in specific lexical items. In the consonantal phonology (Sect. 4), we address the central questions of the study in relation to the distribution

68 

E. Anonby

of the labial v/w, affricates, uvular consonants, an aspirated stop series, emphatic alveolars, and pharyngeals. Whenever possible, we compare (a) the presence of a given phoneme in the Database as a whole with (b) its distribution in a particular cognate set, in order to highlight the difference between patterns in the phonological systems generally and historical changes that have affected individual words. The study concludes with a summary and discussion of patterns of variation that emerge from our analysis of the geographic distribution of phonological structures in Kurdish (Sect. 5).

2 Scope and Limitations The present study of phonological variation in Kurdish is the first of its kind, thanks to the availability of the extensive data set it is based on. At the same time, it shows limitations in scope and methodology related to the source data in the areas of dialect selection, the representative nature of the data, thematic focus, and transcription. Dialect Selection  The Database focuses on the two largest major dialect groupings within Kurdish: Northern Kurdish (NK), referred to in the Database as Kurmanji, and Central Kurdish (CK), referred to there as Sorani.4 Of the 130 research sites published in the Database,5 73 are from NK-speaking areas and 52 from CK-speaking areas. NK and CK areas in Turkey, Iraq, and Syria are especially well represented. The remaining five research sites in the Database, collected under a geographic cover term ‘Southern Kurdish’, are in fact of two very different types: (a) ‘Feyli’, a variety which belongs to the genetically based (rather than the more general geographically based) Southern Kurdish dialect group, itself a third major division of Kurdish ‘Proper’ along with NK and CK (Fattah 2000; Windfuhr 2009, p. 12; Haig and Öpengin 2014, pp. 110–111; Aliakbari et al. 2014); and (b) Hawrami/Gorani, spoken by ethnic Kurds and often included as part of the ‘linguistic landscape’ of Kurdish (Haig and Öpengin 2014, pp.  106, 109–111; Matras et  al. 2016;6 Anonby et  al.

  Phonological Variation in Kurdish 

69

2019, 2020, pp. 48–49), but for which a close genealogical relation has yet to be established (Haig and Öpengin 2014). Zazaki, a distinctive variety (Paul 1998) spoken in Turkey, for which many speakers similarly have a close cultural association with the wider Kurdish ethnic group (Blau 1989a, p.  336; Haig and Öpengin 2014, p.  104; Anonby et  al. 2020, pp. 48–49), is acknowledged in the Database7 but does not figure in the selection of research sites. A final Kurdish dialect group outside the scope of the Database, Laki, counts at least several hundred thousand speakers in western Iran (Izadpanāh 1978; Amānollāhi 1991, p.  55; Fattah 2000, p.  4; Anonby 2004/2005, pp.  8, 14; Anonby et  al. 2015-2021). There is scholarly consensus on the classification of Laki as Kurdish (Blau 1989b; Fattah 2000; Anonby 2004/2005; McCarus 2009; Haig & Öpengin 2014), but its exact genealogical position within the larger Kurdish family has yet to be established.  Because of the robust coverage of NK and CK in the Database, this study will focus on the data from the 125 sites represented by these two major groupings. The Representative Nature of the Data  The large-scale survey furnished by the Database is ideal for developing a holistic and fine-grained overview of key aspects of the Kurdish dialect situation. That said, and precisely because of the large-scale nature of the study, the Database is not intended to provide a full range of possible linguistic forms, even within the selected research sites; rather, each research site contributes a defined set of linguistic structures used by a single speaker, and this needs to be taken into account in the interpretation of the data.  Thematic Focus of the Database  As stated in the project documentation, the Database deals with selected structures in lexicon, phonology, and morphosyntax, with a ‘strong focus on the interaction of morphological alignment with verb semantics’ (http://kurdish.humanities. manchester.ac.uk/general-­information/). While the contribution of the Database to the study of lexicon and morphosyntax is obvious (see the other studies in this volume), its applications to phonology are con-

70 

E. Anonby

strained. Even a cursory phonological description, to be coherent and reliable, requires a thorough understanding of a wide range of structures and contrasts, and their function within the sound system of the language as a whole. For example, analysis of a phonetically aspirated stop (see Sect. 4.2) as a distinct phoneme vs. an allophone of a voiceless stop depends on contrast with an unaspirated counterpart in an analogous context; analysis of a pharyngeal articulation as a feature of a consonant, vowel, syllable, or word is even more complex (see Barry 2019). Phonological systems vary significantly from one variety to another, even when the varieties are closely related, and each research site necessitates its own in-depth analysis. A large-scale survey, no matter how well designed, is not well suited to answer questions of phonemic status, in particular, with certainty. Further, less common segments may be present in a given language variety, but absent in the Database; even with this considerable data set, some apparent gaps in phonological inventory may be due to the focus of the questionnaire rather than limitations in the language itself.  Transcriptions The project sound files, which contain hundreds of hours of recordings, are the primary data for the phonological analysis that can be conducted from the Database. Transcriptions of the phrasal data from all locations, as well as a selection of transcribed free speech, are easily accessible and searchable on the project website. They have been validated through a program of training and checking, but should still be viewed as secondary (i.e., interpreted) data. For practical reasons,8 this study is based on the transcriptions of the phrasal data provided on the project website. The reliability of the findings in this study depends on the accuracy of these transcriptions. In light of the phonological issues raised in the preceding paragraphs, and because of subtle phonetic features that are difficult to distinguish in recordings, as well as the sheer size of the data set, the quality of transcriptions varies. Fortunately, the large scale of the data set gives a clear picture of the frequency of structures across the language area, and this helps compensate for issues of consistency that are part of any transcription procedure. 

  Phonological Variation in Kurdish 

71

In summary, there are important ­limitations in the scope and structure of the data, and in its applicability to analysis of phonological variation, that shape the present study. Still, as the present study demonstrates, important and clear tendencies in phonological variation in Kurdish that have emerged, for the first time, through analysis of the Database.

3 Phonological Variation: Vowels The Database shows a somewhat stable inventory of phonemic vowels across Kurdish varieties, but significant variation in which vowels appear with any given lexical item. In this section, we discuss the transcription of vowels (Sect. 3.1), the phonological structure of NK and CK vowel inventories (Sect. 3.2), and aspects of vowel-related variation across the language area (Sect. 3.3).

3.1 Transcription of Vowels The Database transcription conventions are based on Kurdish roman orthographic conventions, but have been expanded there to handle the full inventory of phonemes found in the data.9 These conventions are therefore accessible to scholars and readers already familiar with Kurdish, and at the same time convenient for writing language data in a systematic and efficient way. While the Database transcription conventions are for the most part phonologically transparent, their representation of vowel length is incomplete. Whereas Kurdish orthography only marks length explicitly (using a circumflex {ˆ}) on three of the ten phonemic vowels found in most Kurdish varieties, seven of the ten vowels are in fact phonologically long (see Sect. 3.2). For this reason, and to make each vowel’s articulatory characteristics clearer for readers who are not familiar with Kurdish orthographic conventions, we have systematized the transcription of vowels in this study using an IPA-based phonemic transcription. Table 1 compares three types of transcription:

72 

E. Anonby

Table 1  Conventions for transcription of NK and CK vowels, with example words IPA-based Database phonemic Common Example word transcription transcription allophones (NK)

Example word (CK)

{î} {ê}

iː eː

[iː] [eː]

nɪziːk ‘near’ (S003) peːnʤ ‘five’ (S001)

{a}

aːa

[aː, ɑː]

{o}

oːb

[oː]

{û}

uː

[uː]

{i}

ɪc

[ɪ, ə̯, ɨ̯ ]

{e}

ɛ

[ɛ, æ, a]

{u}

ʊd

[ʊ, ʉ̯]

{ü}

yːe

[yː]

{ö}

œːf

[œː]

diːr ‘far’ (K001) peːnʧ ‘five’ (K001) zaːt ‘food’ (K001) roːʒ ‘day’ (K001) huːn ‘you (pl.)’ (K001) pɪr ‘bridge’ (K001) sɛr ‘above’ (K001) gʊnd ‘village’ (K001) gyːz ‘walnut’ (K004) gœː ‘ear’ (K011)

ʃ aːχ ‘mountain’

(S001) koːʃ k ‘citadel’ (S001) suːr ‘red’ (S001) ʃ ɪt ‘things’(S001) kɛm ‘a little’ (S001) pʊr ‘bridge’ (S006) dy:r ‘far’ (S013)

gœː ‘ear’ (S022)

The vowel transcribed as a in Kurdish orthography (and following it, the Database) is phonologically long (aː—see MacKenzie 1961a). The vowel ɛ, which was historically its short counterpart and is still realized as [ɛ], [æ] or [a] in Kurdish varieties, written as e in Kurdish orthography b The vowel transcribed as o in Kurdish orthography (and following it, the Database) is phonologically long (oː—see MacKenzie 1961a). However, since there is no short counterpart, its length is left unmarked in the orthography c The IPA-based symbol selected for this phoneme in the present study reflects its consistently centralized articulation in comparison to the corresponding long vowel iː d The IPA-based symbol selected for this phoneme in the present study reflects its consistently centralized articulation in comparison to the corresponding long vowel uː e This study treats the vowel transcribed as ö in Kurdish orthography (and following it, the Database) as phonologically long: œː. it corresponds to other long vowels historically and (like oː) has a tendency to diphthongize (MacKenzie 1961a, p. 10). Since there is no short counterpart, its length is not marked in the roman Kurdish orthography; in Arabic-based orthography, the digraph ‫ وێ‬is used (MacKenzie 1961a, p. 11) f Similar to the case of ö, this study treats the vowel transcribed as ü in the Database as phonologically long: yː. In the varieties where this vowel occurs, MacKenzie (1961a, pp. 30, 33, 39, etc.) classifies it as a long vowel; he uses the symbol û but makes clear that it is a front rounded vowel. In Kurdish, it corresponds historically to other long vowels (most often uː) a

73

  Phonological Variation in Kurdish 

1) the Database transcription of Kurdish vowels10—graphemes are indicated with curly brackets: {}; 2) an IPA-based phonemic transcription, in italics, developed here to facilitate the phonological orientation of the present study; and 3) common allophones of each of the vowels in NK and CK, in phonetic transcription using square brackets: [ ]. The phonemic categories and common allophones given for vowels below are based on a synthesis of phonological descriptions of all major varieties of Kurdish as presented in foundational sources, especially MacKenzie (1961a) and Blau (1989b); the author’s field research on Kurdish over the past two decades; and subsequent verification during the writing of this article. In cases where the present study departs from earlier sources, explanations are provided in the endnotes. Example NK and CK words are provided for each phonemic vowel, and as is done throughout the article, Database codes for the research source locations (K001, S001, etc.) are specified.11

3.2 Structure of NK and CK Vowel Inventories Core vowel inventories of NK and CK varieties (Table 2), as documented in the Database, consist of five long vowels iː eː aː oː uː and three short vowels ɪ ɛ ʊ. These eight vowels are attested, and common, in all of the varieties in the Database. In addition, two long front rounded vowels yː and œː are found in the data, but they are not part of the common core inventory: they are somewhat restricted geographically (see Sect. 3.3) and have a low frequency in many of the varieties where they occur.12 Table 2  NK and CK vowel inventory in the Database high

front iː   (yː)

mid

eː   (œː)

low

central

ɪ

back

ʊ

uː oː

ɛ aː

74 

E. Anonby

While the long vowel inventory is symmetrical, the short vowels are asymmetrical in two ways. First, the mid-low front vowel ɛ has no posterior counterpart. Second, the mid-high front vowel ɪ is unstable, and its full phonetic value [I] is only found in closed syllables. When it appears in open syllables, it tends to be pronounced as a brief centralized vowel [ə̯, ɨ ̯] or optionally dropped, raising the question of whether it is best interpreted there as an epenthetic phonetic vowel that serves to break up syllable-initial consonant clusters. There are also two aspects of geographical variation in the vowel inventories which do not show up in the unified transcription conventions in the Database. First, the common Kurdish short low vowel, transcribed in the Database with {e} and transliterated here as ɛ, is typically a mid-low vowel ɛ in NK. However, CK varieties often have a corresponding low front vowel æ in its place (cf. MacKenzie 1961a), and in most CK varieties of Iran, the vowel is central a or ɐ rather than markedly front (Mohammadirad, field notes 2017); this resolves the first point of asymmetry mentioned in the preceding paragraph. Secondly, in CK varieties of Kermanshah Province, Iran, the long low vowel aː is a back vowel [ɑ] or [ɒ] (Erik Anonby, field notes 2017).

3.3 Geographic Variation in Vowel Distribution As mentioned above (3.1), the eight core vowels are found in all of the research locations in the Database. However, the distribution of front rounded vowels is geographically restricted. In addition, geographic distribution of particular vowels is variable for individual lexical items. In this section, we address these two types of vowel-related variation. Front Rounded Vowels  The high front rounded vowel yː is found in just over half of the research sites in the Database (Map 2), and the mid front rounded vowel œː in about one-third of the locations (Map 3). For both of these vowels, the geographic distribution is somewhat stronger across NK varieties13 than across CK, but weak in the band of NK varieties in Syria and north-west Iraq, along the southern periphery of this dialect area. One other difference is that whereas the same set of NK varieties tends to exhibit both vowels in the Database, the CK data shows more

  Phonological Variation in Kurdish 

75

Map 2  Geographic distribution of yː in the Database. (Map design and construction by Adam Stone and Erik Anonby, 2017. Map data from the Database of Kurdish Dialects, Matras et al. 2016)

varieties with one vowel or the other. In Map 2, and on all of the subsequent language data maps, the dotted line between the Database NK and CK sites (cf. Map 1 above) allows for an evaluation of how closely ­distribution of phonological structures corresponds to these major dialect groupings.  These two maps show where front rounded vowels are found in the Database, and give a clear general picture of geographic tendencies for distribution of these vowels in the language as a whole. However, because the Database is based on individual speakers in sample locations, with transcriptions of varying accuracy, and the source data set is limited to items in the project questionnaire (Sect. 2), these maps should not be treated as an exhaustive account of all locations where front rounded vowels may be encountered in the language. Conversely, the marking of any segment on a map may be based on only a single occurrence. The same caveats apply to the other maps in this study that show the presence vs. absence of a particular structure in the Database.

76 

E. Anonby

Map 3  Geographic distribution of œː in the Database. (Map design and construction by Adam Stone and Erik Anonby, 2017. Map data from the Database of Kurdish Dialects, Matras et al. 2016)

Geographic Distribution of Vowels in Individual Words  In a few cognate sets in the Database, constituent vowels are stable across all varieties. Examples include iː in mɪriːʃk ‘chicken’; aː in χɪjaːr ‘cucumber’; initial eː in eːvaːr/eːwaːr/etc.; ‘evening’; ɛ in dɛr ‘door’; and ɪ in pɪʃt ‘behind’.  For front rounded vowels yː and œː, however, which are relatively infrequent and have an irregular distribution across the language area in the first place (see immediately above), distribution in particular lexical items is inevitably irregular. One of the Database items where yː appears most frequently is ‘far’ (W. Iranic *duːr), as a result of a historical fronting process (see Haig 2018, pp.289–290 for discussion of this process in Badini varieties of NK). Even in this word, though, its patterning is highly variable, and a number of the varieties where yː is part of the vowel inventory (cf. Map 2) display other vowels in this word (Map 4; Database Map 1.3).

  Phonological Variation in Kurdish 

77

Map 4  Variation in the vowel found in *duːr ‘far’. (Map design and construction by Adam Stone and Erik Anonby, 2017. Map data from the Database of Kurdish Dialects, Matras et al. 2016; see also Database Map 1.3 (Database Map 1.3, available at http://kurdish.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/vowel-­in-­far/, shows the vowel as found in this word in isolation as well as in a phrasal context, where in many cases a different vowel has been transcribed. Geoffrey Haig (pers. comm. 2019) notes, regarding the data on these maps, that cases where a short vowel ʊ {u} is found in the Database may be the result of inconsistent transcription of the expected long vowel uː {û}.)

Other lexical items show the effects of an equivalent vowel-fronting process (Matras 2019, pp.  236–237), but its effect is different in each item. For example, the Database website provides a map that shows the historical fronting of the vowel uː in *buːd ‘was’.14 In this word, uː has become fronted to iː in some parts of the language area (similar in distribution to where any kind of fronting is found for ‘far’), but the intermediate stage yː is only found in a single location. The mid front rounded vowel œː, which has a more restricted geographic distribution than yː to start with, is not found across the language area for any of the individual items in the Database. An example word

78 

E. Anonby

Map 5  Variation for glide and vowel in *ɡoːz ‘walnut’. (Map design and construction by Adam Stone and Erik Anonby, 2017. Map data from the Database of Kurdish Dialects, Matras et  al. 2016; see also Database Map 1.31 (The map at http://kurdish.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/vowel-­initial-­palatalisation-­walnut/ shows the same word, but individual glide and vowel qualities are distinguished here))

where it shows up in several locations is *ɡoːz ‘walnut’ (Map 5); but in this highly variable item, all but one of the ten phonemic vowels of Kurdish (all but aː) are found across Database locations! While there are some discernible geographic tendencies in the distribution of particular vowels—for example, a roughly defined continuum from uː in the north-­ west through yː and iː to eː in the south-west—the exceptions are numerous. To add to the variability in this word, an assortment of prevocalic glides (v, w, ɥ, j) have emerged in most CK varieties as well as a number of varieties all along the southern periphery of NK. A clearer, and simpler, vowel continuum pattern is found in reflexes of *paː from north-westerly piː, through an intermediate area spanning the NK/CK border with peː, to paː in the far south-west (Database Map

  Phonological Variation in Kurdish 

79

Map 6  Variation in the vowel found in soːr/suːr/(etc.) ‘red’. (Map design and construction by Adam Stone and Erik Anonby, 2017. Map data from the Database of Kurdish Dialects, Matras et al. 2016)

2.24).15 In the word ‘eight’, the rhyme element ɛj is found in about half of the Database locations in the north and west parts of the NK area, but is ɛ elsewhere (Database Map 1.1).16 Finally, for the item ‘red’, vowel correspondences line up, albeit roughly, with the NK/CK division: oː in NK vs. uː in CK (Map 6).

4 Phonological Variation: Consonants The Database shows a sizable consonant inventory, but a significant number of these consonants are peripheral—geographically restricted and in most cases exhibiting a low frequency in the data. For peripheral consonants, there are recurrent, significant patterns in areal distribution, and some of these line up with the basic distinction between CK and

80 

E. Anonby

NK. As was shown for vowels, there is also significant variation in which consonants appear with any given lexical item. In this section, we discuss the transcription of consonants (Sect. 4.1), the phonological structure of NK and CK consonant inventories (Sect. 4.2), and elements of variation in the distribution and patterning of consonants across the language area (Sect. 4.3).

4.1 Transcription of Consonants As mentioned in Sect. 3.1, symbols used for transcription of consonants in the Database are modelled on existing Kurdish roman orthographic conventions, but some aspects of the phonological system which are absent in standard orthography are made explicit in the Database.17 For consonants, added elements in the Database include pharyngeal articulation, emphatic co-articulation (see Sect. 4.2) and contrastive aspiration, as well as exact place of articulation for affricates and the voiced bilabial continuant v/w. Some of the conventional consonant symbols, however, are unfamiliar to scholars outside of Kurdish studies, and in other cases the phonological value of the symbols is not fully transparent. Since specific consonantal features are central to the discussion here, we use an IPA-based phonemic transcription for all language data. Table 3, parallel to Table 1, compares three types of transcription: 1) the Database transcription of Kurdish consonants18—graphemes are indicated with curly brackets: {}, 2) the IPA-based phonemic transcription, in italics; and 3) common allophones of each of the consonants in NK and CK, in phonetic transcription using square brackets: [ ]. The phonemic categories and common allophones given for consonants below are based on a synthesis of phonological descriptions of all major varieties of Kurdish as presented in foundational sources, especially MacKenzie (1961a, b) and Blau (1989b); the author’s field research on Kurdish over the past two decades; and subsequent verification during

  Phonological Variation in Kurdish 

81

Table 3  Conventions for transcription of NK and CK consonants, with example words Database transcription

IPA-based phonemic transcription

Common allophones

Example word Example word (NK) (CK)

{p}

pa

[p]

{p’}

pʰ

[pʰ]

{b}

b

[b]

{t}

ta

[t]

{t’}

tʰ

[tʰ]

{ṭ}

tˤ

[tˤ]

{d} {ḍ}

d dˤ

[d] [dˤ]

{ç}

ʧ2a,b

[t͡ʃ]

paːnzdɛ ‘fifteen’ – (K032) pʰɪʃt ‘behind’ pʰɪrd ‘bridge’ (K033) (S002) bɪlɪnd ‘high’ (K001) bɛrɪz ‘high’ (S001) tɪʃtɛkɪ dʊ ‘other’ – (K032) tʰaːzɛ ‘new’ (K024) dɛkaːtʰ ‘it does’ (S032) tˤaːʃteː ‘break-­fast’ mɛntˤɛqɛ (K021) ‘district’ (S012) diːr ‘far’(K001) diːr ‘far’ (S001) sɛdˤ (not attested) ‘hundred’(K095) ʧɪyaː ‘mountain’ – (K001) rˤaːkʰɛ[t͡s]ɛ ‘goes to – sleep’ (K021) ʧʰɪl ‘forty’ (K021) (not attested) ʤaːmiː ‘mosque’ ʤaːdaː ‘street’ (K004) (S001) ɛ [dz]aːnɪmeː ‘I [dz]iːz ‘walnut’ know’ (K065) (S025) kɛsk ‘green’ (K001) – kʰuːʧeː ‘street’ ɛw kʰɪteːbɛy (K003) ‘that book’ (S031) ɡuːz ‘walnut’ ɡaːwraː ‘large’ (K002) (S001) qɛza: – ‘district’(K001) qʰɛtiːyɛn ‘never’ (not attested) (K016)

{ts} {ç’} {c}

[t͡s]

ʧʰ ʤc

{dz.}

[t͡ʃʰ] [d͡ʒ] [d͡z]

{k} {k’}

kd kʰ

[k] [kʰ]

{g}

ɡ

[ɡ]

{q}

qa

[q]

{q’}

qʰ

[qʰ]

(continued)

82 

E. Anonby

Table 3 (continued) Database transcription

IPA-based phonemic transcription

Common allophones

Example word Example word (NK) (CK)

{f}

f

[f]

faːm ‘understand-­ ing (n.)’ (K003)

{v}

v

[v]

{s}

s

[s]

{ṣ}

sˤ

[sˤ]

{ş}

ʃ

[ʃ]

{z}

z

[z]

{ẓ}

zˤ

[zˤ]

{j}

ʒ

[ʒ]

{x}

χe

[χ, ʀ̥]

{ẋ}

ʁf

[ʁ]

{h}

h

[h]

{ḥ}

ħ

[ħ]

{ʕ}

ʕ

[ʕ]

{‘}

ʔ

[ʔ]

{m}

m

[m]

{n}

n

[n]

faːqaːliː ‘grocery shop’ (S013) vaː ‘that’ (dem.)’ ħaːvdaː (K002) ‘seven-teen’ (S001) sɛr ‘above’ (K001) suːr ‘red’ (S001) sˤʊbɛ ‘morning’ sˤɛwz ‘green’ (K021) (S033) ʃaːt ‘river’ ʃaːχ ‘mountain’ (K014) (S001) zaːt ‘food’ (K001) zɪmaːn ‘language’ (K002) zˤaːruːk ‘child’ ɡeːzˤ ‘walnut’ (K032) (S035) ʒoːreː ‘on’ (K001) ʒɪyaːn ‘life’ (S001) χɪyaːr ‘cucumber’ χeːyaːr (K001) ‘cucum-ber’ (S001) ʁɛriːb ‘foreign’ ʁaːr ‘running (K001) (n.)’ (S059) hɪndɪk ‘a little’ haːreː ‘yes’ (K001) (K004) ħɛyaːt ‘life’ (K001) ħaːywaːnaːt ‘ani-mal’ (S001) ʕɛʃiːr ‘clan’ (K003) ʕaːʃɪrɛt ‘clan’ (S008) daːʔwɛt ‘dance (n.)’ ɛlʔaːn ‘now’ (K011) (S040) mɛzɪn ‘large’ mɛrˤ ‘sheep’ (K001) (S052) nɪhaː ‘now’ (K001) naːχoːʃ ‘ill’ (S001) (continued)

  Phonological Variation in Kurdish 

83

Table 3 (continued) Database transcription

IPA-based phonemic transcription

Common allophones

Example word Example word (NK) (CK)

{l}

l

[l]

{ł}

lˤ

[lˤ/ɫ]

{r}

r

[ɾ, r]

{rr}

rˤ

[rˤ]

{w}

w

[w]

{y}

j

[j]

laːhaː ‘there’ lɛweː ‘there’ (K001) (S001) maːlˤ ‘house’(K025) saːlˤ ‘year’(S001) raːqs ‘dance (n.)’ dɛrɡaː ‘door’ (K009) (S001) rˤuːn ‘oil’ (K074) rˤuːbaːrˤ ‘river’ (S051) dɛwaːr ‘animal’ eːwaː ‘you (K001) (pl.)’ (S001) jɛk ‘one’(K001) jɛk ‘one’(S001)

A contrast between unaspirated and aspirated voiceless stops is well known for NK, but not for CK (MacKenzie 1961a). In the Database, however, both series appear in the transcriptions. This reflects a larger issue of the systematicity of transcriptions, but it is a tricky issue. Aspiration on stops is allophonically modal (usual) in CK, but—as for English and Persian, which have similar allophonic patterning for stops—aspiration is generally not marked in phonemic transcriptions. For both NK and CK data in the Database, interference from this convention (along with the minimal feasibility of systematically rectifying such oversights during the checking process) has resulted in many cases where aspirated stops are left unmarked in the transcriptions, thereby appearing the same in the transcriptions as contrastively unaspirated stops. See Sect. 4.3, ‘Geographic Variation in Consonant Distribution: Aspirated Stops’, for discussion of the geographic distribution and patterning of aspiration in the data b In contrast to Kurdish orthography, which uses a single symbol ç, the Database transcriptions distinguish between {ç} [t͡ʃ] and {ts} [t͡s]. In varieties where both segments occur, MacKenzie (1961a, p. 6) characterizes them as allophones of a single phoneme. The allophonic (and apparently gradient) relationship between the two segments is suggested by the variable transcriptions in the Database, where two instances of a single word often show both transcriptions, even within a single variety (e.g., S037 Bukan {kits} ‘girl’, {kiçe çkole} ‘the little girl’; S039 Sardasht {kiç} ‘girl’, {kitse çukeke} ‘the little girl’) (see also Sect. 4.3 below) c Parallel to the discussion in the previous note: in contrast to Kurdish orthography, which uses a single symbol c, the Database transcriptions distinguish between {c} [d͡ʒ] and {dz.} [d͡z]. In varieties where both of these segments occur, MacKenzie (1961a, p.  6) similarly characterizes them as allophones of a single phoneme. Again, the allophonic (and apparently gradient) relationship between the two segments is suggested by the variable transcriptions in the Database, where two a

(continued)

84 

E. Anonby

Table 3 (continued) instances of a single word sometimes show both transcriptions, even within a single variety (e.g., S039 Sardasht {piyaweçî ceḥêł} ‘a young man’, {piywekî dzaḥêl girtra} ‘a young man was arrested’) (see also Sect. 4.3 below) d http://kurdish.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/database-­of-­kurdish-­dialects/, http:// kurdish.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/kurdish-­dialect-­variation-­maps/ e In keeping with many early works on Iranian languages, MacKenzie (1961a), (Blau 1989b) and McCarus (2009) list this phoneme as a voiceless velar fricative x. The symbol used in the Database follows this convention, and lists both [x] and [χ] as allophones. It is the present author’s assessment that this phoneme is most accurately categorized across Kurdish as a voiceless uvular fricative (in line with descriptions of Persian x more recent literature; see Lazard 1989); the trilling of the uvula is often audible in its articulation. Sheyholislami’s (2018, p. 145) comparison of this phoneme’s articulation with uvular ch after a back vowel in German supports this assessment f Parallel to the discussion in the previous note: in keeping with many early works on Iranian languages, foundational sources on Kurdish present this phoneme as a voiced velar fricative γ (MacKenzie 1961a, b; McCarus 2009) or ẍ (Blau 1989b). In its selection of the symbol ẋ and mention of its realization as a velar fricative [ɣ], the Database follows this tradition. However, it is the present author’s assessment that this phoneme is more accurately categorized across Kurdish as a voiced uvular consonant (in line with descriptions of its Persian and Arabic counterparts in recent literature; see Lazard 1989 and Watson 2002). Sheyholislami’s (2018, p.  145) comparison of this phoneme’s articulation with the uvular r of French supports this assessment. In Southern Kurdish, which is beyond the scope of this study, the voiced velar fricative [ɣ] is an intervocalic fricative allophone of g that contrasts with uvular obstruents (Mojtaba Gheitasi, pers. comm. 2016; author’s field notes, 2017; cf. Fattah 2000, pp. 100–105)

the writing of this article. In cases where the present study departs from earlier sources, explanations are provided in the endnotes. An example NK and CK word is provided for each consonant whenever possible, along with the Database research location codes (K001, S001, etc.).19

4.2 Structure of NK and CK Consonant Inventories There are 38 consonantal phonemes found in the Database transcriptions. Of these consonants, most form a core of widespread and frequent units; but more than a quarter of the consonants, as evidenced by limitations in their geographic distribution and frequency, are peripheral (Table 4).

aspirated stops/affricates vl. stops/affricates vd. stops/affricates vl. fricatives vd. fricatives nasals rhotics lateral approximants approximants

w

m

v

labial (pʰ) p b f

alveolar (tʰ) t d s z n r l rˤ lˤ

(tˤ) (dˤ) (sˤ) (zˤ)

emphatic alveolar

Table 4  NK and CK consonant inventory in the Database

j

ʧ ʤ ʃ ʒ

palatal(−alveolar) (ʧʰ)

ɡ

(ʁ)

χ

velar uvular (kʰ) (qʰ) k q

ħ ʕ

h

(ʔ)

pharyngeal glottal   Phonological Variation in Kurdish 

85

86 

E. Anonby

The core consonant inventory of Kurdish varieties, as documented in the data, exhibits 8 places of articulation and 6 main manners of articulation, plus a distinction of voicing for stops and fricatives. Peripheral consonants include emphatic obstruents (defined in Sect. 4.3), the aspirated stop series, the voiced uvular fricative ʁ and the glottal stop. The geographically restricted alveolar affricates, transcribed separately in the Database as {ts} and {dz.}, coexist in complementary distribution with their palato-alveolar counterparts ʧ and ʤ in a geographically limited set of locations (Sect. 4.3). Similarly, the voiced bilabial continuants v and w—both of which are common—have distinct geographic distributions; and in the locations where both segments are found, evidence for phonemic contrast is weak. There are several additional phonemes reported from other Kurdish varieties which do not appear in the Database transcriptions, but which could be present in the varieties documented there: (a) the labial-palatal approximant ɥ, which has been treated as a phoneme in Southern Kurdish areas adjacent to CK (Fattah 2000, p. 110; Anonby et al. 2017; cf. MacKenzie 1961a, p. 7) and appears to function similarly some of the CK data (where it is transcribed {ü}; cf. our analysis of ‘walnut’ in Sect. 3.2); (b) a unitary phoneme ŋ, found in the same area, in items such as walˤŋ ‘leaf’ (Gheitasi et al. 2017; Gheitasi and Anonby 2017) and reported from many CK varieties (MacKenzie 1961a, pp. 5–6; Blau 1989b, p. 329; McCarus 2009, p. 593; Masoud Mohammadirad, field notes 2017); (c) and additional emphatic consonants (see the discussion of emphatic consonants in Sect. 4.3).

4.3 Geographic Variation in Consonant Distribution As mentioned above (Sect. 4.2), most consonants are part of the core phonology, widely attested and frequently occurring across the Database sites. In this section, we focus instead on consonants with significant variability in distribution and frequency across the language area, as follows: • labials v and w; • affricates; • uvular consonants;

  Phonological Variation in Kurdish 

87

• the aspirated stop series; • the emphatic alveolar series; and • pharyngeals ʕ and ħ. Although in Sect. 3.3, variation in vowel inventory is treated separately from variation in the distribution of vowels in individual words, these two measures of variation correspond in a regular way for consonants and are treated together here. Labials v and w  The phonological isogloss that most closely corresponds to the conventional linguistic division between NK and CK relates to an isogloss, highlighted already in MacKenzie 1961a (pp.  220–225), between labials v and w. Both segments are well attested in the Database, but it is difficult to establish contrast between the two in any variety. Generally, v is widespread in NK, and w is characteristic of CK. In the Database map series, this division shows up most clearly for ‘water’ (Database Map 1.8)20 and ‘name’ (Database Map 1.9).21  Most e­ xceptions to this general v/w split relate to the distribution of [w] in recurrent contexts in NK: for example, beside χ, perhaps as a labial element in a complex phoneme χʷ (dɪχ[w]oːm ‘I eat (something)’, K058 Bismil), and beside (mid-)low vowels, especially in pronouns and demonstratives ([w]aːn tɪʃtaːn ‘these things’, K001 Pervari; ɛ[w]aː teː ‘he is coming’, K003 Kars). In CK, a recurrent exception to the split is the appearance of [v] (perhaps phonologically f ?) before d in most CK varieties in the item ‘seventeen’ (e.g., ħɛ[v]dɛ in S012 Erbil) (Map 7). Affricates  Palato-alveolar affricates ʧ and ʤ are found in all Database locations, and in every location they are attested with their usual realizations [t͡ʃ] and [d͡ʒ]. However, they are also sometimes realized as alveolar affricates [t͡s] and [d͡z] in a cluster of varieties, most of which are at the north end of the CK area (Map 8), close to Azeri Turkic-speaking areas (cf. Stilo 1994). This (apparently) allophonic fronting takes place in specific phonological contexts, and in particular before non-back vowels and at the end of words: [t͡s]ɪl ‘forty’ (S029 Mahabad), ɡɛn[t͡s], ‘boy’ (S059 Qalat Dizah); [d͡z]eː ‘place’ (S029 Mahabad), peːn[d͡z], ‘five’ (S038

88 

E. Anonby

Map 7  Medial labial consonant in ħɛ[v]dɛ (etc.) ‘seventeen’. (Map design and construction by Adam Stone and Erik Anonby, 2017. Map data from the Database of Kurdish Dialects, Matras et al. 2016)

Naqadeh). Database Map 1.16 shows the distribution of [t͡s] in the specific item kiʧ (and cognates) ‘girl’.22  Uvular Consonants  There are no items in the Database specifically included to examine the distribution of uvular23 consonants q, χ, and ʁ in lexicon or basic phonological inventory. However, a search for occurrences each of the uvular consonants in each location provides an indication of the relative frequency of these consonants, and possible gaps in geographic distribution.  The voiceless uvular stop q and the voiceless uvular fricative χ are found in all of the varieties in the Database, and both are frequent. In contrast, the occurrence of the voiced uvular fricative ʁ is limited in the Database, and even in areas where this consonant is most widespread, there are many fewer items in with ʁ than with its voiceless counterpart

  Phonological Variation in Kurdish 

89

Map 8  Allophones of ʧ and ʤ in the Database. (Map design and construction by Adam Stone and Erik Anonby, 2017. Map data from the Database of Kurdish Dialects, Matras et al. 2016)

χ. In the NK data, ʁ is found in most locations, but absent from scattered sites in the south and east portions of the NK dialect area. For the CK data, in contrast, ʁ is found in fewer than half of the research sites, and its absence is most conspicuous among varieties toward the middle of the CK dialect area (Map 9). Aspirated Stops  Along with the distribution of v and w, the presence vs. absence of a contrastively aspirated stop/affricate series is a second clear area of phonological divergence between NK and CK. In line with findings in the literature (MacKenzie 1961a, pp. 39–45; Blau 1989b, p. 329; Haig and Öpengin 2018, p. 171), contrastive aspiration is found in many NK varieties. In the Database, it is represented by pʰ, tʰ, ʧʰ, kʰ, and possibly qʰ (see in this section below) in NK, especially toward the middle of the NK area.24 However, in line with the observations of Öpengin and

90 

E. Anonby

Map 9  Geographic distribution of ʁ in the Database. (Map design and construction by Adam Stone and Erik Anonby, 2017. Map data from the Database of Kurdish Dialects, Matras et al. 2016)

Haig (2014, p.  159), contrastive aspiration is essentially absent in CK. Instead, the modal (i.e., ‘normal’) realizations of voiceless stops in CK are phonetically aspirated (McCarus 1958; MacKenzie 1961a, p.  1–28; Öpengin 2016, p.  27–30), with no contrastive unaspirated counterparts. At least some of the sporadic examples of aspirated stops transcribed in the CK data are therefore likely allophonic realizations of modal voiceless stops which have been transcribed as aspirated based on their phonetic qualities, but for which a possible contrast with unaspirated stops could be confirmed only through a separate analysis of the phonological system of each variety in question using data from beyond the Database.25  Map 10 shows the distribution of all locations where data items containing transcriptions of kʰ are found in the Database.

  Phonological Variation in Kurdish 

91

Map 10  Geographic distribution of all locations in the Database with questionnaire responses containing transcriptions of kʰ. (Map design and construction by Adam Stone and Erik Anonby, 2017. Map data from the Database of Kurdish Dialects, Matras et al. 2016)

The distribution of the stops pʰ (see Map 11), tʰ, and ʧʰ is similar to that of kʰ, and irregularities in distribution for any of the aspirated stops is more likely a reflection of the lexical items in the Database that appear with these infrequent consonants rather than a systemic phonological difference. There is also one case of qʰ in the data (qʰɛtiːyɛn ‘never’ in K016 Hakkâri in the south-east corner of Turkey), but it is difficult to determine the phonemic status of this consonant based on this single example. Map 12 shows the distribution of locations where aspiration is transcribed on the word-initial stops in the item ‘when’ (kʰɛnɡeː/kɛnɡeː, ʧʰɛχteː/ʧɛχteː, etc.). This map suggests that aspiration does not consistently appear (or is not consistently transcribed) with a given lexical item in all varieties, even when this contrast is available (cf. Map 10).

92 

E. Anonby

Map 11  Geographic distribution of all locations in the Database with questionnaire responses containing transcriptions of pʰ. (Map design and construction by Adam Stone and Erik Anonby, 2017. Map data from the Database of Kurdish Dialects, Matras et al. 2016)

A comparison of the distribution of these aspirated stops with emphatic alveolar obstruents (immediately below) shows that the two consonant series coexist in a number of NK varieties; they are not simply two different outcomes of a single pattern of phonological emphasis. Emphatic Alveolars  Kurdish has an emphatic alveolar series that is represented in the Database by two liquids rˤ and l ˤ, and three obstruents tˤ dˤ sˤ zˤ.26 The ‘emphatic’ component is characterized by a secondary constriction that can vary between pharyngeal, uvular, and velar places of articulation (Card 1983, pp. 13–14; Dolgopolsky 1977, p. 1; Fischer and Jastrow 1980, p.  56). The emphatic liquids are geographically widespread and frequently attested in the Database. The emphatic obstruents, commonly identified with Semitic borrowings into Kurdish (Öpengin 2020, pp. 465–469), are in contrast peripheral: they are found in a lim-

  Phonological Variation in Kurdish 

93

Map 12  Word-initial aspirated stop in ‘when’ in the Database transcriptions. (Map design and construction by Adam Stone and Erik Anonby, 2017. Map data from the Database of Kurdish Dialects, Matras et al. 2016. See also Database Maps 1.35 and 2.7 (Database Map 2.7, found at http://kurdish.humanities.manchester. ac.uk/when/, shows the same word ‘when’ but categorizes the data according to other lexical and phonological features))

ited number of varieties, and there, in a restricted set of items. Perhaps surprisingly, each of the four emphatic obstruents is also attested among inherited Iranic items in the Database27 (see Barry [2019] for a discussion of the historical volatility and structurally complex behaviour of pharyngeal articulations). A search through the Database for the emphatic rhotic rˤ—the most widespread and common of the emphatic consonants in the Database— turns up occurrences of this phoneme in all research locations except for a handful of varieties in the middle of the NK dialect area (Map 13).28 An examination across the 125 NK and CK Database locations shows that rˤ is not consistently represented in particular lexical items, even in

94 

E. Anonby

Map 13  Geographic distribution of rˤ in the Database transcriptions. (Map design and construction by Adam Stone and Erik Anonby, 2017. Map data from the Database of Kurdish Dialects, Matras et al. 2016)

places where rˤ is found in the phonological system (as confirmed by other items). While almost all of the varieties in the Database have some examples of rˤ, as the preceding map (Map 13) shows, there are segments of both the NK and CK areas—especially at the north and south-east peripheries of the wider language area—where the transcriptions imply that emphasis has not developed on the initial r of ‘day’ (proto-Kurdish probably *roːʒ). It is likely that these gaps are the result of inconsistent representation of rˤ in initial position, where it is the modal (usual) type of ‘r’ in most Kurdish varieties (MacKenzie 1961a). The word ‘day’ has not been elicited by itself in the Database, but these patterns are evident in the transcriptions of reflexes of *r in the construction ‘two days’ (dʊ roːʒ / dʊ rˤoːʒ, etc.) (Map 14). The emphatic lateral lˤ is also generally widespread and common. However, it is absent in transcriptions from a large segment of NK

  Phonological Variation in Kurdish 

95

Map 14  Reflexes of *r in ‘two days’ in the Database transcriptions. (Map design and construction by Adam Stone and Erik Anonby, 2017. Map data from the Database of Kurdish Dialects, Matras et al. 2016)

varieties in the Database, especially toward the west and north peripheries of the NK dialect area (Map 15). An examination the Database shows (as for rˤ) that in locations where lˤ is attested, its distribution in particular lexical items is uneven (Map 16). This is the case for the final consonant in the word ‘year’ (W. Iranic *saːl), which has undergone an l > lˤ sound change in just under half of the research locations. While the sound change has taken place in ‘year’ for almost all of the CK locations, its appearance in the transcriptions of NK varieties—even though they contain lˤ in other words—is much weaker. It is likely that some of these gaps are attributable to inconsistent transcription of emphasis on lˤ, as with rˤ. Interestingly, as the preceding map shows, there is also a handful of CK varieties in the Database, at the north-west edge of the CK bloc, where r is the final consonant in ‘year’ (and presumably because of this, it

96 

E. Anonby

Map 15  Geographic distribution of lˤ in the Database transcriptions. (Map design and construction by Adam Stone and Erik Anonby, 2017. Map data from the Database of Kurdish Dialects, Matras et al. 2016))

is exempt from the acquisition of emphasis that has taken place in the surrounding varieties with lˤ). This clear-cut areal tendency, first highlighted for this area by MacKenzie (1961a), appears with several other words, as shown on a series of additional maps (1.12–1.15) in the Database.29 Of the four emphatic alveolar obstruents in the Database, the most frequently attested is the voiceless stop tˤ. Still, this consonant has been identified in only a dozen research sites in the Database, of which most are NK and a single one is CK (Map 17). The geographic distribution of tˤ is strongest in the varieties of Syria, along the southern periphery of the NK dialect area. Most occurrences of tˤ are retentions in words borrowed from Arabic, for example, qʊtˤ ‘cut (n.)’ (K096 Qamishly) (cf. A. qatˤʕ) and mɛntˤɛqɛ ‘district, neighbourhood’ (K021 Mosul, S012 Erbil) (A. mantˤaqa(t) ‘area, district’). However, it also appears sporadically in

  Phonological Variation in Kurdish 

97

Map 16  Reflexes of *l in *saːl ‘year’ in the Database transcriptions. (Map design and construction by Adam Stone and Erik Anonby, 2017. Map data from the Database of Kurdish Dialects, Matras et al. 2016)

inherited Iranic items, for example, tˤaːʃteː ‘breakfast’ (K021 Mosul), ʃɛwɪtˤaːndɪn ‘I burned (something)’ (K033 Qamishly), and noːtˤ ‘ninety’ (K096 Qamishly). The voiceless emphatic alveolar fricative sˤ appears in an even smaller number of sites in the Database (Map 18). In contrast to the distribution of tˤ, which is almost exclusively found in the NK data, sˤ is better represented among CK varieties. Since the incidence of both consonants in the Database is fairly low, it is unclear whether this difference in geographic distribution is significant, or whether it is an unintended result of the selection of questionnaire items in the data. Arabic borrowings with sˤ include sˤʊbɛ ‘morning’ (K021 Mosul) (A. sabaːħ) and ʃɛχsˤ ‘person’ (K096 Qamishly) (A. ʃaχsˤ ‘individual (n.)’). Inherited items in the Database include sˤɛt ‘one hundred’ (K032 Bahçesaray, S033 Sulaymaniyah) and sˤɛwz ‘green’ (S052 Kamyaran).

98 

E. Anonby

Map 17  Geographic distribution of all locations in the Database with questionnaire responses containing transcriptions of tˤ. (Map design and construction by Adam Stone and Erik Anonby, 2017. Map data from the Database of Kurdish Dialects, Matras et al. 2016)

The voiced emphatic alveolar counterparts of tˤ and sˤ, namely the stop dˤ and the fricative zˤ, are each found in only four sites in the Database: for dˤ, all four sites are in NK areas, and three of the four sites where zˤ is found are NK. Five of these eight separate sites overlap with the places where tˤ and sˤ are found in the Database (see Maps 17 and 18). Arabic borrowings with dˤ include lɛ dˤaːwaːt ‘at the wedding’ (K096 Qamishly) (A. daʕwa(t) ‘invitation’; note that the initial stop in the Arabic source item is not emphatic) and xaːdˤraːwaːt ‘vegetables’ (K017 Akre, K018 Duhok) (A. xadˤrawaːt), and there is a single inherited item in the data: sɛdˤ ‘one hundred’ (K095 Doda). Database items with zˤ, all of which are inherited Iranic words (!), include zˤaːruːk ‘child’ (K032 Bahçesaray), mɛzˤɪn ‘large’ (K021 Mosul), and ɡeːzˤ ‘walnut’ (S035 Kalar).

  Phonological Variation in Kurdish 

99

Map 18  Geographic distribution of all locations in the Database with questionnaire responses containing transcriptions of sˤ. (Map design and construction by Adam Stone and Erik Anonby, 2017. Map data from the Database of Kurdish Dialects, Matras et al. 2016)

Pharyngeals  The pharyngeal consonants ħ (vl.) and ʕ (vd.) appear in most NK and CK varieties, and often with high frequency. These consonants, like the emphatic alveolar obstruents (see immediately above), are best known from Arabic, and many of the database items where they are found have been borrowed from Arabic. As is the case with emphatic ­co-­articulation, primary pharyngeal articulation behaves in some ways like an autonomous phonological feature, patterning unpredictably even in borrowings from Arabic, and spreading through the lexicon onto inherited Iranic vocabulary as well (see Barry 2019).  The voiceless pharyngeal ħ is found in almost all of the research locations in the Database, with gaps only in a handful of varieties on the north-west periphery of NK and the middle of the CK dialect area (Map 19). It is usually retained in Arabic borrowings, as the Database Map

100 

E. Anonby

Map 19  Geographic distribution of ħ in the Database. (Map design and construction by Adam Stone and Erik Anonby, 2017. Map data from the Database of Kurdish Dialects, Matras et al. 2016)

1.27 shows for the word ‘animal’,30 for example, ħɛywaːn (K003 Kars, S003 Al Kuwayr) (A. ħaywaːn). In addition, for both NK and CK varieties in the Database, it appears as the usual initial consonant in certain inherited Iranic words, for example, ħɛft ‘seven’ (K002 Yavuzeli, S008 Dibis) (W. Iranic *haft) (cf. Database Map 1.28).31 In most NK varieties in the Database—but in none of the CK varieties—it has further diffused into the lexical item ‘eight’, for example, ħɛʃt (K001 Pervari, K002 Yavuzeli) (W. Iranic *(h)aʃt) (Database Map 1.27).32 The voiced pharyngeal ʕ is as widespread as its voiceless counterpart, with gaps only on two sites at the north-west and south-west extremities of the language area as well as a couple of sites near the middle (Map 20). While ʕ is strongly retained in Arabic borrowings in general, in certain words it is sporadically dropped, or replaced by its voiceless counterpart ħ or the glottal stop ʔ. Kurdish variants of ‘Arab’ (A. ʕarab) include ʕɛrɛb (K003 Kars, S012 Erbil), ɛrɛb (K001 Pervari, S020 Sulaymaniyah) and

  Phonological Variation in Kurdish 

101

Map 20  Geographic distribution of ʕ in the Database. (Map design and construction by Adam Stone and Erik Anonby, 2017. Map data from the Database of Kurdish Dialects, Matras et al. 2016)

ħɛrɛb (K019 Shekhan, S026 Rowanduz) (Map 21; Database Map 1.24); variants of ‘hour’ (A. saːʕa(t)) include: saːʕɛt (K009 Şırnak, S037 Bukan), saːɛt (K008 Siirt, S038 Naqadeh) and sɛʔɛt (K017 Akre, S025 Rowanduz) (Map 22). The pharyngeal ʕ has also intermittently diffused into inherited Iranian vocabulary, as shown by the Database items ʕɛzmaːn ‘language’ (K025 Çukurca, K026 Uludere) and ʕɛftɛ ‘seventy’ (S002 Erbil), as well as saːʕ ‘one hundred’ and ħaːvʕaː ‘seventeen’ (both from S005 Sulaymaniyah).

5 Conclusion The Database of Kurdish Dialects makes available, for the first time, a large-scale repository of systematized data from 130 varieties across the language area. The present study, based on an analysis of the Database, focuses on the geographic distribution of phonological structures in the

102 

E. Anonby

Map 21  Initial consonant in ‘Arab’ (from A. ʕarab). (Map design and construction by Adam Stone and Erik Anonby, 2017. Map data from the Database of Kurdish Dialects, Matras et al. 2016; see also Database Map 1.24 (Database Map 1.24, found at http://kurdish.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/pharyngeal-­retention-­ arab/, does not show locations when a cognate word is not found, and characterizes the variation in features as retention vs. loss of the initial pharyngeal consonant))

125 sites from Northern Kurdish (NK) and Central Kurdish (CK) in particular. Our analysis shows that for both vowels (Sect. 3) and consonants (Sect. 4), there is a clear core of phonemic segments that are shared by all, or almost all of the Kurdish varieties in the Database, and frequently used in these varieties. For phonologically peripheral phonemes, in contrast, we have identified important patterns of geographic variation in segmental inventory, as well as in the ways that these segments are distributed in particular words whenever homogenous cognate sets are available across the language area. A key question raised in the Introduction is the way in which phonological structures correspond to the basic dialect division between NK

  Phonological Variation in Kurdish 

103

Map 22  Medial consonant in ‘hour’ (from A. saːʕa(t)). (Map design and construction by Adam Stone and Erik Anonby, 2017. Map data from the Database of Kurdish Dialects, Matras et al. 2016)

and CK. In contrast to the ‘dense bundle of isoglosses’ that emerges when lexical and morphosyntactic structures are also take into consideration (Matras 2017, pp. 3–4), the results of this study (Sects. 3.3 and 4.3) do not show a clear-cut boundary between the phonological structures of the two major dialect groups. The binary isoglosses that correlate most closely to an NK/CK divide are the distribution of v (typically NK) vs. w (typically CK), especially in certain phonological contexts, and the near-­ restriction of the contrastive aspirated stop series to NK. However, there are no cases where a particular structure is found in all varieties of NK, or CK, and only there; even here, where the patterns are generally clear, there are gaps and areas of transition. Other general tendencies that distinguish CK from NK are a stronger presence of front rounded vowels and the voiced uvular fricative ʁ across NK; a higher prevalence of the emphatic lateral lˤ in in CK; and the distribution of phonemes in specific lexical items, as discussed at various points in the study. Examples of this

104 

E. Anonby

latter pattern are a correspondence between the NK uː and CK oː in ‘red’, and diffusion of pharyngeal articulation (initial *h > ħ) into the word ‘eight’ in most NK varieties in the Database, but none of the CK varieties. There are also many individual cases of phonological variation that show clear geographic patterns for other parts of the language area: fronting of *uː to iː takes place in varieties at the south-east edge of the NK dialect area, and the south-east edge of CK, but not in the CK varieties between the two areas; a cluster of CK varieties in the north-west part of the CK area exhibits a recurrent l vs. r correspondence in particular lexical items; and two less frequent phonological changes relating to pharyngeal consonants in specific words have taken place in some varieties on both sides of the NK/CK divide in northern Iraq. However, since the phonological changes come from various parts of the language area, and cross-cut one another, they do not provide a unified picture of further dialectal subgrouping. There is also a tendency of limited diffusion of structures to the geographic peripheries of the language area: for example, a weak core/periphery pattern is found for the distribution of front rounded vowels across the language area as a whole, and for aspirated stops in NK in particular. The presence of the emphatic lateral lˤ is much stronger across the south of the NK area, and weakens toward the north. Effects of language contact may be more directly responsible for the emergence of other patterns: allophonic fronting of affricates ʧ and ʤ to [t͡s] and [d͡z] in a group of CK varieties in the north part of the CK-speaking area, many of which are in close contact with Azeri Turkic; and a band of sites with a higher frequency of emphatic obstruents along the south edge of NK, where speakers are in close contact with Arabic. The pharyngeals ħ and ʕ are strongly represented across the language area, so the role of language contact in their case must have been different. Alongside these various patterns and configurations of areal distribution, and in contrast to them, there is an overarching tendency of pervasive phonological variability in individual varieties. The heterogeneous geographic distribution of phonological structures in the data gives an impression of erratic application of historical processes, but in fact points to the very local nature of phonological changes across the language area.

  Phonological Variation in Kurdish 

105

In conclusion, this study provides a fine-grained overview of specific aspects of phonological variation in a cross-section of Northern Kurdish (NK) and Central Kurdish (CK) varieties, as attested in the Database of Kurdish Dialects. There are significant areal tendencies in the distribution of many structures, especially along the NK/CK divide, but these patterns are recurrently counterbalanced by instances of pervasive, locally oriented variability. A more complete picture of phonological variation in Kurdish as a whole could be achieved, in subsequent research, through analysis of historical changes in a wider variety of phonological structures in the Database, beyond individual phonemes, as well as expanded geographic and dialectal coverage.

Abbreviations A. Arabic CK Central Kurdish dem. demonstrative n. noun NK Northern Kurdish vd. voiced vl. voiceless

Notes 1. The data cited in  this study are taken from  the  Database of  Kurdish Dialects (Matras et  al. 2016). The  research conducted here was  made possible through funding and practical support from the following organizations: the  Alexander von Humboldt Foundation, Social Sciences and  Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) of  Canada, Carleton University, Universität Bamberg, and  Leiden University Centre for Linguistics. The author would like to thank Adam Stone (Carleton University) for his extensive contributions to the design and construction of the maps throughout the chapter. Background layers for the maps are from http://www.naturalearthdata.com 2. http://kurdish.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/general-­information/

106 

E. Anonby

3. http://kurdish.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/kurdish-­dialect-­variation-­ maps/. All of the maps in this article use data sets extracted directly from the Database, and were constructed by Adam Stone (see note 1). In the case of maps in this study that mirror Database maps, references to the Database maps are given throughout. Principal differences relate to the lexical items chosen to illustrate patterns; consideration of synchronic distribution of specific phonological units from all lexical items in the Database rather than only specific words; and constraints of map construction (print-based vs. web-based), use here of a meaningful and unified colour and symbology scheme within and across the maps, and explanation of symbols here using legends. In addition, the maps here use the IPA-based phonemic transcription conventions set forward in Sects. 3.1 and 4.1. In cases where content or focus differs between related maps, this is signalled in the accompanying text. 4. Use of the terms ‘Northern Kurdish’ and ‘Central Kurdish’ follows Blau (1989b), Haig and Öpengin (2014), and others; see Haig and Öpengin (2014, p. 110), as well as Anonby, Sheyholislami and Mohammadirad (2019) for a discussion of complexities related to existing labels for Kurdish varieties. 5. See the map of all research locations at: http://kurdish.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/kurdish-­dialect-­variation-­maps/ 6. http://kurdish.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/ 7. http://kurdish.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/ 8. The transcribed free speech is more representative of natural spoken language, and recordings accompany the transcriptions. However, its ­complexity and varied content, as well as more limited geographic coverage of language varieties, does not allow for an efficient, even or finegrained analysis of phonological variation within the context of this study. For the sake of systematic analysis, this study focuses on the transcribed phrasal data, even though recordings are not available for it. 9. http://kurdish.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/transliteration-­system/ 10. http://kurdish.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/transliteration-­system/ 11. http://kurdish.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/database-­o f-­k urdish-­ dialects/, http://kurdish.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/kurdish-­dialect-­ variation-­maps/ 12. While this assessment is based on the Database, Haig and Öpengin (2018) observe that yː is relatively widespread in some Badini varieties of NK (such as the dialect of Şemzînan) which are not represented in the Database. Öpengin (pers. comm. 2021) and the author’s field notes confirm its higher frequency in Southern Kurdish as well.

  Phonological Variation in Kurdish 

107

13. Ergin Öpengin (pers. comm. 2019) notes, however, that most cases where the vowel œː is found in NK are borrowings from Turkish. 14. http://kurdish.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/vowel-­in-­was/ 15. http://kurdish.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/foot/ 16. http://kurdish.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/vowel-­in-­eight/ 17. http://kurdish.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/transliteration-­system/ 18. http://kurdish.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/transliteration-­system/ 19. http://kurdish.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/database-­o f-­k urdish-­ dialects/, http://kurdish.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/kurdish-­dialect­variation-­maps/ 20. http://kurdish.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/consonant-­in-­water/ 21. http://kurdish.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/consonant-­in-­name/ 22. http://kurdish.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/dental-­affricate-­anything-­girl/ 23. Justification for treatment of χ and ʁ as uvular rather than velar is provided in notes 30 and 31 above. 24. The lack of transcriptions indicating aspirated stops in many NK locations is surprising. However, the editors (pers. comm. 2019) note that any conclusion regarding an actual absence of aspirated stops in these locations risks being speculative because of a lack of systematicity in how aspiration has been transcribed in the DKD. 25. See note 28 above for further detailed discussion of issues relating to the transcription of aspiration on stops in the Database. 26. Other sources (Kahn 1976, pp. 25–28; Blau 1989b, p. 329) mention the existence of emphatic pˤ and and ʧˤ in NK varieties of north-west Iran and Armenia, but these consonants are not found in the Database. 27. Öpengin (2020) discusses these issues further in relation to Kurdish, and Anonby (2020) reviews the emergence and spread of phonological emphasis in other Iranic languages. 28. The editors of this volume have suggested that these apparent gaps may be related to variation in transcription practices in the Database rather than an actual gap in the use of emphatic rˤ in any variety. In any case, the main point of the map—which is to show the widespread geographic distribution of rˤ—holds. 29. http://kurdish.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/kurdish-dialect-variation-maps/ 30. http://kurdish.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/pharyngeal-­retentionlossanimal/ 31. http://kurdish.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/pharyngeal-­acquisition-­ seven-­2/ 32. http://kurdish.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/pharyngeal-­acquisition-eight/

108 

E. Anonby

References Aliakbari, Mohammad, Mojtaba Gheitasi, and Erik Anonby. 2014. On language distribution in Ilam Province, Iran. Iranian Studies 48 (6): 1–16. Amānollāhi, Sekandar. 1991. Qom-e Lor [The Luri people]. Tehran: Mow’aseseh-ye Enteshārāt-e Āgāh. Anonby, Erik. 2004/2005. Kurdish or Luri? Laki’s disputed identity in the Luristan province of Iran. Kurdische Studien 4 (5): 7–22. ———. 2020. Emphatic consonants beyond Arabic: The emergence and proliferation of uvular-pharyngeal emphasis in Kumzari. Linguistics 58 (1): 275–328. Anonby, Erik, Mortaza Taheri-Ardali, et al. 2015-2021. Atlas of the languages of Iran (ALI). Ottawa: Geomatics and Cartographic Research Centre, Carleton University. Online address: http://iranatlas.net. Accessed 20 Oct 2017. Anonby, Erik, Mehdi Fattahi, and Mojtaba Gheitasi. 2017. Is the labial-palatal approximant a phoneme in Southern Kurdish? 7th International Conference of Iranian Linguistics (ICIL7), Lomonosov Moscow State University and the Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, 28–30 August, 2017. Anonby, Erik, Masoud Mohammadirad, and Jaffer Sheyholislami. 2019. Kordestan Province in the Atlas of the languages of Iran: Research process, language distribution, and language classification. In Advances in Kurdish linguistics, ed. Songül Gündoğdu, Ergin Öpengin, Geoffrey Haig, and Erik Anonby, 9–38. Bamberg: Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg. Anonby, Erik, Amos Hayes, and Robert Oikle. 2020. A multi-dimensional approach to classification of Iran’s languages. In Advances in Iranian linguistics, Current issues in linguistic theory 351, ed. Richard K. Larson, Sedigheh Moradi, and Vida Samiian, 29–56. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Barry, Daniel. 2019. Pharyngeals in Kurmanji Kurdish: A reanalysis of their source and status. In Advances in Kurdish linguistics, ed. Songül Gündoğdu, Ergin Öpengin, Geoffrey Haig, and Erik Anonby, 39–71. Bamberg: Otto-­ Friedrich-­Universität Bamberg. Blau, Joyce. 1989a. Gurânî et zâzâ. In Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum, ed. Rüdiger Schmitt, 336–340. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert Verlag. ———. 1989b. Le kurde. In Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum, ed. Rüdiger Schmitt, 327–335. Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert Verlag. Card, Elizabeth Anne. 1983. A phonetic and phonological study of Arabic emphasis. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International.

  Phonological Variation in Kurdish 

109

Dolgopolsky, Aharon B. 1977. Emphatic consonants in Semitic. Israel Oriental studies 7: 1–13. Fattah, Ismaïl Kamadâr. 2000. Les dialectes kurdes méridionaux: étude linguistique et dialectologique. Louvain: Peeters. Fischer, Wolfdietrich, and Otto Jastrow, eds. 1980. Handbuch der arabischen Dialekte. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Gheitasi, Mojtaba, and Erik Anonby. 2017. Elami Kurdish lexicon. In Comparison of Basic Lexicon (CoBL), ed. Paul Heggarty and Cormac Anderson. Jena: Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History. Online address: http://cobl.info. Accessed 20 Oct 2017. Gheitasi, Mojtaba, et al. 2017. Language distribution in Ilam Province, Iran. In Atlas of the languages of Iran, ed. Erik Anonby, Mortaza Taheri-Ardali, et al. Ottawa: Geomatics and Cartographic Research Centre, Carleton University. Haig, Geoffrey. 2018. The Iranian languages of northern Iraq. In Language contact and language change in West Asia, ed. Geoffrey Khan and Geoffrey Haig, 267–304. Berlin: De Gruyter. Haig, Geoffrey, and Ergin Öpengin. 2014. Kurdish: A critical research overview. Kurdish Studies 2 (2): 99–122. ———. 2018. Kurdish in Turkey: Grammar, dialectal variation and status. In Linguistic minorities in Turkey and Turkic-speaking minorities of the periphery, ed. Christiane Bulut, 157–230. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Izadpanāh, Hamid. 1978. Farhang-e Laki [Lexicon of Laki]. Tehran: Mow’aseseh-ye Farhangi-ye Jahāngiri. Kahn, Elizabeth. 1976. Borrowing and variation in a phonological description of Kurdish. Ann Arbor: Phonetics Laboratory, University of Michigan. Korn, Agnes. 2003. Balochi and the concept of North-Western Iranian. In The Baloch and their Neighbours: Ethnic and linguistic contact in Balochistan in historical and modern times, ed. Carina Jahani and Agnes Korn, 49–60. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Lazard, Gilbert. 1989. Le persan. In Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum, ed. Rüdiger Schmitt, 264–293. Wiesbaden: Reichert. MacKenzie, David N. 1961a. Kurdish dialect studies. Vol. I.  London: Oxford University Press. ———. 1961b. The origins of Kurdish. Transactions of the Philological Society 1961: 68–86. Matras, Yaron. 2017. Revisiting Kurdish dialect geography: Preliminary findings from the Manchester database. Manchester: University of Manchester. Available at: http://kurdish.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/wp-­content/uploads/2017/07/ PDF-­Revisiting-­Kurdish-­dialect-­geography.pdf. Accessed 20 Oct 2017.

110 

E. Anonby

———. 2019. Revisiting Kurdish dialect geography: Preliminary findings from the Manchester database. In Advances in Kurdish linguistics, ed. Songül Gündoğdu, Ergin Öpengin, Geoffrey Haig, and Erik Anonby, 225–241. Bamberg: Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg. Matras, Yaron, et al. 2016. Database of Kurdish dialects. Manchester: University of Manchester. Available at: http://kurdish.humanities.manchester.ac.uk. Accessed 20 Oct 2017. McCarus, Ernest N. 1958. A Kurdish grammar: Descriptive analysis of the Kurdish of Sulaimaniya, Iraq. New York: American Council of Learned Societies. ———. 2009. Kurdish. In The Iranian languages, ed. Gernot Windfuhr, 587–633. London/New York: Routledge. Öpengin, Ergin. 2016. The Mukri variety of central Kurdish: Grammar, texts, and lexicon (Beiträge Zur Iranistik Band 40). Wiesbaden: Ludwig Reichert Verlag. ———. 2020. Kurdish. In Arabic and contact-induced change, ed. Christopher Lucas and Stefano Manfredi, 459–487. Berlin: Language Science Press. Öpengin, Ergin, and Geoffrey Haig. 2014. Regional variation in Kurmanji: A preliminary classification of dialects. Kurdish Studies 2 (2): 143–176. Oranskij, Iosif M. 1979. Les langues iraniennes. Paris: Klincksieck. Paul, Ludwig. 1998. The position of Zazaki among West Iranian languages. In Proceedings of the third European conference of Iranian studies held in Cambridge, 11th to 15th September 1995. Part I: Old and Middle Iranian studies, ed. Nicholas Sims-Williams, 163–177. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Sheyholislami, Jaffer. 2018. Language. In The Kurds: An encyclopedia of life, culture, and society, ed. Sebastien Maisel, 141–162. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO. Stilo, Donald. 1994. Phonological systems in contact in Iran and Transcaucasia. In Persian studies in North America: Studies in honor of Mohammad Ali Jazayery, ed. Mehdi Marashi, 75–94. Bethesda: Iranbooks. Watson, Janet C.E. 2002. The phonology and morphology of Arabic. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Windfuhr, Gernot. 2009. Dialectology and topics. In The Iranian languages, ed. Gernot Windfuhr, 5–42. London/New York: Routledge.

Case in Kurdish Songül Gündoğdu

1 Introduction: Theory and Terminology Case can simply be defined as inflectional marking which serves to code the semantic roles of the noun phrases (NPs) (Haspelmath 2002, p. 267) or as a surface expression of grammatical relations (Primus 2009, p. 261). It is assumed that case has two variants: structural and non-structural case (Chomsky 1981, 1986). Structural cases such as nominative, accusative, and genitive refer to the case assigned to the NPs under a certain configuration or structure, while non-structural or semantic cases like instrumental, comitative, and locative reflect a semantic relation between the NP and its predicate (Wunderlich and Lakämper 2001). Although structural cases are structurally determined and typically code grammatical relations such as subject and object, non-structural cases are always semantically determined (thus less dependent on the verb) and they express semantic relations.

S. Gündoğdu (*) Muş Alparslan University, Muş, Turkey © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 Y. Matras et al. (eds.), Structural and Typological Variation in the Dialects of Kurdish, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78837-7_4

111

112 

S. Gündoğdu

The definition of case, that is, how we identify the relations expressed by case marking, is closely linked to the discussion of grammatical relations and semantic roles in linguistic theory. Grammatical relations are syntactic relations or syntactic functions encoded between sentence constituents such as the predicate and noun phrases (Comrie 1989, p. 65). The commonly proposed grammatical relations are subject, direct object, and indirect object. In a sentence like Mary gave a book to John, there are three NPs linked to the predicate gave by special grammatical relations or syntactic functions; Mary is the subject, a book is the direct object while John is the indirect object. Each NP refers to a concrete participant in the event and they are expressed through different (or similar) case marking. Although a case distinction between grammatical relations is not always morphologically overt in English, unless the NP concerned is a pronoun, it is generally assumed that the subject and the direct object carry different case morphology, the former having Nominative case while the latter being marked with Accusative case. On the other hand, semantic roles, also known as ‘thematic roles/relations’, refer to the roles that participants play in events and situations (Luraghi and Narrog 2014, p. 1). As noted by Dowty (1991, p. 547) there is still little agreement on what semantic/thematic roles are and what would be the exact number of semantic roles necessary to describe the roles in all languages. However, there is some consensus on the presence of the core semantic roles such as Agent and Patient (Kittilä et al. 2011, p. 7). For instance, in a sentence like John cut the cake, the general consensus is that John is the agent participant of the event as he instigates and exerts greatest control over the event while the cake is the patient participant because it undergoes a change of state as a result of the action done by the agent. Similar to grammatical relations, case marking is also used to express semantic roles; for instance in the sentence above we assume that the agent John has Nominative case while the patient the cake has Accusative case. In this sentence, the semantic role agent corresponds to the grammatical relation subject, which is John, and likewise the semantic role patient matches with the grammatical relation object, the cake. Thus, it is not surprising that they have similar case marking. However, it should be emphasized that there is not always such a direct mapping between

  Case in Kurdish 

113

grammatical relations and semantic roles. For instance, in a sentence like The vase broke, the subject the vase refers to patient role rather than the agent of the event. Similarly, in a sentence like John saw the vase, the direct object does not correspond to a patient role but it is rather a stimulus. In such cases, grammatical relations override semantic roles when it comes to case-assignment: the subject will get a certain kind of case marking (e.g. Nominative case in our context), regardless of whether it is an agent or a patient, and the direct object will get a certain kind of case marking (e.g. Accusative case in our context), regardless of whether it is a patient or stimulus. The same applies to the agent of cut and the experiencer of saw, which have the same grammatical relation but different semantic roles. The grammatical relations and semantic roles are expressed by case marking, adpositions, and pronominal clitics in Kurdish. The highest-­ level generalization that holds across Kurdish varieties and dialects is that core grammatical relations such as subject and direct object, and certain semantic roles such as recipients, addressees, and goals—with some dialect-­ specific complications—can be expressed without recourse to adpositions while other semantic roles (instruments, comitatives, place, etc.) require them. This chapter is an attempt to investigate the case system in major Kurdish varieties, particularly Northern Kurdish (NK) and Central Kurdish (CK), and illustrate the dialectal variation based on the data from Manchester Database of Kurdish Dialects (henceforth MDKD, Matras et al. 2016) and from other prominent studies that refer to the case marking of constituents in Kurdish. Case system in most of the chapter is used in a very narrow sense, referring to the morphological means that express the core syntactic functions of subject and direct object, particularly of S, A, and O on the respective NP.1 Kurdish varieties display differences with respect to their case system;2 although NK inherited and has maintained a stable two-term case system, namely the null-­marked Direct Case and the overt Oblique Case derived from the Old Iranian genitive (Stilo 2009, pp. 700–701),3 most CK and all Southern Kurdish (SK) dialects have abandoned this morphological case-­distinction and instead have deployed a set of enclitic personal pronouns. Nouns in these two varieties appear as non-marked or in a uniform case, which is equivalent to the

114 

S. Gündoğdu

unmarked Direct case of the Northern Group (Haig 2008, p. 278; Belelli 2016, pp.  10–13). There are only a few CK dialects which retain the Oblique case marker (-ê/-î) in their grammars, hence preserving a morphological case-distinction between the unmarked Direct and marked Oblique distinction. The distribution and function of the Oblique Case in these CK dialects and in all NK dialects will be discussed in Sect. 2, with a specific focus on identifying which CK dialects do have remnant Oblique Case and in which functions. Section 3 will deal with only grammatical relations of subject and direct object (S, A, and O) which are never adpositional in any variety of Kurdish. Section 4 presents a brief review of nonstructural cases in Kurdish along with certain semantic roles such as Place and Comitative. Lastly, concluding remarks and issues left for further studies are presented in Sect. 5.

2 Distribution and Function of the Oblique Case in Kurdish The SK dialects are characterized by the absence of a morphological case distinctions. They inflect for definiteness (-eke) and plurality (-eyl), and the definiteness marker always follows the plural marker as in jin-eyl-eke ‘the women (woman-PL-DEF)’.4 Similarly, in most CK dialects there is no overt case marker and nouns mostly appear as the equivalent of the Direct case, the morphological realization of which is -∅. Note that nouns inflect for definiteness (-eke/-eka) and number (plural -an), and the plural number marking follows this definiteness suffix, in which case the definiteness suffix is reduced to –ekan. On the other hand, the indefinite marker for singular nouns is -ek whereas plural nouns only have -an suffix in the indefinite state. However, a few CK dialects (e.g. Rowanduz, Khalifan, Ranya, Choman, Sardasht, Piranshahr, Naqadah, Oshnaviyeh, Mahabad) retain the Oblique case marker (-ê/-î) in their grammars; for instance, they mark O in present, the NP governed by an adposition and the possessor NP although the use of this case marker is not always systematic (see Sect. 2.1). Compared to SK and CK varieties, NK shows a richer case morphology with the retention of two-term case distinctions known as Direct

  Case in Kurdish 

115

vs. Oblique for nouns and pronouns, number distinction (singular vs. plural) for nouns in the Oblique case,5 definiteness distinction for plural nouns in the Oblique case, and gender oppositions (feminine vs. masculine) for singular nouns in the Oblique case.6 The nouns in the Direct case are non-marked while the nouns in the Oblique case are marked by  -ê/-î for singular and -an/-in for plural. As illustrated in Table 1, case morphology is mostly intertwined with number, gender, and definiteness while such distinctions are not reflected morphologically in the Direct case. The following table is based on Haig and Öpengin (2018) and Gündoğdu (2018): Table 1  Case markers in Standard NKa Singular

Feminine Masculine

Plural a

(no gender)

Def. Indf. Def. Indf. Def. Indf.

Direct

Oblique

Ø -ek Ø -ek -in/Ø -in/Ø

-ê -ek-ê -î / i / Ø -ek-î -an -an

I take the Kurdish grammar sketch published by Celadet Bedirxan and Roger Lescot ‘Kürtçe Dilbilgisi’ (2004) as Standard Northern Kurdish

Even though the indefinite state is morphologically expressed with a separate marker (-ek) on singular nouns for both genders in NK, definiteness is morphologically unmarked and thus nouns in the Direct and Oblique cases are considered as definite or generic unless they carry the indefinite marker. Note that it is the context that distinguishes definiteness from the generic use in this variety (Haig 2008, p. 205). However, this does not mean that all NPs in the relevant positions and functions are systematically marked with case morphology in NK. Indeed, samples from the MDKD demonstrate that there is variation among NK dialects with respect to the use of Oblique case markers. In the following two subsections, I will present the distribution as well as function of the Oblique Case in the CK and NK dialects based on data from the MDKD and from other prominent studies that refer to the case marking of constituents in Kurdish.

116 

S. Gündoğdu

Before doing that, I want to provide a brief summary of personal pronouns in Kurdish varieties. Across Kurdish, personal pronouns generally exhibit a Direct/Oblique case contrast, if nouns also do. The varieties that do not maintain case distinctions, such as CK and SK, have one set of free personal pronouns, lacking a case distinction. In NK, the variety that maintains Direct/Oblique distinction, there are two sets of free personal pronouns: one Direct and the other Oblique. The inherited Direct/Oblique case distinction on personal pronouns is suppletive in this variety (Haig 2008, p. 139). Personal pronouns in Kurdish varieties are presented in the following tables based on the variation observed within dialects attested in the MDKD and additional material. Note that the first entry for each person is the most commonly used pronoun while the ones given within parentheses demonstrate other varied forms. Since the data on SK dialects are very restricted in the MDKD, I consult two pioneering sources on SK dialects (Fattah 2000; Belelli 2019) to be able to provide a tentative dialectal variation of personal pronouns in SK. Pronominal pronouns in SK dialects generally vary in their phonological form, 2PL and 3PL forms displaying the most evident differences (Belelli 2019) (Table 2). Table 2  Free personal pronouns in SK dialects Bijāri SG 1 mi(n)

Sahana Harsin Ilam ma

mi(n)

2 to(n)

to(n)

tö(n)

3 awa PL 1 îma/ îman 2 îwa/ îwan 3 awān(a)

ava îma

Kordali-­ Kordali-­ Ābdānān Bazgir Kaprāt Xānaqin

mi, ma (min) to, (ton)

ma (min) ma (min) tö (ton) to

öw îma

ay îma

ava, avī ema

owa îma

homa

homa

îwa

eva

îwa

avāna

awāna awāna ownī (wāna, (öwni, awān) ōna)

mi, (min) to/ti (ton, tin) aw îma

ewa, üa (o)wōna uān

mi, (min) tu (tin, ton) awa îma îwa awana

  Case in Kurdish 

117

CK dialects also lack a case distinction in pronominal forms except for a few CK dialects (e.g. Hewlêr and Mukri) which have an oblique form of the 3SG pronoun as wî/(e)wî (Table 3). Table 3  Free personal pronouns in Central Kurdish dialects SG

1 2 3 1 2 3

PL

min (amin/ emin/ me/ ma) to (eto/ etû/ etu/ ato) ew (aw/ e/ ow/ ewî/ ewe) ême (eme/ êma/ îma) êwe (ewe/ ewen/ îwe/ engo/ ango) ewan (ewane/ awan)

In addition to retaining Direct/Oblique distinction (with substantial differences in 2PL pronoun forms), almost all NK dialects also reflect gender distinction in 3SG oblique pronoun, wî (variants ewî/vî) for masculine and wê (variant ewê) for feminine. Although it cannot be attested in the MDKD, Kurmanji spoken in Muş has lost this gender distinction extending the masculine form wî/ewî to the feminine paradigm (Gündoğdu 2015) (Table 4).

Table 4  Personal pronouns in NK dialects Direct

Oblique

SG

1 2 3

ez (e/ es) tu (tû/ ti) ew (ev/ ewya(yî)/ a/ ewa)

PL

1 2

em hûn (hun/ hîn/ win/ wun/ hewna/ hing/hink) ew

min (mi) te (fem) wê/ ewî/ ewê (mas) wî (vî/ ewî/ ewayî/wayî/wîya) me we (hewe/hingo)

3

ewan (ewnan/ ewnana/ wana/ wan/ van)

118 

S. Gündoğdu

2.1 Distribution and Function of the Oblique Case in CK Dialects CK is characterized by the absence of case and gender distinction (MacKenzie 1961; Hassanpour 1992, p. 23; McCarus 2009, p. 598). However, it has been well established that a few CK dialects such as Mukri (MacKenzie 1961, p.  57; Hassanpour 1992; p.  385; Öpengin 2016, pp.  61–63) and Arbil, Pižder Bingird, Rewanduz, and Xōşnāw (MacKenzie 1961, p. 57) still have an Oblique case for singular nouns; -ê for feminine and -î for masculine.7 It has been observed that Oblique case marks O in present (1a), an oblique argument8 (1b) or a noun governed by a preposition (1c) and the possessor or noun attribute in ezafe constructions (1d) (Mackenzie 1961, p. 57; Öpengin 2013, p. 73). (1) a. ewřo  kābrā-ī      be    tāqī          de-ke-īn-ewe today fellow-OBL PREP experiment IND-do.PRS-1PL-ASP ‘We will try the man today’. (Mukri, Öpengin 2016, p. 62) b. řož-ēk-ī         xēzān-ī    āšewān-ī     hāt-e            āš-ī day-INDF-OBL wife-EZ miller-OBL come.PST.3SG-DIRC mill-OBL ‘They say, one day, the miller’s wife came to the mill’. (Mukri, Öpengin 2016, p. 62) c. la      ‘arz- ī’ from earth-OBL ‘from the earth’ (Bingird, MacKenzie 1961, p. 59) d. zin-i   māin-ē saddle-EZ mare-OBL ‘saddle of the mare’ (Bingird, MacKenzie 1961, p. 59)

Building on this and based on the samples from the MDKD, the main goal of this sub-section is to identify all the CK dialects that do have remnant Oblique case in their grammar and to explore in which functions they use this Oblique case marking. The MDKD demonstrates that although the majority of CK dialects (Sulaymaniyah, Kirkuk, Sanandaj, Bukan, Saqqez, etc.) have lost the Oblique case system (and use pronominal suffixes to take over the functions of the cases), a number of CK dialects such as Dibis, Arbil,

  Case in Kurdish 

119

Shaqlawa, Rowanduz, Khalifan, Ranya, Khalakan, Choman, Sardasht, Piranshahr, Naqadah, Oshnaviyeh, Mahabad, Urmia, and Qoshachay do still use a remnant Oblique case in the following functions: Oblique case marks a noun which might be (i) O in present, (ii) an oblique argument (e.g. goals of verbs of motion and place constituents) irrespective of tense, (iii) possessor or noun attribute in an ezafe construction. I will provide several examples for each function from these locations below. The MDKD includes a number of test clauses with O in present with different morphological forms such as pronoun, pronominal clitic, a proper name, a singular noun with demonstrative, a plural noun or a noun with a determiner/partitive, a possessor noun phrase, and a (in)definite noun. Given that Oblique case is best manifested in singular (in)definite nouns and with proper names, I have selected the following seven clauses among them to attest the CK dialects that have an Oblique-­ marked O in present:9 (2) Sentences with O in present in the MDKD a. I see Hasan. b. I know the town. c. I can open the door. d. He always spills the water on the floor. e. The little boy is reading the book. f. I am now pouring the milk. g. I cannot drink the water.

The sample sentences indicate O is mostly marked with Oblique case in Shaqlawa [S024, S045], Rowanduz [S025, S026], Mahabad [S029], Naqadeh [S038], Sardasht [S039], Urmia [S040], Khalifan [S042], Oshnaviyeh [S047], Qoshachay [S050], Choman [S054], and Khalakan [S075]. For illustrative purposes, I provide test sentences from different locations below in (3). In contrast, the remaining majority of CK dialects (e.g. Kirkuk [S009], Sulaymaniyah [S020], Sanandaj [S016], Bukan [S037], and Saqqez [S051]) express O in the non-marked or bare NP form in such cases.

120 

S. Gündoğdu

(3) a. ḥesen-î         e-vîn-im Hasan-OBL IND-see.PRS-1SG ‘I see Hasan’ (Rowanduz [S025]) b. şar-î          de-nas-im city-OBL IND-know.PRS-1SG ‘I know the town’ (Mahabad [S029]) c. emin  da-twan-im        derk-ê         bi-kê-m-ewe 1SG  IND-be_able_to-1S door-OBL SBJV-do.PRS-1SG-ASP ‘I can open the door’. (Urmia [S040]) d. ew     hemîşe  aw-eke-y       le ser  ʕerz-ê        de-rrêj-ê 3SG always  water-DEF-OBL on    ground-OBL IND-pour.PRS-3SG ‘He always spills the water on the floor’. (Sardasht [S039]) e. genc-e    kick-eke     kitab-eke-y      e-xwênî-t-ewe boy-CPM small-DEF book-DEF-OBL IND-read.PRS-3SG-ASP   ‘The little boy is reading the book’. (Choman [054]) f. min  êsta   şîr-eke-y        de-rêj-im 1SG now milk-DEF-OBL IND-pour.PRS-1SG ‘I am now pouring the milk’. (Naqadeh [S038]) g. na-twan-im        aw-ê    bi-xu-m-ewe NEG-be able to.PRS-1SG  water-OBL  SBJV-eat-1SG-ASP ‘I cannot drink the water’. (Khalifan [S042])

The number of CK dialects that use Oblique case in the second function, that is, marking an oblique argument like a goal constituent of verbs of motion or a place constituent, is higher. The MDKD has several test clauses containing goals of verbs of motion such as I went home. I have selected a representative sample of six clauses among them (4) to identify which CK dialects use Oblique case in this environment: (Goals are in bold type.) (4) Sentences containing Goal constituents of verbs of motion in the MDKD a. He went to Arbil. b. I went to the doctor. c. I didn’t go to the town. d. I came home. e. The woman arrived in the market. f. The bus arrived in Van.

The database demonstrates that CK dialects in general adopts one of the following four strategies to express these goal constituents: (i) bare NP without Oblique case; (ii) bare NP with Oblique case; (iii) adpositional phrase without Oblique; (iv) adpositional phrase with Oblique case. The

  Case in Kurdish 

121

result of these test clauses in (4) reveals that goal constituents of verbs of motion appear either as bare NP with Oblique case or as an adpositional phrase with Oblique case in Ranya [S001], Arbil [S002, S014], Dibis [S008], Shaqlawa [S024, S045], Rowanduz [S025, S026], Mahabad [S019, S029], Naqadeh [S038], Sardasht [S039], Urmia [S040], Khalifan [S042], Oshnaviyeh [S047], Qoshachay [S050], Choman [S054], Piranshahr [S031]. It is worth noting that although Arbil, Sardasht, Qoshachay, and Urmia generally use the strategy in (ii) for expressing these goal constituents, Prianshahr prefers (iv) while Rowanduz, Dibis, Mahabad, Choman, Shaqlawa, Oshnaviyeh, Naqadeh, and Khalifan use both (ii) and (iv). The animacy vs. inanimacy of the goal constituent (doctor vs. town), the semantics of endpoints, and the contact with neighbouring dialects and languages (e.g. other CK dialects, Arabic and Persian) are the potential factors that might influence the choice.10 For illustrative purposes, I provide examples for these test sentences from four locations, which are well attested in the data (with fewer gaps). (5) a. ew   çû-bû           Erbil-ê 3SG go.PST-COP.PST.3SG Arbil-OBL ‘He went to Arbil’. (Sardasht [S039]) b. tsû      Hewlêr-ê go.PST.3SG Arbil-OBL ‘He went to Arbil’. (Khalifan [S042]) c. ew     rroyi      bo  Erbil-ê 3SG go.PST.3SG to    Arbil-OBL ‘He went to Arbil’. (Oshnaviyeh [S047]) (6) a. emin  çû-m-e      duktor-î 1SG  go.PST-1SG-DIRC  doctor-OBL ‘I went to the doctor’. (Sardasht [S039]) b. tsû-m-e      kin   doxtor-î go.PST-1SG-DIRC near doctor-OBL ‘I went to the doctor’. (Khalifan [S042]) c. emin  rroyi-m       bo  dıktor-î 1SG  go.PST-1SG  to      doctor-OBL ‘I went to the doctor’. (Oshnaviyeh [S047])

122 

S. Gündoğdu

(7) a. emin  ne-çû-m-e       şar-î 1SG  NEG-go.PST-1SG-DIRC city-OBL ‘I didn’t go to town’. (Sardasht [S039]) b. ne-tsû-m-e        şarê      / naw şar-ê NEG-go.PST-1SG-DIRC  city-OBL  / inside city-OBL ‘I didn’t go to town’. (Khalifan [S042]) c. emin  ne-rroyşt-im       bo  şar-î 1SG  NEG-go.PST-1SG  to    city-OBL ‘I didn’t go to town’. (Oshnaviyeh [S047]) (8) a. emin  hat-m-ewe       mał-ê 1SG  come.PST-1SG-ASP home-OBL ‘I came home’. (Sardasht [S039]) b. hat-im-e       mar-ê come.PST-1SG-DIRC home-OBL ‘I came home’. (Khalifan [S042]) c. emin  hat-im-ewe         mał-ê 1SG  come.PST-1SG-ASP  home-OBL ‘I came home’. (Oshnaviyeh [S047]) (9) a. ew      jin-e       geyişt-e           bazarr-ê DEM woman-DEM arrive.PST.3SG-DIRC market-OBL ‘The woman arrived in the market’. (Sardasht [S039]) b. ew           jin-e          çû      geyîşt-e          bazar-ê DEM woman-DEM go.PST.3SG arrive.PST.3SG-DIRC market-­ OBL ‘The woman arrived in the market’. (Naqadeh [S038]) c. jin-eke   geyşt-e          bazarr-ê woman-DEF arrive.PST.3SG-DIRC market-OBL ‘The woman arrived in the market’. (Oshnaviyeh [S047]) (10) a. itubûs-eke  geyişt-e        Wan-ê bus-DEF           arrive.PST.3SG-DIRC  Van-OBL ‘The bus arrived in Van’. (Sardasht [S039]) b. bûs-eke   geyşt-e          Wani-yê bus-DEF arrive.PST.3SG-DIRC Van-OBL ‘The bus arrived in Van’. (Naqadeh [S038]) c. utubûs  geyşt-e       Wan-ê bus  arrive.PST.3SG-DIRC  Van-OBL ‘The bus arrived in Van’. (Oshnaviyeh [S047])

  Case in Kurdish 

123

However, the use of Oblique case for these goal constituents is not systematic in all these CK dialects, because there are also instances where goal constituents are expressed without Oblique case in a few places. The goals appear as a bare NP or as an adpositional phrase without Oblique case, which are illustrated below with samples from Mahabad [S029] and Piranshahr [S031]. Even though goals of verbs of motion are predominantly Oblique marked in Mahabad [S029]; either as a bare NP with Oblique case (11a) or as an adpositional phrase with Oblique case (11b), there are also instances where they appear as a bare NP without Oblique case (11c): (11) a. ew     çû      Hewlêr-ê 3SG go.PST.3SG Arbil-OBL ‘He went to Arbil’. b. bo  şar-î      ne-çû-m to    city-OBL  NEG-go.PST-1SG ‘I didn’t go to town’. c. jin-e      gewişt-e         bazar woman-DEM arrive.PST.3SG-DIRC market ‘The woman arrived in the market’.

Likewise, goals of verbs of motion in Piranshahr [S031] are predominantly encoded through an (iv) adpositional phrase with Oblique case (12a), but we also have cases where such goals show up as an adpositional phrase without Oblique (12b) or as a bare NP without Oblique case (12c): (12) a. emin  bo  şar-î    ne-çû-m 1SG   to   city-OBL  NEG-go.PST-1SG ‘I didn’t go to town’. b. ew     bo  Erbîl   çû 3SG to   Arbil go.PST.3SG ‘He went to Arbil’. c. jin-e         geyşt-e       bazar woman-DEM arrive.PST.3SG-DIRC market ‘The woman arrived in the market’.

In contrast, goals predominantly appear as an adpositional phrase without Oblique case in the CK dilaects spoken in Marivan [S017, S018], Sanandaj [S015], Kamyaran [S052], Mawat [S076], Suleymaniyah [S004, S005, S020, S033, S034], Kirkuk [S009, S055], Sangaw [S074], Kalar [S035],

124 

S. Gündoğdu

Halabja [S073], and Khanaqin [S057]. Meanwhile, it is worth noting that there are instances where these goal constituents are also expressed as bare NPs without Oblique case in Suleymaniyah and Kalar. Below are examples from Suleymaniyah [S004] that illustrate both uses: (13) a. na-ç-im       bo  bazar NEG-go.PRS-1SG to   market ‘I don’t go to the town’. (Sulaymaniyah [S004]) b. min  çû-m-e       mał-ewe 1SG go.PST-1SG-DIRC house-POST ‘I went home’. (Sulaymaniyah [S004])

As summarized in Table  5, the majority of CK dialects spoken in the Northern CK-speaking area (shown in grey) still maintain Oblique case for expressing the goal constituents (as a bare NP and/or within an adpositional phrase), whereas those spoken in the Southern Sorani-speaking area totally lost the Oblique case strategy.11 In addition to such goal constituents, the morphological form of the place constituents is also relevant to Oblique case marking in these CK dialects.12 The CK dialects employing Oblique case for the functions discussed so far (e.g. marking O in present and goal constituents of verbs of motion) generally code these place constituents with an adpositional phrase with Oblique case. The MDKD includes at least seven clauses with place constituents (14) and CK dialects express them either as an adpositional phrase without Oblique or as an adpositional phrase with Oblique case. (Place constituents are in bold type.) (14) Sentences containing Place constituents in the MDKD a. I studied in Kerkuk. b. I stayed in Mosul. c. I live in this village. d. Azad wanted to sing at the wedding. e. Every year hundreds of civilians are killed in Iraq. f. That book that he had bought in Diyarbakir is lost. g. The people that we met at the market were poor.

Unfortunately not all these seven test sentences have a corresponding translation at all locations in the database. For instance, although the first two test sentences are well represented for the locations between [S001] and [S026], the remaining five sentences are missing at these locations.

  Case in Kurdish 

125

Table 5  The form of the goal constituents across CK dialects Northern CK region

Iran

Iraq

Southern CK region

Iran

Iraq

Urmia Qoshachay Sardasht Mahabad Naqadeh Oshnaviyeh Piranshahr Bukan Saqqez Baneh Choman Rowanduz Shaqlawa Khalakan Ranya Dibis Khalifan Qalat Dizah Arbil Mawat Al Kuwayr Altun Kupri Marivan Sanandaj Kamyaran Suleymaniyah Kalar Kirkuk Taparash Shangaw Halabja Khanaqin

Bare NPs

ADP phrases

With OBL With OBL With OBL With OBL With OBL With OBL – – – – With OBL With OBL With OBL With OBL With OBL With OBL With OBL – With OBL Without OBL Both (two instances with OBL) – – – – Without OBL Without OBL – – – – –

– – – With OBL With OBL With OBL With OBL Without OBL Without OBL Without OBL With OBL With OBL With OBL With OBL With OBL With OBL – With OBL Without OBL Without OBL Without OBL Without OBL Without OBL Without OBL Without OBL Without OBL Without OBL Without OBL Without OBL Without OBL Without OBL Without OBL

Furthermore, the first sentence is simply missing at locations after [S026] while the remaining six sentences have a corresponding translation at these locations despite a few gaps. Given that the place constituent in the third sentence is preceded by a demonstrative (in this village) thus the noun will have the demonstrative suffix rather than Oblique case, I have left this sentence out. Nevertheless, the data at hand still make it possible to identify which CK dialects use Oblique case for this function. Based on the sample

126 

S. Gündoğdu

sentences, it has been observed that place constituents appear as an adpositional phrase with Oblique case in Dibis [S008], Shaqlawa [S045], Arbil [S032], Rowanduz [S026], Mahabad [S029], Naqadeh [S038], Sardasht [S039], Urmia [S040], Khalifan [S042], Oshnaviyeh [S047], Choman [S054], and Piranshahr [S031]. However, the place constituents in Diyarbakır and in Iraq are mostly non-marked (no Oblique case) in test sentences from these locations, though. It seems to be a general tendency that case marking is less likely to occur on proper nouns such as place names (Hewlêr, Kerkuk, etc.) in CK. The examples for six test sentences from different locations are provided below: (15) a. le    kêrkuç-ê     de=m-xênd at Kirkuk-OBL IPFV=1SG-read.PST ‘I studied in Kerkuk’. (Dibis [S008]) b. emin  le    mûsil-ê       ma-m-ewe 1SG    At Mosul-OBL stay.PST-1SG-ASP ‘I stayed in Mosul’. (Piranshahr [S031]) c. Azad  de-y-wîst      le ḥefle-y         goranî  birê Azad  IPFV-3SG-want.PST at wedding-OBL song     SBJV.sing.PRS.3SG ‘Azad wanted to sing at the wedding’. (Shaqlawa [S045]) d. her  sałe  sedeha      hewşerî  le ʕêraq-e      de-kuj-ir-in all  year hundred citizen   at Iraq-OBL IND-kill.PRS-PASS-PL ‘Every year hundreds of civilians are killed in Iraq’. (Urmia [S040]) e. ew     kitêb-ey       le   Dîyarbekir-î        kirî-bû-m DEM book-­ DEM at Diyarbakır-OBL buy.PST-COP.PST-1SG win bû lost   COP.PST.3SG ‘That book that I had bought in Diyarbakir was lost’. Naqadeh [S038] f.

ew      xełke-î       le bazar-ê       dît-in=im       feqîr  bû-n DEM people-­ DEM at market-OBL see.PST-PL=1PL poor  COP.PST-PL ‘The people that we met at the market were poor’. (Oshnaviyeh [S047])

The last environment where we see a possible remnant Oblique case marker in CK is the possessor or the noun attribute in the ezafe constructions. The MDKD includes a number of test phrases and clauses with possessor and noun attribute following the ezafe. I have selected only a sample of seven instances among them, which are given in (16). I have left out the test phrases/clauses in which the possessor/noun attribute is a pronoun or a pronominal clitic or a plural/singular noun preceded by a demonstrative.

  Case in Kurdish 

127

(16) a. saddle of the horse. b. the feast of Newroz. c. the houses of the village. d. the daughters of the man. e. The mountains of Kurdistan are high. f. the girl’s mother.

Samples from the MDKD demonstrate that the possessor or the noun attribute is mostly marked by Oblique case marker in Ranya [S001], Arbil [S002], Dibis [S008], Shaqlawa [S045], Arbil [S032], Rowanduz [S026], Naqadeh [S038], Sardasht [S039], Urmia [S040], Khalifan [S042], Oshnaviyeh [S047], Choman [S054], and Piranshahr [S031]. The examples for test phrases from different locations are provided in (17). Based on Öpengin (2013, 2016), we also know that the possessor/noun attribute is in the Oblique case in Mahabad (18) although the corresponding translations of these test sentences from Mahabad do not have Oblique case in the database. (17) a. kurtan-î   esp-î saddle-EZ horse-OBL ‘(the) saddle of the horse’ (Choman [S054]) b. cejn-i    newroz-ê feast-EZ Newroz-OBL ‘the feast of Newroz’ (Arbil [S002]) c. ew    xanû-w-ê      gûnd-ekê-y DEM house-DEM-EZ village-DEF-OBL ‘the houses of the village’ (Ranya [S001]) d. çîj-a      piyaw-eke-y daughter-EZ man-DEF-OBL ‘the daughters of the man’ (Khalifan [S042]) e. dayk-î     kiç-ey mother-EZ girl-OBL ‘the girl’s mother’ (Piranshahr [S031]) f.

şax-ak-an-î     Kurdistan-ê        birind  in mountain-DEF-PL-EZ  Kurdistan-OBL  high     COP.PRS.PL ‘The mountains of Kurdistan are high’. (Rowanduz [S026])

(18) a. xezīne-y     pādšā-y treasure-EZ king-OBL ‘the treasure of the king’ (Mahabad, Öpengin 2013, p. 121) b. … xēzān-ī     āšewān-ī … … wife-EZ  miller-OBL … ‘… the miller’s wife …’ (Mahabad, Öpengin 2013, p. 75)

128 

S. Gündoğdu

To summarize, although the majority of CK dialects has abandoned Oblique case, samples from MDKD indicate that a small number of CK dialects spoken in Iraq and in Iran do retain Oblique case system in their nominal morphology, as also presented in Table 6. These CK dialects use Oblique case for mainly three functions; marking (i) O in present, (ii) an oblique argument (e.g. goals of verbs of motion and place constituents) irrespective of tense, and (iii) possessor or noun attribute in an ezafe construction. Table 6  The use of Oblique case across CK dialects

Northern Iran CK area

Iraq

Southern Iran CK area Iraq

Urmia Naqadeh Qoshachay Mahabad Oshnaviyeh Piranshahr Sardasht Bukan Saqqez Baneh Choman Rowanduz Shaqlawa Qalat Dizah Khalakan Ranya Khalifan Arbil Al Kuwayr Mawat Dibis Altun Kupri Marivan Sanandaj Kamyaran Kirkuk Suleymaniyah Taparash Halabja Kalar Khanaqin Sangaw

O in present

Oblique argument (goals and places)

Possessor

With OBL With OBL With OBL With OBL With OBL With OBL With OBL Without OBL Without OBL Without OBL With OBL With OBL With OBL With OBL With OBL Without OBL With OBL Without OBL Without OBL With OBL Without OBL Without OBL With OBL Without OBL Without OBL Without OBL Without OBL Without OBL Without OBL Without OBL Without OBL Without OBL

With OBL With OBL With OBL With OBL With OBL With OBL With OBL Without OBL Without OBL Without OBL With OBL With OBL With OBL With OBL With OBL With OBL With OBL Both Both Without OBL With OBL Without OBL Without OBL Without OBL Without OBL Without OBL Without OBL Without OBL Without OBL Without OBL Without OBL Without OBL

With OBL With OBL Without OBL With OBL With OBL With OBL With OBL Without OBL Without OBL Without OBL With OBL With OBL With OBL Without OBL Without OBL With OBL With OBL Both Without OBL Without OBL Without OBL Without OBL Without OBL Without OBL Without OBL Without OBL Without OBL Without OBL Without OBL Without OBL Without OBL Without OBL

  Case in Kurdish 

129

The following map indicates the CK dialects which have lost all traces of Oblique case, those that use it fairly regularly, and those that are mixed; for example, maintain it only with some goal constituents (Map 1).13

Map 1  The distribution of Oblique case across CK dialects. (black=consistently present; white=consistently absent; grey=mixed)

These findings are to some extent in parallel with previous studies (MacKenzie 1961; Hassanpour 1992; Öpengin 2013, 2016) which suggest that Oblique case is used in Mukri dialects (Mahabad, Sardasht, Naqadeh, Piranshahr, Shino, and Bukan) and Soran dialects (i.e. Arbil, Pižder Bingird, Rewanduz, and Xōşnāw). The database confirms that Mukri dialects spoken in Mahabad, Sardasht, Naqadeh, and Piranshahr and the Soran dialects spoken in Arbil and Rewanduz/Rowanduz have a remnant Oblique case in their grammar. However, the MDKD tells us nothing about the dialects spoken in Shino, Pižder, and Xōşnāw as it does not include samples from these locations. Moreover, the MDKD samples from Bukan do not contain any instance of Oblique case contrary to what we have expected, and this might be because it includes samples from merely one location in Bukan which may not be a good representative.

130 

S. Gündoğdu

2.2 Distribution and Function of the Oblique Case in NK Dialects NK is the Kurdish variety that retains Direct vs. Oblique case distinction for nouns and pronouns. Oblique case has a much wider distribution in this variety and it is mainly used in five syntactic functions: it marks (i) A in past, (ii) O in present, (iii) goal, recipient and addressee arguments (the latter being restricted to the Southeastern Kurmanji dialect) appearing in the immediate post-predicate position, (iv) complement of any adposition, and (v) possessor in an ezafe construction (Haig and Öpengin 2018, p. 17). However, Oblique case markers do not always follow the pattern of Standard NK formally and functionally in all dialects. For instance, there are dialectal differences in the way masculine singular nouns are marked for the case although the expression of the Oblique case on singular feminine and plural nouns are more systematic (Öpengin and Haig 2014). Based on the data from the MDKD and from other prominent studies that refer to the Oblique case marking in NK, the main goal of this sub-section is to assess the distribution of Oblique case across NK dialects and identify the dialectal variation with respect to the form and function of Oblique case within this variety.14 It has been well attested in the database that all NK dialects are quite systematic in the use of Oblique pronouns in these five syntactic functions, with few exceptions which will be discussed below. Also, although most NK dialects indicate Oblique case on singular feminine (-ê) and plural nouns (-a(n)), they display differences in the way masculine singular nouns are marked for case (details will be discussed below). For instance, almost all NK dialects, except for a few locations mostly mapping on the Northern Kurmanji dialect region (Tatvan [K024], Muradiye [K074], Varto [K087], Bingöl [K091], etc.), consistently mark the feminine nouns with the Oblique case. In contrast, only the Southeastern Kurmanji dialect region (including Badinan dialects of Northern Iraq) (e.g. Hakkari [K016], Akre [K017], Duhok [K018/36], Zakho [K020], Şemdinli [K078]) retains the Oblique case marker -î on masculine nouns even when they are bare (i.e. not modified by a demonstrative or quantifier), whereas some locations from Southeastern Kurmanji (e.g. Mardin [K005], Nusaybin [K030], Suruç [K076], Kelhê [K108], Tepkê [K109]) and (south)western Kurmanji (Gaziantep [K011], Elbistan [K022],

  Case in Kurdish 

131

Kahta [K029], Jindires [K102]) regions mark some of the masculine nouns in Oblique case via stem-vowel raising as in bajar vs. bajêr. The remaining dialect regions do not mark such bare masculine nouns in Oblique case at all. Nevertheless, when the singular noun irrespective of its gender is modified by a demonstrative, then they are regularly marked with the Oblique case in all NK dialects.15 Now, I am going to illustrate the use of Oblique case in each syntactic function showing these dialectal differences within NK through the MDKD samples below.

A in Past Tenses Although an A argument in past tense constructions are generally marked with Oblique case markers in NK,16 there are differences between pronouns and nouns in the use of Oblique forms. For instance, when A is a pronoun, it is consistently in the Oblique form except for the variation observed in the use of 3SG pronoun. The MDKD includes a number of clauses with a pronoun A in past tenses, a large sample of which is provided in (19).17 Even though the translation of some of these test sentences from data locations may have a pro-drop A, especially when it is a 3SG or 3PL pronoun, the majority of them have a fully expressed A. (A in in the bold.) (19) Sentences containing A as a pronoun in past in the MDKD a. I broke the glasses. b. I finished my work. c. I poured the milk. d. Yesterday I saw Hasan. e. You (sg) gave it to us. f. You (sg) saw your friends. g. He saw his friends. h. He brought these things for us. i. He squeezed the lemon with his hand. j. He did this. k. He saw them. l. He didn’t see me. m. She told me. n. We saw them. o. You (pl) saw me. p. They didn’t speak to us. q. They saw them.

132 

S. Gündoğdu

The results demonstrate that all person pronouns, except for 3SG masculine and 3PL, are always in the Oblique in these sentences in all NK dialects. For illustrative purposes, I provide several examples of test sentences from the SK dialect region in (20). (20) a. min           diho       Hesen  dît 1SG.OBL yesterday Hesen   see.PST.3SG ‘Yesterday I saw Hasan’. (Mardin [K005]) b. te      ew        da        me 2SG.OBL 3SG.DIR give.PST.3SG 1PL.OBL ‘You (sg) gave it to us’. (Nusaybin [K030]) c.

wî      ev      kir 3SG.OBL.M DEM.DIR do.PST.3SG ‘He did this’. (Mardin [K005])

d. wê    ji mi re       go 3SG.OBL.F  ADP 1SG.OBL ADP  say.PST.3SG ‘She told me’. (Kızıltepe [K071]) e. me       ew        dît-en 1PL.OBL 3PL.DIR see.PST-PL ‘We saw them’. (Qamişlo [K033]) f.

we   ez    dît-im 2PL.OBL 1SG.OBL see.PST-1SG ‘You (pl) saw me’. (Qamişlo [K033])

g. wan    ew        dît-in 3PL.OBL 3SG.DIR see.PST-PL ‘They saw them’. (Qamişlo [K033]) h. wan     me ra      xeber  ne-da 3PL.OBL 1PL.OBL ADP speak NEG-give.PST.3SG ‘They didn’t speak to us’. (Bismil [K058])

Meanwhile, the Direct case form of the 3SG masculine pronoun ew (rather than its Oblique form wî or its variant ewî) has been attested in the translations of test sentences (19g–l) from several locations of Southeastern Kurmanji dialect (e.g. Hakkari [K016], Sersink [K038], Özalp [K063], Cizre [K014]) and of Northern Kurmanji dialect regions (Muş [K086], Varto [K087], Karakoçan [K075], Silvan [K012], and Siirt [K007]). It is worth noting that the use of 3SG masculine pronoun ew in these instances is higher in Hakkari [K016], Karakoçan [K075], and Silvan [K012] compared to others. A few examples from both dialect groups are given in (21) below:

  Case in Kurdish 

133

(21) a. ew       min      ne-dît 3SG.DIR 1SG.OBL NEG-see.PST.3SG ‘He didn’t see me’. (Hakkari [K016]) b. ew     lîmon    bi     dest-ê       xwe  guşavt / guşt 3SG.DIR lemon ADP hand-EZ.M self   squeez.PST.3SG ‘He squeezed the lemon with his hand’. (Özalp [K063]) c.

ew   heval-ê      xwe  dît 3SG.DIR friend-EZ.M self   see.PST.3SG ‘He saw his friend’. (Karakoçan [K075])

d. ew    ji bona  me        van    tişt-a       anî 3SG:DIR ADP      1PL.OBL DEM thing-DEM bring.PST.3SG ‘He brought these things for us’. (Silvan [K012]) e. ew      ew   dît-in 3SG.DIR 3SG.DIR see.PST-PL ‘He saw them’. (Siirt [K007])

Besides, only two locations in the database (e.g. Hakkari [K016] and Varto [K087]) use the Direct case form of the 3PL pronoun ew rather than its Oblique form wan (or its variants ewan or ewnan) for the test sentence They saw them in (19r): (22) a. ew ewan dît-in 3PL.DIR 3PL.OBL see.PST-PL ‘They saw them’. (Hakkari [K016]) b. ew wan dît-in 3PL.DIR 3PL.OBL see.PST-PL ‘They saw them’. (Varto [K087])

When A is a masculine bare noun, it is mostly unmarked. There are only four test sentences in the MDKD with such masculine nouns, and since nominal case is not manifested in a complex NP such as the little boy, I have only kept the first two sentences:18 (23) Sentences containing A as a masculine noun in past in the MDKD a. Azad wanted to sing at the wedding. b. The man was pulling the donkey but the donkey would not advance. c. The little boy has eaten three apples today. d. The little boy has not eaten any apples today.

The results based on these test sentences suggest that the locations from the Southeastern Kurmanji dialect group (e.g. Çukurca [K027], Bahçesaray

134 

S. Gündoğdu

[K032], Duhok [K036], Sersink [K039], Zakho [K042], Akre [K044], Chiay Syan [K045], Kanyder [K048], Yüksekova [K065], and Şemdinli [K078]) systematically mark these masculine nouns with the Oblique case -î/-i (22a–b), in parallel to Matras (2019) and Haig and Öpengin (2018) which propose that the Southeastern Kurmanji is the only NK dialect region that retains the Oblique case marker -î on masculine nouns. Additionally, it has been attested that a few locations from other dialect groups such as Tatvan [K024], Kulp [K059], Muş [K086], Erzincan [K090], and Kobanê [K037] also indicate Oblique case -î on these masculine nouns (24c–d), while only two locations from (north)western Kurmanji dialect, that is, Elbistan [K022] and Kahta [K029], express Oblique case on the proper noun Azad via stem-vowel raising (24f). They are unmarked in the remaining locations of the NK group (24f–g). (24) a. Azad-î       di-viya         li          dawet-ê         da Azad-OBL.M PROG-want.PST.3SG ADP wedding-OBL.F ADP stran-ê … song-OBL.F ‘Azad wanted to (sing) songs at the wedding’. Zakho [K042] b. ẓełam-i        k’er     di-k’êşa          lê … man-OBL.M donkey PROG-pull.PST.3SG but ‘The man was pulling the donkey but …’. Bahçesaray [K032] c. Azad-î    di-xwast         daʕwet-ê      da   kilam Azad-OBL.M PROG-want.PST.3SG wedding-OBL.F ADP song bi-bêj-e SBJV-say.PRS-3SG ‘Azad wanted to sing at the wedding’. Kulp [K059] d. mêrik-î         ker-ê       di-kşand            lê ama … man-OBL.M donkey-OBL.F PROG-pull.PST.3SG but ‘The man was pulling the donkey but …’. Muş [K086] e. Azêd         xwast     ki    dawet-ê     da        k’ilam-a … Azad.OBL.M want.PST.3SG that wedding-OBL.F ADP song-OBL.PL ‘Azad wanted to sing at the wedding’. Kahta [K029] f.

mêrik  k’er      k’aş  di-kir             ama … man   donkey pull PROG-do.PST.3SG but ‘The man was pulling the donkey but …’. İmranlı [K023]

g. Azad    xwest        li daʕwet-ê         şerqiy-a Azad want.PST.3SG ADP wedding-OBL.F song-OBL.PL bi-bêj-e SBJV-say.PRS-3SG ‘Azad wanted to sing at the wedding’. Siverek [K069]

  Case in Kurdish 

135

When A is a feminine noun, the expression of the Oblique case is more systematic. The MDKD contains several test sentences where A is a feminine noun in past tenses: (A is given in bold.) (25) Sentences containing A as a feminine noun in past in the MDKD a. The woman wiped the tables. b. The woman peeled the onions. c. The woman pushed the cart into the house. d. The woman shattered the mirror. e. The woman ate the cake. f. The woman broke the glass. g. The woman saw the child. h. The woman saw the children.

It has been well attested that most NK dialects indicate the Oblique case (-ê) on feminine nouns. The locations that do not use the Oblique case in this context generally map onto the Northern Kurmanji dialect, such as Muradiye [K027], Dolunay [K031], Bismil [K058], Kulp [K059], Doğubeyazıt [K074], Karakoçan [K075], Varto [K087], and Sunak [K092]. It should be yet noted that other locations within this dialect region (Tatvan [K024], Kağızman [K067], Digor [K070], Eleşkirt [K094], etc.) do use the Oblique case in this context. Besides, several locations from Southern and Western Kurmanji dialect regions like Uludere [K026], Kozluk [K068], Ergani [K072], Raqqa [K100], İmranlı [K023], and Erzincan [K090] also do not mark a feminine A in past with the Oblique case. For illustrative purposes, I provide a few examples from different dialect regions that use (26a–d) and/or do not use the Oblique case (26e–h) in this context. (26) a. jinik-ê      mêze      paqij   kir-in woman-OBL.F table.PL clean do.PST ‘The woman wiped the tables’. (Zakho [K042]) b. jinik-ê     k’ek  xwar woman-OBL.F cake at.PST.3SG ‘The woman ate the cake’. (Nusaybin [K030]) c. jinik-ê      zarok      dît-in woman-OBL.F hild.PL see.PST-PL ‘The woman saw the children’. (Kağızman [K067]) d. jinik-ê           qedeḥ  şikênand woman-OBL.F  glass         break.PST.3SG ‘The woman broke the glass’. (Kobanê [K037])

136 

S. Gündoğdu e. jinik  ʕeynê     peremperçe        kir woman mirror.OBL.F shattered/in pieces do.PAST.3SG ‘The woman shattered the mirror’. (Karakoçan [K075]) f.

jinik     pîvaz-ê     spî    kir woman onion-OBL.F peel do.PST.3SG ‘The woman peeled the onion’. (Varto [K087])

g. jin         k’ek    xar woman cake eat.PST.3SG ‘The woman ate the cake’. (Uludere [K026]) h. jinik  mase    silmîş  kir-in woman table.PL wipe    do.PST-PL ‘The woman wiped the tables’. (İmranlı [K023])

Almost all NK dialects seem to mark a plural A in past tenses with the Oblique marker (-a(n)) although certain dialects such as Southern Kurmanji, (South)western Kurmanji, several places belonging to the Southeastern Kurmanji dialect (e.g. Akre [K044], Chiay Syan [K045], Kanyder [K048], Mosul [K051] and Şemdinli [K078]) as well as some locations in the Northern Kurmanji dialect region (e.g. Karlıova [K060], Adilcevaz [K061], Kağızman [K067], and Eleşkirt [K094]) tend to reduce the Oblique plural marker to -a. However, it has been attested that there are few locations from each dialect region that mostly do not mark the plural nouns with the Oblique case in this context. These are Muradiye [K027], Doğubeyazıt [K074], and Karakoçan [K075] from Northern Kurmanji; Bismil [K058], Kızıltepe [K071], Dolunay [K031], Raqqa [K100], Jindires [K102], and Xirbe Cihwa [K104] from Southern Kurmanji; Sersink [K038] from Southeastern Kurmanji, and Kobanê [K037] from Southwestern Kurmanji dialect region. I have used the following three test sentences in the MDKD to be able to attest this dialectal variation regarding the use of plural Oblique case, where plural A is in bold (27). The translation of these test sentences from several dialect locations that reflect all these strategies (-an, -a and Ø) is provided in (28). (27) Sentences containing a plural A in past in the MDKD a. The boys played football.19 b. The children have eaten three apples today. c. The men built the house.

  Case in Kurdish 

137

(28) a. ẓarûk-an     fitboł      leyîst child-OBL.PL football play.PST.3SG ‘The children played football’. (Bahçesaray [K032]) b. döl-an      hiro   se       sîv  xar-in child-OBL.PL today three apple eat.PRS-PL ‘The children ate three apples today’. (Elbistan [K022]) c. mêrik-an     xanî    ç’êkir man-OBL.PL house make.PST.3SG ‘The men built the house’. (Pertek [K028]) d. zarok-a        fetbol-ê        list child-OBL.PL football-OBL.F play.PST.3SG ‘The children played football’. (Sabahiya [K034]) e. zaroy-an       îro     sê    tene  sêv   xwar-in child-OBL.PL today three only  apple eat.PST-PL ‘The children ate only three apples today’. (Erzincan [K090]) f.

mêrd-a        xanî  čêkird man-OBL.PL house make.PST-3SG ‘The men built the house’. (Kanyder [K048])

g. zarrok  t’op  leyîst-in child  ball  play.PST-PL ‘The children played football’. (Muradiye [K027]) h. Zarok  sê      sêv      xwar-in     îro child    three apple eat.PST-PL today ‘The children ate three apples today’. (Raqqa [K100]) i.

zalam  xanî  ava  kir man    house  Build  do.PST.3SG ‘The men built the house’. (Sersink [K038])

O in Present/Non-past Tenses The distinctive character of the dialectal variation within NK regarding the expression of the Oblique case is also observed in the context of the direct object (O) in present/non-past tenses. The generic interpretation of the direct object seems to have an influence on the expression of the Oblique case. The MDKD contains a number of clauses with O in present, in which O is either a singular (masculine or feminine) or a plural noun, but never a pronoun. When O is a masculine noun, NK dialects again employ one of the three strategies to express the Oblique case; -î, stem-vowel raising, and zero marking. I have selected the following four test sentences with a

138 

S. Gündoğdu

masculine O from the MDKD (O is indicated in bold). The second test sentence does not overall provide reliable results though, because derî or qapî are used for the word ‘door’ both already ending in -î. It is generally the locations from Bahdini dialect region (e.g. Selehaddin, Zakho, Mosul, Duhok, Sersink, Chiay Syan, Akre, Kanyder) or from Syria (e.g. Sewîdiye, Tepkê, and Kelhê) that use a similar word for ‘door’ without an -î at the end; that is, derg, derk, dergeh, or derge, and marks it with -î in the Oblique case. (29) Sentences containing O as a masculine noun in present/non-past in the MDKD (O in bold) a. I see Hasan. b. I can open the door. c. I know the town. d. I am pouring the milk.

The results are quite similar to the expression of a masculine A in past. Most locations from the Northern Kurmanji dialect do not indicate Oblique case on a masculine O (30a–d); for example, Kars [K003], Adicevaz [K061], Kağızman [K067], Kulp [K069], Karakoçan [K075], Muş [K086], Bingöl [K091]. It is possible that there are some DOM effects in these instances depending on how the respondents interpreted the respective test sentences. For instance, if they intend generic readings of door, town, or milk, they might avoid using the overt masculine Oblique case marker. On the other hand, the locations that retain the Oblique case -î on masculine nouns are mostly mapped on the Southeastern Kurmanji dialect region (30g–h); for example, Selehaddin [K013], Çatak [K015], Hakkari [K016], Çukurca [K027], Bahçesaray [K032], Duhok [K036], Sersink [K038/39], Zakho [K042], Akre [K017/44], Chiay Syan [K045], Kanyder [K048], Mosul [K051], Özalp [K063], Yüksekova [K065], Şemdinli [K078]. There are clearly some other locations from different dialect regions that mark a masculine O in present with this Oblique case suffix; for example, Yavuzeli [K002], İmranlı [K023], Erzincan [K090], Bismil [K058], Siverek [K069], Uludere [K026], Siirt [K006], Kızıltepe [K071], and Varto [K087]. It should be noted that the masculine Oblique marker appears as -ê which is homophonous with the Oblique case marker on the feminine nouns in some of these locations; e.g. Çatak [K015], Hakkari [K016], Özalp [K063], Şemdinli [K078], Varto [K087], Yavuzeli [K002], Uludere [K026] and Siirt

  Case in Kurdish 

139

[K006] (see examples in (30i–j)). Furthermore, locations from Southern Kurmanji (e.g. Mardin [K005], Nusaybin [K030] and Sabahiya [K034]), and Western Kurmanji dialect regions (Elbistan [K022], Pertek [K028], Kahta [K029], Gaziantep [K011], and Suruç [K076]) indicate the Oblique case on the masculine O ‘town’ via stem-­vowel raising (30k). Interestingly, there are also few Bahdini-speaking locations such as Zakho [K020/42], Duhok [K036], Chiay Syan [K045], and Mosul [K051] which express the Oblique case on the masculine O ‘town’ both through stem vowel raising and adding the Oblique -î suffix as illustrated in (30l). (30) a. ez      ḥesen   di-bîn-im 1SG.DIR Hasan PROG-see.PRS-1SG I see Hasan’. (Karakoçan [K075]) b. ez      di-kar-im            derî    vek-im 1SG.DIR PROG-be able to.PRS-1SG door open.PRS-1SG ‘I can open the door’. (Adilcevaz [K061]) c. ez       şeher  nas  di-k-im 1SG.DIR  city      know  PROG-do.PRS-1SG ‘I know the city/town’. (Muş [K086]) d. ez      anha  şîr    di-rijîn-im 1SG.DIR now  milk PROG-pour.PRS-1SG ‘I am pouring the milk now’. (Bingöl [K091]) e. ez       Hesen-î    di-bîn-im 1SG.DIR Hasan-OBL.M PROG-see.PRS-1SG ‘I see Hasan’. (Duhok [K018, K036]) f.

e      di-şê-m         derk-î    ve-k-im 1SG.DIR PROG-be able to.PRS-1SG door-OBL.M PRV-do.PRS-1SG ‘I can open the door’. (Akre [K044])

g. ez      niha  şîr-î       ti-rrêj-im 1SG.DIR now milk-OBL.M PROG-pour.PRS-1SG ‘I am pouring the milk now’. (Bahçesaray [K032]) h. ez     şehr-î   nas   di-k-im 1SG.DIR city-OBL.M know PROG-do.PRS-1SG ‘I know the city/town’. (Çukurca [K025]) i.

ez      Hesen-ê      di-bîn-im 1SG.DIR Hasan-OBL.F PROG-see.PRS-1SG ‘I see Hasan’. (Hakkari [K016])

j.

ez       şer-ê     di-nas-im 1SG.DIR city-OBL.F PROG-know.PRS-1SG ‘I know the city/town’. (Siirt [K006])

140 

S. Gündoğdu k. ez      bajêr      nas    di-k-im 1SG.DIR city.OBL.M know PROG-do.PRS-1SG ‘I know the city/town’. (Suruç [K076]) l.

ez     bajêr-î      di-zan-im 1SG.DIR city-OBL.M PROG-know.PRS-1SG ‘I know the city/town’. (Zakho [K020])

In order to attest the dialectal variation within NK regarding the expression of the Oblique case on a feminine O in present tenses, I have selected eight test sentences with a feminine O in present from the MDKD, as provided in (31): (O is in bold) (31) Sentences containing O as a feminine noun in present/non-past in the MDKD a. The children are reading the book. b. The children are not reading the book. c. The little boy is reading the book. d. The little boy is not reading the book. e. The little girl is reading the book. f. The little girl is not reading the book. g. I cannot drink water. h. He always spills the water on the floor.

The translations of these test sentences from various locations suggest that when feminine, O is generally marked with the Oblique case -ê in all NK dialects except for some locations from the Northern Kurmanji dialect region where the expression of the Oblique case is generally absent with feminine O; for example, Tatvan [K024], Muradiye [K027], Doğubeyazıt [K074], Varto [K087], Bingöl [K091], Silvan [K012], Kurtalan [K062], Kozluk [K068], and two locations from Southern Kurmanji, Uludere [K026], and Raqqa [K100]. For these cases too, there might be some DOM effects depending on the respondents’ generic interpretation of the respective O book and water. For illustrative purposes, I give a few examples only from Tatvan [K024] and Raqqa [K100] which mostly do not mark the feminine O with the Oblique case (32a–c), and from Yüksekova [K065] and Qamışlo [K096] which systematically do (32d–f):

  Case in Kurdish 

141

(32) a. kurik-ê       piçük    k’itab  di-xwîn-e boy-EZ.M small/little book   PROG-read.PRS-3SG ‘The little boy is reading the book’. (Tatvan [K024]) b. ez       ni-kar-im          av     ve-xw-im 1SG.DIR NEG-be able to-1SG water PRV-eat.PRS-1SG ‘I cannot drink water’. (Tatvan [K024]) c. zarok      kîtab   na-xwîn-in child.PL  book   PROG-read.PRS-PL ‘The children are not reading the book’. (Raqqa [K100]) d. ew       ḥemu  gav     av-ê         di-rijîn-id         ʕerd-e 3SG.DIR  all     time  water-OBL.F  PROG-pour.PRS-3SG  floor-OBL.F ‘He always spills the water on the floor’. (Yüksekova [K065]) e. ez       ne-şê-m         aw-ê      ve-xw-im 1SG.DIR NEG-be able to-1SG water-OBL.F PRV-eat.PRS-1SG ‘I cannot drink water’. (Yüksekova [K065]) f.

zarok-ê      piçûk   kitêb-ê     di-xwîn-i child-EZ.M small/little book-OBL.F PROG-read.PRS-3SG ‘The little child is reading the book’. (Qamışlo [K096])

Meanwhile, when O is modified by a demonstrative pronoun, for example, I know this man/this woman, it is regularly marked with the Oblique case in all NK dialects irrespective of its gender. (33) a. ez      vî       ẓełam-i      nas  di-k-em 1SG.DIR DEM.M man-OBL.M know PROG-do.PRS-1SG ‘I know this man’. (Kızıltepe [K071]) b. ez      vî       merik-î       nas   di-k-im 1SG.DIR DEM.M man-OBL.M know PROG-do.PRS-1SG ‘I know this man’. (Kahta [K029]) c. ez      vî         mirov-î      di-nas-im 1SG.DIR DEM.M man-OBL.M PROG- know.PRS-1SG ‘I know this man’. (Şemdinli [K078]) d. ez      vê         keçik-ê        nas       di-k-em 1SG.DIR DEM.F girl/woman-OBL.F know PROG-do.PRS-1SG ‘I know this girl/woman’. (K024 [Tatvan]) e. ez      vê     jin-ê         nas  di-k-im 1SG.DIR DEM.F woman-OBL.F know PROG-do.PRS-1SG ‘I know this woman’. (Basselhâya [K043]) f.

ez      vê        qizk-ê       nas     di-k-im 1SG.DIR DEM.F girl/woman-OBL.F know PROG-do.PRS-1SG ‘I know this woman/girl’. (Dolunay [K031])

142 

S. Gündoğdu

In few locations from the Northwestern Kurmanji (e.g. Imranlı [K023], Pertek [K028], and Erzincan [K090]) and Northern Kurmanji dialect group (e.g. Kulp [K059], Karakoçan [K075], and Bingöl [K091]), the case markers on the respective O are replaced by the determiner or a demonstrative suffix -a where case distinctions (feminine vs. masculine) are neutralized: (34) a. ez      vî       merik-a    nas    di-k-im 1SG.DIR DEM.M man-DEM know PROG-do.PRS-1SG ‘I know this man’. (Imranlı [K023], Bingöl [K091]) b. ez     vê     qîzik-a       nas    di-k-im 1SG.DIR DEM.F girl/woman-DEM know PROG-do.PRS-1SG ‘I know this woman/girl’. (Imranli [K023], Pertek [K028], Karakoçan [K075])

Finally, when O in present is a plural noun, the picture is not as clear as the case of A in the past tense, for several reasons. First, the MDKD contains a very limited number of test sentences (only three) with a plural noun as O in present, as given in (35), where O is in bold. Second, the translation of these test sentences sometimes express these plural as modified by an adjective or attribute noun (36a–b). Third, some of the responses to these sentences are formed in past (36c). Lastly, the plural noun is very clearly observed with the sentence in (35b) where floors is mostly treated as a singular noun (36d). In all these cases, the plural Oblique suffix -a(n) is not manifested. Therefore, I have not included this last sentence for diagnosing the presence or absence of the Oblique plural marker –a(n) in this context. Needless to say, several locations from different dialect groups have a tendency to drop the -n reducing the Oblique plural marker to -a (see the relevant discussion for plural A in past). (35) Sentences containing O as a plural noun in present/non-past in the MDKD20 a. I am now frying potatoes for dinner. b. The woman wipes tables all day. c. The woman scrubs floors all day.

  Case in Kurdish 

143

(36) a. ez     ê     niha  bo şîvê         sêvk-êd     binerde 1SG.DIR EZ.M now    for dinner apple-EZ.PL underground sor   k-im red do.PRS-1SG ‘I am now frying potatoes for dinner’. (Yüksekova [K065]) b. jink-ê       dirêjîy-a    ru-yê         masan           de-mal-e woman-EZ.F length-EZ:F face-EZ.M table.OBL.PL PROG-clean.PRS-3SG ‘The woman wipes the surface of the tables all day’. (Elbistan [K022]) c. jinik-ê       hemû  roj   mase  paqiş  kir-in woman-OBL.F all      day table clean     do.PST-PL ‘The woman wiped the tables all day’. (Digor [K070]) d. jinik     ḥemî rojê  ʕerd-ê         temiz  di-k-e woman all     day   floor-OBL.F clean  PROG-do.PRS-3SG ‘The woman scrubs the floor all day’. (Kağızman [K067])

The results overall indicate that although plural O in these sentences are usually marked with the Oblique marker (37a–d), a small number of places from Northern Kurmanji dialect region (e.g. Tatvan [K024], Muradiye [K027], Karlıova [K060], Kağızman [K067], Kozluk [K068], Doğubeyazıt [K074], Muş [K086], and Sunak [K092]) do not systematically indicate plural Oblique case marker in this context (37e–f ). (37)

a. jinik      ḥeta  êvarê       masan         t’emîs  ti-k-e woman  till          evening  table.OBL.PL  clean  PROG-do.PST-3SG ‘The woman wipes the tables till the evening/all day’. (Bahçesaray [K032]) b. jinik    mêza  paqij      di-k-in            hemî  rojê woman table clean PROG-do.PST-PL all       day ‘The woman wipes the tables all day’. (Zakho [K042]) c.

ez             niha  p’at’ata-n       sor di-ki-m-e                 ji şîvê ra 1SG.DIR now potato-OBL.PL red PROG-do.PRS-1SG-PERF ADP dinner ADP ‘I am now frying potatoes for dinner’. (Sheran [K056])

d. ez         ji bona  nan-ê          êvar-ê           kartol-a 1SG.DIR for     bread-EZ.M evening-OBL.F potato-OBL.PL di-pijîn-im PROG-cook.PRS-1SG ‘I am now cooking potatoes for dinner’. (Karlıova [K060]) e. jinik-ê         hemu  rojê  mase     temiz  di-k-e woman-OBL.F  all          day         table  clean    PROG.do.PST-3SG ‘The woman wipes the tables all day’. (Kağızman [K067]) f.

ez          niha  ji bo  şîv-ê          kartol               sor      di-k-em 1SG.DIR now for           dinner-OBL.F potato red PROG-do.PRS-1SG ‘I am now frying potatoes for dinner’. (Tatvan [K024])

144 

S. Gündoğdu

Post-predicate Goals Non-direct object arguments such as spatial goals of verbs of movement (including caused motion verbs), recipients of verbs of transfer, and addressees of speech verbs, which are collectively referred to as goal constituents in Haig and Öpengin (2018, p. 33), generally appear in the immediate postpredicate position and bear Oblique case in NK. The appearance of the last group (addressees of speech verbs) in this position is restricted to Southeastern Kurmanji dialect region (see Haig, this volume, and Gündoğdu 2019). When the post-predicate goal is a pronoun it is always in the Oblique form in all NK dialects. The MDKD test sentences with a pronoun post-predicate goal are restricted to the recipients of the verb dan ‘give’ and addresses of speech verb gotin ‘say/tell’. I have selected only six test sentences among them, which are given in (38) post-predicate goal being in bold. The recipient of dan ‘give’ is in the post-predicate position and it is in the Oblique form in all NK dialects (39a–c) while the addresses of gotin ‘say/tell’ appears as an Oblique pronoun in the post-predicate position in Southeastern Kurmanji dialect (39d–f).21 It is worth noting that when the post-predicate is a third person reference pronoun as in (38b), it is pronominalized on the verb as -yê in several locations from Southeastern dialect regions (e.g. Çukurca [K025], Duhok [K036], and Sersink [K038]) and Southern Kurmanji (e.g. Siirt [K008], Şırnak [K009], Kızıltepe [K071], and Qesirdib [K101]) as illustrated in (39g–h). (38) Sample sentences containing a pronoun post-predicate goal in the MDKD a. He didn’t give it to me. b. I didn’t give it to him. c. You gave it to us. d. I said to him. e. I told it to you. f. She told me. (39) a. ewi      ne-da             min 3SG.M.OBL  NEG-give.PST.3SG  1SG.OBL ‘He didn’t give it to me’. (Tunceli [K004]) b. mi    ew     ne-da                wî 1SG.OBL  3SG.DIR  NEG-give.PST.3SG  3SG.M.OBL ‘I didn’t give it to him’. (Bahçesaray [K032])

  Case in Kurdish  c.

145

te      ew    da        me 2SG.OBL  3SG.DIR  give.PST.3SG  1PL.OBL ‘You gave it to us’. (İmranlı [K023])

d. min        got-e         wî 1SG.OBL  say.PST.3SG-DIRC  3SG.M.OBL ‘I said to him’. (Hakkari [K016]) e. ewe   min         got-e         hingo 3SG.DIR  1SG.OBL  say.PST.3SG-DIRC  2PL.OBL ‘I told it to you’. (Şemdinli [K078]) f.

wê       gût-e       min 3SG.OBL.F  say.PST.3SG-DIRC  1SG.OBL ‘She said to me’. (Duhok [K018])

g. min     ew    ne-da=yê 1SG.OBL  3SG.DIR  NEG-give.PST=3SG ‘I didn’t give it to him’. (Şırnak [K009]) h. min       ne-da=yê 1SG.OBL  NEG-give.PST=3SG ‘I didn’t give it to him’. (Sersink [K038])

However, when a post-predicate goal argument is a singular noun then some dialectal variation is observed with respect to employing the Oblique case marker depending on the gender of the noun. The findings are quite in parallel to what has been previously discussed in A in past and O in present contexts. For instance, while Southeastern Kurmanji dialect retains the Oblique case marker -î (sometimes -ê) on masculine post-­ predicate nouns (41a–b), Southern and Western Kurmanji dialects indicate Oblique case on masculine nouns via raising the stem vowel only for relevant words (e.g. bajar vs. bajêr), otherwise zero-marking (cf. [41d] and [41e]). In contrast, Northern Kurmanji dialects mostly do not mark masculine post-predicate nouns at all (41f–g). I have selected two test sentences from the MDKD with a masculine post-predicate noun (40), and their translations from different dialect regions are provided in (41). (Goals are in bold.) (40) Sample sentences containing a masculine post-predicate goal in the MDKD a. I went to the doctor. b. I didn’t go to town.

146 

S. Gündoğdu

(41) a. ez      ne-çû-m-e       şehr-ê 1SG.DIR  NEG-go.PST-1SG-DIRC  town/city-OBL.F ‘I didn’t go to town’. (Yüksekova [K065]) b. ez         çû-m               doqtor-î 1SG.DIR  go.PST-1SG  doctor-OBL.M ‘I went to the doctor’. (Zakho [K042]) c.

ez           ne-çû-m-e           bajêr 1SG.DIR  NEG-go.PST-1SG-DIRC  town/city.OBL ‘I didn’t go to town’. (Gaziantep [K011])

d. ez         ne-çû-m-e                   bajêr 1SG.DIR  NEG-go.PST-1SG-DIRC  town/city.OBL ‘I didn’t go to town’. (Mardin [K005]) e. ez       çû-m-e             dixtor 1SG.DIR  go.PST-1SG-DIRC  doctor ‘I went to the doctor’. (Mardin [K005]) f.

ez        ne-çû-m         bajar 1SG.DIR  NEG-go.PST-1SG  town/city ‘I didn’t go to town’. (Varto [K087])

g. çû-m-e            doqtor go.PST-1SG-DIRC  doctor ‘I went to the doctor’. (Doğubeyazıt [K074])

In contrast, when the post-predicate goal is a feminine noun, it is generally marked with the Oblique case -ê in all NK dialects, as illustrated by the translations of test sentences from the MDKD samples in (43). (Goals are in bold.) (42) Sentences containing a feminine post-predicate goal in the MDKD a. He went to Arbil. b. He went home. c. I went home. d. I came home. e. The woman arrived in the market. f. The bus arrived in Van. g. He always spills the water on the floor. h. I brought the food to the room.

  Case in Kurdish 

147

(43) a. ew      çû      Erbîl-ê 3SG.DIR  go.PST.3SG  Erbil-OBL.F ‘He went to Erbil’. (Nusaybin [K030]) b. ew           ç’û            mal-ê 3SG.DIR  go.PST.3SG  house-OBL.F ‘I went home’. (Mosul [K021]) c. ez          çû-m-e            mal-ê 1SG.DIR  go.PST-1SG-DIRC  house-OBL.F ‘I went home’. (Yavuzeli [K002]) d. ez       hat-im            mal-ê 1SG.DIR  come.PST-1SG  house-OBL ‘I came home’. (Basselhâya [K043]) e. jinik          çû          market-ê woman  go.PST-3SG  market-OBL.F ‘The woman went to the market’. (Digor [K070]) f.

otobus  gehişt-e         Wan-ê bus     arrive.PST.3SG-DIRC  Van-OBL.F ‘The bus arrived in Van’. (Şemdinli [K078])

g. ew      hergav  av-ê      di-rjîn-e          ʕerd-ê 3SG.DIR  Always  water-OBL.F  PROG-pour.PRS-3SG  floor-OBL.F ‘He always spills the water on the floor’. (Muş [K086]) h. mi          xwarin  Anî           odê 1SG.OBL  meal  bring.PST.3SG  room.OBL.F ‘I brought the food to the room’. (Kahta [K029])

It should be nevertheless noted that several locations from different dialect regions (Uludere [K026], Siirt [K008], Kahta [K029], Basselhâya [K043], Jindires [K102], İmranlı [K023], Erzincan [K090], Tunceli [K010], Varto [K087], Bingöl [K091], Tatvan [K024], Muradiye [K027], Duhok [K018], Mosul [K021], Yüksekova [K065], etc.) display inconsistencies regarding the marking of the Oblique case in this context. For illustrative purposes, I have presented two examples from each dialect region in (44). In fact, mal ‘home’ might be regarded as a special case for case dropping, just as it is in English and other languages; for instance, ‘go home’ vs. ‘go to town’, but not ‘*go town’.22 However, as can be seen in the following examples, casedropping in the context of mal ‘home’ is not consistent, either.

148 

S. Gündoğdu

(44) a. Duhok [K018]:

(i) ez çûme mal (ii) ew çû Erbîl-ê

‘I went home’. ‘He went to Erbil’.

b. Siirt [K008]:

(i) ez çûm mal-ê (ii) ez hatim mal

‘I went home’. ‘I came home’.

c. Jindires [K102]:

(i) ez vegerim mal (ii) çü Erbîl-ê

‘I came back home’. ‘He went to Erbil’.

d. İmranlı [K023]:

(i) çû mal (ii) çû Erbîl-ê

‘I came home’. ‘He went to Erbil’.

e. Bingöl [K091]:

(i) ez çûme mal-ê (ii) ez hatim mal

‘I went home’. ‘I came home’.

Lastly, since the MDKD does not include any plural noun as a post-­ predicate argument, it is not possible to attest if there is variation with respect to the use of the Oblique case on plural nouns in this context.

Complement of Adpositions Adposition are widely used in NK for various functions, such as expressing time, location, recipient, source, and benefactor. Haig and Öpengin (2018) distinguish between three basic categories of the adpositional system in this language; namely basic prepositions (e.g. ji ‘from’, li ‘at’, bi ‘with’, bê ‘without’), locational nouns (e.g. nav ‘inside’, bin ‘bottom’, ber ‘front’, ser ‘head/top’, pişt ‘behind’) and postpositional particles (e.g. ra/re, da/de, va/ve) (see Kinzler, this volume, for a more detailed analysis). Basic prepositions can be used alone as simple adpositions or they can be combined with a locational noun, forming compound adpositions as in li ber ‘in front of ’, ji ber ‘because of ’, li ser ‘on, upon, over’, and so on, or they can further be used in combination with a postpositional particle, yielding circumpositions such as ji … ra ‘for, to’, bi … ra ‘together with’, di … ra ‘through’. The NP complement of the adposition is generally marked with Oblique case. In order to see whether there is a dialectal variation with respect to employing the Oblique case in this variety, I have selected 13 test sentences and phrases from the MDKD, all of which are listed in (45). In the first two sentences, the complement of the adposition is a pronoun, while the following three sentences (45c-d-e) have a masculine noun as the complement of the adposition. The remaining test sentences and phrases between (45f ) and (45m) all contain an adposition with a feminine noun in its complement position. (Adposition phrases are in bold.)

  Case in Kurdish 

149

(45) Sentences and phrases containing an adposition + NP complement in the MDKD a. She told me. b. They didn’t speak to us. c. There was a river in the town. d. There is a mosque in the village. e. I live in this village. f. I stayed in Mosul. g. I studied in Kerkuk. h. I was at home. i. The book is on the table. j. The children are under the tree. k. They stayed at home. l. close to Kerkuk. m. in the house.

Note that although the addressee in the first sentence She told me does not indeed come with an adposition in English, it does so in Northern, Western and most locations from Southern Kurmanji dialects, therefore it is included within the sample here. In all these NK dialects, the pronoun in this sentence is expressed either by the circumposition ji…ra (e.g. in Northern Kurmanji and a few locations from Southern Kurmanji dialect) or by a postposition …ra (e.g. in Western Kurmanji dialects) and it is always found in the Oblique form (46a–c). However, in a few locations from Western Kurmanji dialect region such as Yavuzeli [K002], Gaziantep [K011], Pertek [K028], Kahta [K029], and Rajo [K103] the addressee pronoun appears with a circumposition like bi…ra or li…ra as illustrated in (46d–e). Likewise, the pronoun in the sentence They didn’t speak to us is also introduced by an adposition and it is always in the Oblique form. The form of the adposition varies depending on the dialect region; for instance gel, digel/di gel or li gel all meaning ‘with’ are used in Southeastern Kurmanji dialect region (46f–h) while bi…re/ra or just …ra/re is used in the other dialect regions (46i–k). (46) a. wê         ji   mi      ra     got 3SG.OBL.F  ADP  1SG.OBL  ADP  say.PST.3SG ‘She told me’. (Varto [K087], Siverek [K069]) b. (e)wê    ji   me     ra       got 3SG.OBL.F  ADP  1PL.OBL  ADP  say.PST.3SG ‘She told us’. (Kızıltepe [K071]) c. wê         (jinik-ê)       mi       rra   go DEM.OBL.F  (woman-OBL.F)  1SG.OBL  ADP  say.PST.3SG ‘That (woman) told me’. (Elbistan [K022])

150 

S. Gündoğdu d. wê       bi      min      rra       got 3SG.OBL.F  ADP  1SG.OBL  ADP  say.PST.3SG ‘She told me’. (Pertek [K028]) e. wê     li        mi      rra  go 3SG.OBL.F  ADP  1SG.OBL  ADP  say.PST.3SG ‘She told me’. (Kahta [K029]) f.

gel      me           ne-axift-in ADP  1PL.OBL  NEG-speak.PST-PL ‘They didn’t speak to us’. (Çukurca [K025])

g. di gel  me          ne-axift ADP        1PL.OBL  NEG-speak.PST.3SG ‘They/he/she didn’t speak to us’. (Hakkari [K016]) h. li gel  me          ne-axift-in ADP   1PL.OBL  NEG-speak.PST-PL ‘They didn’t speak to us’. (Duhok [K036]) i.

me    re      ne-şitexl-în 1PL.OBL  ADP  NEG-speak.PST-PL ‘They didn’t speak to us’. (Şırnak [K009])

j.

bi    ma        ra          deng   ne-kir-in ADP  1PL.OBL  ADP  voice  NEG-do.PST-PL ‘They didn’t speak to us’. (Gaziantep [K011])

k. bi     me         re        xeber  ne-da-n ADP  1PL.OBL  ADP  word    NEG-give.PST-PL ‘They didn’t speak to us’. (Karakoçan [K075])

The masculine nouns in the complement position of an adposition in (45c-d-e) are marked with the Oblique case -î in Southeastern Kurmanji dialect region while they are generally unmarked in other dialect regions. The word choice indeed matters in these examples. For instance, if the word used for ‘town’ is gund which indeed means ‘village’, then it follows the pattern mentioned above (47a–b). However, if it is bajer ‘town’, then we observe vowel-stem raising as a reflex of the Oblique case (e.g. bajêr) in most Southern and Western Kurmanji dialect locations (47c), while it is overtly marked with -î (sometimes -ê) in Southeastern Kurmanji (47d). Besides, the translation of these test sentences from different dialect regions have qaza, tax, şehr or kasaba/qasaba for the word ‘town’, and these are all carrying feminine Oblique marker -ê (47e–g). Lastly, when the masculine noun is preceded by the demonstrative (e.g. this village), then it has always the Oblique case marker -î in all NK dialects (47h–j).

  Case in Kurdish 

151

(47) a. mizgeft-ek-e       li   gund-î        he-ye mosque-INDF-OBL ADP village-OBL.M exist.PRS-3SG ‘There is a mosque in the village’. (Sersink [K038]) b. li    gund     mizgeft-ek     he-ye ADP village mosque-INDF exist.PRS-3SG ‘There is a mosque in the village’. (Tatvan [K024]) c. li   bajêr           çem-ek        hebû ADP town/city.OBL river-INDF exist.PST.3SG ‘There was a river in the town’. (Nusaybin [K030]) d. rabîr-eke  li        bajêr-î          de   he-yî river-INDF ADP town/city-OBL.M ADP exist.PRS-3SG ‘There is a river in the town’. (Zakho [K020]) e. li     tax-ê              av-ek-î        hebû ADP neighborhood-OBL.F water-INDF-OBL.M exist.PST.3SG ‘There was a river in the neighborhood’. (Muş [K086]) f.

li   qaze         çem-ek     he-ye ADP district.OBL.F river-INDF exist.PRS-3SG ‘There is a river in the neighborhood’. (Gaziantep [K011])

g. li          qasebê       çem-ik           he-ye ADP town.OBL.F river-INDF exist.PRS-3SG ‘There is a river in the neighborhood’. (Cizre [K014]) h. ez        vî     gund-î     da   di-jî-m 1SG.DIR this village-­OBL.M ADP PROG-live.PRS-1SG ‘I live in this village’. (Bingöl [K091]) i.

ez       li       vî   gund-î     di-jî-m 1SG.DIR ADP this village-OBL.M PROG-live.PRS-1SG ‘I live in this village’. (Dêrka Ber Avê [K105])

j.

ez      vî      gund-i         di-mîn-im 1SG.DIR This village-OBL.M PROG-stay.PRS-1SG ‘I stay in this village’. (Bahçesaray K032)

When the complement of the adposition is a feminine noun, it is mostly marked with the Oblique case -ê in all NK dialects. However, there are some exceptions depending on the word choice and the adposition type. For instance, although a proper noun like Mosul and Kerkuk (see the test sentences in (45f-g-l)) generally has the Oblique case -ê in all dialects (48a–c), we have attested some locations from different dialect regions that do not indicate the Oblique case on Mosul even though they consistently mark Kerkuk in the translation of the test sentences in the MDKD (48d–e). These include mostly Badini-speaking locations (e.g. Selahaddin

152 

S. Gündoğdu

[K013] Akre [K017/44] Duhok [K018/36] Shekhan [K019], Zakho [K020], Mosul [K021/51], Sersink [K038], Chiay Shian [K045], Kanyder [K048]) as well as Şemdinli [K078], and a few places from other dialect regions like Northern Kurmanji (e.g. Kozluk [K068]), Southern Kurmanji (e.g. Beroj [K106], Qesirdib [K101]), and Southwestern Kurmanji (e.g. Kobane [K037], Rajo [K103]). (48) a. ez       li     Musil-ê     ma-m 1SG.DIR ADP Musul-OBL.F stay.PST-1SG ‘I stayed in Musul’. (Kars [K003]) b. min          mekteb  li         Kerkûk-ê      xwind-iy-e 1SG.OBL school    ADP Kerkuk-OBL.F read.PST-3SG-PERF ‘I have studied in Kerkuk’. (Cizre [K014]) c. nêzîk-î       Kerkîkê close-OBL.M Kerkuk-OBL.F ‘close to Kerkuk’ (Duhok [K036]) d. ez      ma-m-e        li  Mîsil 1SG.DIR stay.PST-1SG-PERF ADP Mosul ‘I have stayed in Mosul’. (Duhok [K036]) e. ez        li   Mûsil    ma-m 1SG.DIR ADP Mosul stay.PST-1SG ‘I stayed in Mosul’. (Kobane [K037])

Furthermore, when the complement of the adposition li ‘at/in’ is a feminine noun like mal meaning ‘home/house’, it is mostly not marked with the Oblique case -ê in all NK dialects (49a–c).23 The only locations that indicate the Oblique case on mal in such cases are Pervari [K001], Tatvan [K024], Digor [K070], Karakoçan [K075], Muş [K086] from Northern Kurmanji, Silvan [K012], Nusaybin [K030], Qamişlo [K033/96], Sabahiya [K034], Bismil [K058], Kurtalan [K062] from Southern Kurmanji, and Mosul [K021/51] Selahaddin [K013], Bahçesaray [K032] from Southeastern Kurmanji dialect regions (49d–f ). (49) a. ez     li  mal   bû-m 1SG.DIR ADP house COP.PST-1SG ‘I was at home’. (İmranlı [K023]) b. ew     li    mal   ma-n 3PL.DIR ADP  house stay.PST-PL ‘They stayed at home’. (Karlıova [K060])

  Case in Kurdish 

153

c. li  mal ADP house ‘at house/in the house’ (Suruç [K076]) d. ez    li   mal-ê     bû-m 1SG.DIR ADP house-OBL.F COP.PST-1SG ‘I was at home’. (Muş [K086]) e. ew      ma-n-e       li  mal-e 3PL.DIR stay.PST-PL-PERF ADP house-OBL.F ‘They stayed at home’. (Mosul [K021/51]) f.

li    malê ADP house-OBL.F ‘at house/in the house’ (Qamişlo [K033/96])

Lastly, when the complement of the adposition is a feminine noun like dar ‘tree’ and mase/mêze ‘table’, then they always have the Oblique marker -ê in all NK dialects. In our test sentences, the adpositions are under and on, and their Kurmanji counterparts are generally in the form of compound adpositions (li) bin/ di bin …da/ li bin…de and li ser, respectively. However, in some locations they are expressed through ezafe constructions where the noun already carries the Oblique case (with or without the preposition part li) like (li) bin-ê dar-ê ((at) under-EZ.M tree-OBL.F ‘lit: bottom of the tree’); thus, such instances are excluded from the generalization made here. A few examples from different dialect regions for on the table and under the tree are provided below in (50). (50) a. k’ît’aw-ê   li ser  mas-ê    ye book-EZ.M ADP  table-OBL.F COP.PRS.3SG ‘The book is on the table’. (Kahta [K029]) b. kîtab  li ser  mas-ê      ye book ADP  table-OBL.F COP.PRS.3SG ‘The book is on the table’. (Bingöl [K091]) c. zarok     li bin  dar-ê     de   ne children ADP   tree-OBL.F ADP COP.PRS.PL The children are under the tree’. (Kurtalan [K062]) d. zarok    di bin  dar-ê   da children ADP   tree-OBL.F ADP ‘The children are under the tree’. (Basselhâya [K043]) e. zarok    yê   li bin  dar-ê children EZ.M ADP   tree-OBL.F ‘The children are under the tree’. (Duhok [K036])

154 

S. Gündoğdu

Possessor in Ezafe In possessive constructions, the possessor is in the post nominal position and it is linked to the head noun by the Ezafe marker. Besides, it is generally marked with the Oblique case no matter if it is a pronominal or nominal NP. The samples from the MDKD show that when the possessor is a pronoun, it is always in the Oblique form across all NK dialects. I have selected a few test phrases from the MDKD (51) to demonstrate the consistent use of the Oblique pronouns in the possessor position. For illustrative purposes, only one example from each dialect region is provided (52). (51) a. my father. b. my house. c. my mother. d. our house. e. our language. f. your father’s house. g. my uncle’s house. h. my aunt’s house. (52) a. bav-ê     min father-EZ.M 1SG.OBL ‘my father’ (Kars [K003]) b. ziman-ê        me language-EZ.M 1PL.OBL ‘our language’ (Şırnak [K009]) c.

mal-a    bab-ê       te house-EZ.F father-EZ.M 2SG.OBL ‘your father’s house’ (Hakkari [K016], Zakho [K020])

d. mal-a       ap-ê       min house-EZ.F uncle-EZ.M 1SG.OBL ‘my uncle’s house’ (Gaziantep [K011], Jindires [K102]) e. mal-a     xaltî-ya  min house-EZ.F aunt-EZ.F  1SG.OBL ‘my aunt’s house’ (İmranlı [K023])

The expression of the Oblique case on possessor is not that much straightforward when the possessor is a nominal NP.  For instance, a few test phrases selected from the MDKD, which are provided in (53), demonstrate that when the possessor is a feminine noun, the use of the Oblique

  Case in Kurdish 

155

case is quite consistent in all NK dialects (54a–d). In contrast, the marking of the masculine Oblique with the possessor is only systematic in the Southeastern Kurmanji dialect region as exemplified in (54e–g) (e.g. Selahaddin [K013], Hakkari [K016], Akre [K017/44], Duhok [K018/36], Shekhan [K019], Zakho [K020], Mosul [K021/51], Çukurca [K025], Bahçesaray [K032], Sersink [K038/39], Chiay Shian [K045], Kanyder [K048], Yüksekova [K065], Şemdinli [K078]). The masculine possessors mostly lack overt Oblique case marking in other NK dialects (54h–k) unless it is in the indefinite state (54l–m). (53) a. the girl’s mother. b. the girl’s house. c. the feast of Newroz. d. The mountains of Kurdistan are high. e. saddle of the horse. f. the daughters of the man. g. the houses of the village. h. the name of a town. (54) a.

dak-a     kaçik-ê mother-EZ.F girl-OBL.F ‘the girl’s mother’ (Gaziantep [K011])

b. xanî-ya      qîzk-ê house-EZ.F girl-OBL.F ‘the girl’s house’ (Muş [K086]) c.

cejn-a    Newroz-ê feast-EZ.F Newroz-OBL.F ‘the feast of Newroz’ (Mardin [K005])

d. çîya-yên        Kurdistan-ê     bilind  in mountain-EZ.PL  Kurdistan-OBL.F  high    COP.PRS.PL ‘The mountains of Kurdistan are high’. (Duhok [K036]) e.

kortan-ê     ḥesp-î saddle-EZ.M horse-OBL.M ‘the saddle of the horse’ (Shekhan [K019])

f.

kiçik-êd   mêrik-î girl-EZ.PL man-OBL.M ‘the daughters of the man’ (Çukurca [K025])

g. mał-êd / xani-yêd  gund-î house-EZ.PL    village-OBL.M ‘the houses of the village’ (Sersink [K039])

156 

S. Gündoğdu h. kurtan-ê     hesp saddle-EZ.M horse ‘the saddle of the horse’ (Mardin [K005]) j.

keçik-ên     mêrik girl-EZ.PL man ‘the daughters of the man’ (Gaziantep [K011])

k.

xanî-yên    gund house-EZ.PL village ‘the houses of the village’ (Muş [K086])

l.

nav-ê       bajar-ek-î name-EZ.M town/city-INDF-OBL.M ‘the name of a town’ (Mardin [K005], Gaziantep [K011])

m. nav-ê    şeher-ek-î name-EZ.M town/city-INDF-OBL.M ‘the name of a town’ (Muş [K086])

Apart from these uses of the Oblique case, it has been widely discussed in the literature that the NK dialects that have developed a double Oblique pattern in the past also mark O with the Oblique case. The double Oblique construction is the most widespread type of deviant case marking pattern in NK where both A and O are in the Oblique case (Dorleijn 1996; Haig 2008; Gündoğdu 2017): (55) a. Gundi-yan       wan    bizor          ji  hev       kir villager-PL:OBL 3PL:OBL with.difficulty from each.other do:PST(3S) ‘The villagers pulled them apart with difficulty’. (Haig 2008, p. 226) b. ku  te     şimik-ê     hilda-Ø     (… tu revî, ew diqîre) that 2S.OBL slipper-­OBL up.give.PST-3S ‘when you held the slipper … (you ran away, it screamed)’ (Gündoğdu 2017, p. 51)

However, this pattern is not observed in all NK dialects. The samples from the MDKD suggest that an Oblique O in the past generally appears in the Northern Kurmanji (Muradiye [K027], Tatvan [K024, Muş [K086], Kulp [K059], Karakoçan [K075], etc.]) and several locations of the Southern Kurmanji dialect regions (e.g. Bismil [K058], Kurtalan [K062], Siverek [K069], Dolunay [K031], Sabahiya [K034], Suruç [K076] and Basselhaya [K043]). A few examples of the Oblique O in the past from these locations are provided in (56):

  Case in Kurdish 

157

(56) a. Te     me       dît 2SG.OBL 1PL.OBL see.PST.3SG ‘You saw me’. (Muradiye [K027]) b. mêrik-î       ker-ê     di-kşand       lê ama … man-OBL.M donkey-OBL.F PROG-pull.PST.3SG but ‘The man was pulling the donkey but …’. Muş [K086] c. jinik-ê      kêk-ê     perçê  kir woman-OBL cake-OBL slice  do.PST.3S ‘The woman sliced the cake’. (Mûş [K086]) d. mêrik-an  mal-an         çêkir man-OBL.PL house-OBL.PL man-OBL.PL ‘The men built houses’. (Tatvan [K024]) e. min      şûşe-yan      şikand 1SG.OBL glass-OBL.PL break.PST.3SG ‘I broke the glasses’. (Kurtalan [K062]) f.

zarok-a  fetbol-ê     list child-PL football-OBL.F play.PST.3SG ‘The children played football’. (Sabahiya [K034])

g. min      av-ê      rêt          ʕerd-ê 1SG.OBL water-OBL.F pour.PST.3SG floor-OBL.F ‘I spilled the water on the floor’. (Kozluk [K068]) h. min       wî       ne-dît 1SG.OBL 3SG.OBL.M NEG-see.PST.3SG ‘I didn’t see him’. (Basselhaya [K043])

To summarize, Oblique case has a much wider distribution in NK and it is mainly used in five syntactic functions: (i) A in past, (ii) O in present, (iii) goal, recipient and addressee arguments (the latter being restricted to the Southeastern Kurmanji dialect) appearing in the immediate post-­predicate position, (iv) complement of any adposition, and (v) possessor in an ezafe construction. However, the samples from the MDKD have demonstrated that almost all NK dialects indicate Oblique case on singular feminine and plural nouns as well as indefinites (see endnote 15), while they display differences in the way masculine singular nouns are marked for this case. The Southeastern Kurmanji dialect region is the only NK dialect that retains with the Oblique case marker -î/-i on masculine nouns. In contrast, masculine nouns are generally unmarked in the Northern Kurmanji dialect region

158 

S. Gündoğdu

(unless they are modified by a demonstrative or carry indefinite marker). Nevertheless, several locations from Western and Southern Kurmanji dialects express the Oblique case on certain masculine nouns (e.g. Azad [proper name] and bajar ‘town/city’) via stem-vowel raising, that is, Azêd and bajêr.

3 Subject and Direct Objects (S, A, and O) in Kurdish The highest-level generalization that holds across Kurdish varieties and dialects is that core grammatical relations such as subject and direct object are never adpositional.24 They are either a bare NP or an Oblique marked NP or a pronominal clitic. At this point, it might be useful to establish the distinction between bare NP and Oblique marked NP (i.e. non-­adpositional NP) vs. adpositional NP to allow the data discussion provided in this section run on a solid descriptive background. A bare NP refers to the unmarked form of an NP in SK and CK varieties while it stands for the unmarked Direct case form of the NP in NK.  Likewise, the Oblique marked NP is the NP that carries the Oblique case marker (mostly sensitive to the gender of the noun) across NK and in several CK dialects. In contrast, adpositional NPs are used for the NPs that are expressed through adpositions (i.e. prepositional, postpositional and circumpositional markers) in all Kurdish varieties. In this section, I provide a sketch of the morphological form of the core grammatical relations such as subjects and direct objects in Kurdish with a specific focus on the regional dialects that mark these grammatical relations with case.

3.1 Subjects and Direct Objects in SK The samples from the MDKD show that subjects in SK are generally bare NPs regardless of their semantic roles, as illustrated in (57).

  Case in Kurdish 

159

(57) a. me   hiş     na-ka-m 1SG nothing NEG-do.PRS-1SG ‘I am not doing anything’. (Bagdad [F002]) b. me  dûs=î        dêr-im 1SG friend/love=3SG have.PRS-1SG ‘I like it’. (Bagdad [F001]) c. me   düwe      şew  fire    gîre  kird-im 1SG yesterday night much cry     do.PST-1SG ‘I cried a lot last night’. (Sahneh [G001]) d. jin-eke     her rrûj   mîz-eyl-eke    temîz  e-kird woman-DEF every day table-PL-DEF clean  PROG-do.PST.3SG ‘The woman wipes tables all day’. (Sahneh [G001]) e. ayl-eyl-eke    dirin   kitaw-eke  na-xwen-in child-PL-DEF PROG book-DEF  NEG-read.PRS-PL ‘The children are not reading the book’. (Sahneh [G001]) f. jin-eke     libas-eke   birrî woman-DEF cloth-DEF cut.PST.3SG ‘The woman cut the cloth’. (Sahneh [G001]) g. lîwan-eyl-eke  şikîya-n glass-PL-DEF  break.PST-PL ‘The glasses broke’. (Sahneh [G001])

It is worth noting that experiencer subjects can be expressed through pronominal clitics in SK in some non-canonical constructions, as illustrated below (from Öpengin and Mohammadirad, in this volume): (58) wirsī=mān-a hungry=1PL-COP.3SG ‘We are hungry’. [Bijar dialect of SK]

Direct objects in SK appear as a bare NP if they are full NPs or a full pronoun (59); otherwise, they are a pronominal clitic (60). Note that the MDKD contains a limited set of samples from the SK dialects; thus, the examples for clitics are taken from Öpengin and Mohammadirad (in this volume).

160 

S. Gündoğdu

(59) a.

jin-eke    awên-eke  hürd  kird woman-DEF mirror-DEF piece do.PST.3SG ‘The woman shattered the mirror’. (Sahneh [G001])

b. jin-eke      pîyaz-eke  qac  kird woman-DEF onion-DEF peel do.PST-3SG ‘The woman peeled the onion’. (Sahneh [G001]) c.

jin-eke   qowleme-ke  serd  kird woman-DEF  pan-DEF      cold  do.PST.3SG ‘The woman cooled the pan’. (Sahneh [G001])

d. ayl-eyl-eke  dirin  kitaw-eke  na-xwen-in child-PL-DEF PROG book-DEF  NEG-read.PRS-PL ‘The children are not reading the book’. (Sahneh [G001]) e.

me   na-twan-im       aw  bi-xwo-m 1SG NEG-be able to-1SG water SBJV-eat.PRS-1SG ‘I cannot drink the water’. (Bagdad [F001])

f.

hume  eve  day=tan-e      me 2PL  3SG give.PST=2PL-DIRC 1SG ‘You gave it to me’. (Sahneh [G001])

g. îme  ewane  dî-min 1P  3PL   see.PST-1PL ‘We saw them’. (60) a.

wana     koš-ım=at otherwise kill.PRS-1SG=2SG ‘(show me your face), otherwise I will kill you’. (Fattah 2000, p. 885)

b. dī-w-m=ay see.PST-PTCP-COP.1SG=3SG ‘I have seen him’. [Bijar dialect of SK]

3.2 Subjects and Direct Objects in CK Subjects in all CK dialects are also non-adpositional; they are expressed as bare NPs (i.e. full NPs or a full pronoun) (61). Most importantly, A in the past is obligatorily indexed with a pronominal clitic (61g–m) even in the presence of an overt coreferent element in the same clause.25

  Case in Kurdish  (61) a.

W

161

jin-ek-an    hełat-in woman-DEF-PL run.PST-PL ‘The women ran’. (Bukan [S037], Naqadeh [S038])

b.

giłas-ek-an   şka-n glass-­DEF-­PL  break.PST-PL ‘Glasses broke’. (Kirkuk [S055])

c.

dar-eke   pişkewit tree-DEF blossom.PST.3SG ‘The tree blossomed’. (Sardasht [S039])

d.

Azad    berd-ra Azad release-PASS.PST ‘Azad was released’. (Arbil [S032])

e.

emin  îş    bo    mam=im   de-ke-m 1SG    work ADP uncle=1SG PROG-do.PRS-1SG ‘I work for my uncle’. (Khalakan [S075])

f.

emin  zor    e-giri-yem 1SG     much  PROG-cry.PRS-1SG ‘I cry very often’. (Choman [S054])

g.

ew   jin-e      kêk-eke=y     qaş   kird DEM woman-DEM cake-DEF=3SG slice do.PST.3SG ‘That woman sliced the cake’. (Suleymaniyah [S034])

h.

pîyaw-ek-­an  xanû=yan  çakird man-­DEF-­PL  house=3PL  construct.PST.3SG ‘The men built the house’. (Piranshahr [S031])

i.

min  yarî=m      kird     le geł  xuşkez-ak-an=m-e 1SG play=1SG do.PST.3SG ADP  child of sister-DEF-­ PL=1SG-P ‘I played with my nephew’. (Halabja [S073])

j.

min  êngo=m     dît 1SG 2PL=1SG see.PST.3SG ‘I saw you’. (Khalakan [S075])

k.

ew    hez=î    li      ew    kird 3SG enjoy=3SG ADP 3SG do.PST.3SG ‘He liked it’. (Choman [S023])

l.

min   xoş=im   wîst 1SG nice=1SG want.PST.3SG ‘I liked it’. (Shaqlawa [S024])

m. xezīne-ī     pādšā=yān  tāłān   kird-bū.3SG treasure-EZ  king=3PL    pillage  do.PST-COP.PST ‘They had pillaged the king’s treasure’. (Mukri, Öpengin 2013, p. 218)

162 

S. Gündoğdu

The morphological form of the direct objects in CK is sensitive to alignment type and dialectal variation. The direct object of a transitive verb in the past is a bare NP (generally carrying the clitic that indexes A-past): (62) a. ew=im    ne-dît 3SG=1SG see.PST ‘I didn’t see him’. (Arbil [S014]) b. êwe  ewe=tan  be   min  da 2PL  3SG=2PL ADP 1SG  give.PST ‘You gave it to me’. (Piranshahr [S031]) c.

min  berdaẋ-ek-an=im  şkand 1SG glass-DEF-PL=1SG break.PST ‘I broke the glasses’. (Arbil [S027])

d. jin-eke      taw-ek=ê     sard  kird-ewe woman-DEF pan-DEF=3SG cold  do.PST.3SG-ASP ‘The woman cooled the pan’. (Halabja [S073]) e. piyaw-ek-an  mał-eke-yan    saz  kird man-DEF-PL  house-DEF=3PL build do.PST.3SG ‘The men built the house’. (Qoshachay [S050]) f.

aw-eke=m     rijand-e       ser  ʕerzeke water-DEF=1SG spill.PST-DIRC on  floor/ground ‘I spilled the water on the floor’. (Taparash [S044])

g. ew    jin-e      sinduq-ek-an=y   hawird-e DEM  woman-DEM box-DEF-PL=3SG bring.PST-DIRC naw  mał-î inside house-OBL ‘The woman moved the boxes into the house’. (Kirkuk [S055])

In contrast, as also discussed in Sect. 2.1, the direct object of a transitive verb in present is mostly marked with the Oblique case in most places of the Northern CK-speaking area when it is a full NP or a full pronoun. (3a) and (3e) are repeated here as (63a) and (63b). (63) a. ḥesen-î      e-vîn-im Hasan-OBL IND-see.PRS-1SG ‘I see Hasan’ (Rowanduz [S025]) b. genc-e   kick-eke        kitab-eke-y      e-xwênî-t-ewe boy-CPM small-DEF book-DEF-OBL IND-read.PRS-3SG-ASP ‘The little boy is reading the book’. (Choman [054]) c.

min  êsta   şîr-eke-y      de-rêj-im 1SG now milk-DEF-OBL IND-pour.PRS-1SG ‘I am now pouring the milk’. (Naqadeh [S038])

  Case in Kurdish 

163

Meanwhile, it is a bare NP in the remaining CK dialects (Arbil [S032], Kirkuk [S009], Sulaymaniyah [S020], Sanandaj [S016], etc.) (64): (64) a. minał-ek-an   kitêb  e-xwên-ewe child-DEF-PL book PROG-read.PRS-ASP ‘The children are reading the book’. (Suleymaniyah [S034]) b. min   ewe  êsta  şîr-eke  e-rrjên-im 1SG 3SG   now milk-DEF IND-pour.PRS-1SG ‘I am now pouring the milk’. (Saqqez [S051]) c. Hesen  e-bîn-im Hasan IND-see.PRS-1SG ‘I see Hasan’ (Taparash [S044]) d. ew   kurre  kitêb  de-xwênê-t-ewe DEM boy   book IND-read.PRS-3SG-ASP ‘That boy is reading the book’. (Arbil [S032])

The direct object of a transitive verb in the present tense constructions can optionally be indexed by a pronominal clitic, as well (65). In these cases, the clitic is the only exponent of the direct object thus the sentence cannot contain an overtly expressed O. (65) a. [šā ʕebbās   bo xo=y     kut=ī] King Abbas  to REFL=3SG  say.PST=3SG:A de=ī-nās-ī IND=3SG:O-recognize.PRS-2SG ‘King Abbas himself said: do you know him?’ (Mukri, Öpengin 2013, p. 216) b. ʕīdām=t     de-ke-ā NVP.execute=2SG IND-do.PRS-3SG ‘(He) will execute you’. (Mukri, Öpengin 2013, p. 217) c.

e=y-xat-e         sûç-ewe IND=3SG-throw.PRS-3SG corner-ADP ‘He puts it in the corners’. (Öpengin and Mohammadirad, this volume)

3.3 Subjects and Direct Objects in NK Subjects and direct objects in NK are expressed either as a bare NP, which is also known as the NP in the Direct case, or as an Oblique marked NP depending on the alignment type. The difference in case

164 

S. Gündoğdu

marking of the subjects and direct objects in NK stems from the fact that it displays two different alignment patterns depending on the tense and transitivity of the clause; accusative alignment in the non-past transitive constructions and ergative alignment in the past tense transitive constructions (Dorleijn 1996; Haig 1998, 2008). In accusative alignment, the subject (A) is marked with the Direct case and the direct object (O) bears the Oblique case, with the verb agreeing with the subject. On the other hand, in ergative alignment A is marked with the Oblique case and O has the Direct case and the verb agrees with O. However, there is variation in the case and agreement properties of the ergative pattern across the NK dialects; for instance, in Northern Kurmanji dialect region both A and O are marked with the Oblique case and none of them control the agreement on the verb (Dorleijn 1996; Haig 2008; Gündoğdu 2017). That said, A in the present is always a bare NP (NP with the Direct case) (66) while A in the past is an Oblique marked NP across NK dialects, as illustrated in (67). It should be, however, noted that when A-past is a masculine noun, the overt Oblique case marking is retained in the Southeastern Kurmanji region.26 (66) a. ez     şer-ê   di-nas-im 1SG.DIR city-OBL.F PROG-know.PRS-1SG ‘I know the city/town’. (Siirt [K006]) b. ez      vê     keçik-ê       nas   di-k-em 1SG.DIR DEM.F girl/woman-­OBL.F know PROG-do.PRS-1SG ‘I know this girl/woman’. (K024 Tatvan) c. ew    ḥemu  gav  av-ê     di-rijîn-id     ʕerd-e 3SG.DIR  all            time  water-­OBL.F  PROG-pour.PRS-3SG  floor-OBL.F ‘He always spills the water on the floor’. (Yüksekova [K065]) d. zarok  kîtab  na-xwîn-in child.PL book   NEG-read.PRS.PL ‘The children are not reading the book’. (Raqqa [K100]) e. jinik     bi  zarrok-a    di-k’en-ê woman ADP child-OBL.PL PROG-laugh.PRS-3SG ‘The woman is laughing at the children’. (Nusaybin [K030])

  Case in Kurdish 

165

(67) a. wan      me      ra   xeber  ne-da 3PL.OBL  1PL.OBL  ADP  speak  NEG-give.PST.3SG ‘They didn’t speak to us’. (Bismil [K058]) b. min    iskan   işkand-in 1SG.OBL  glass.PL  break.PST-PL ‘I broke the glasses’. (Şemdinli [K078]) c. we    ez      dît-im 2PL.OBL  1SG.OBL  see.PST-1SG ‘You (pl) saw me’. (Qamişlo [K033]) d. jinik-ê      zarok  dît-in woman-­OBL.F  child.PL  see.PST-PL ‘The woman saw the children’. (Kağızman [K067]) e. mêrik-an     xanî  ç’êkir man-OBL.PL  house  make.PST.3SG ‘The men built the house’. (Pertek [K028])

The subject of an intransitive verb (S) is a bare NP regardless of the tense of the sentence (68):27 (68) a. ew   çû     Erbîl-ê 3SG.DIR  go.PST.3SG  Erbil-OBL.F ‘He went to Erbil’. (Nusaybin [K030]) b. ew   tê 3SG.DIR  PROG.come.PRS.3SG ‘He is coming’. (Nusaybin [K030]) c.

ez    çû-m      mal 1SG.DIR  go.PST-1SG  house ‘I went home’. (Varto [K087])

d. ez      tê-m 1SG.DIR  PROG.come.PRS-1SG ‘I am coming’. (Varto [K087]) e. jinik    gehişt-e        market-ê woman  arrive.PST.3SG-DIRC  market-OBL.F ‘The woman went to the market’. (Zakho [K042]) f.

jinik    revî woman  run.PST.3SG ‘The woman ran’. (Zakho [K042])

166 

S. Gündoğdu

Similarly, the direct object of a transitive verb (O) is an Oblique marked NP in the present tense constructions (69) while it is a bare NP in the past tense constructions in this variety (70). As discussed in Sect. 2.2, most locations from the Northern Kurmanji dialect do not indicate Oblique case on a masculine O unless it is modified by a demonstrative or carries the indefinite suffix -ek (see endnote 15), whereas the locations that retain the Oblique case -î on masculine nouns are mostly mapped on the Southeastern Kurmanji dialect region. (69) a. ez      Hesen-î  di-bîn-im 1SG.DIR  Hasan-OBL.M  PROG-see.PRS-1SG ‘I see Hasan’ (Duhok [K036]) b. ez      bajêr    nas     di-k-im 1SG.DIR  city.OBL.M  know  PROG-do.PRS-1SG ‘I know the city/town’. (Suruç [K076]) c.

zarok-ê   piçûk     kitêb-ê     di-xwîn-i child-EZ.M  small/little  book-OBL.F  PROG-read.PRS-3SG ‘The little child is reading the book’. (Qamışlo [K096])

d. ez    vê       keçik-ê    nas   di-k-em 1SG.DIR  DEM.F  girl-OBL.F  know  PROG-do.PRS-1SG ‘I know this girl’. (K024 Tatvan) (70) a. te        ew   da      me 2SG.OBL  3SG.DIR  give.PST.3SG  1PL.OBL ‘You (sg) gave it to us’. (Nusaybin [K030]) b. we     ez    dît-im 2PL.OBL  1SG.OBL  see.PST-1SG ‘You (pl) saw me’. (Qamişlo [K033]) c.

ẓełam-i   k’er   di-k’êşa       lê … man-OBL.M  donkey  PROG-pull.PST.3SG  but ‘The man was pulling the donkey but …’. (Bahçesaray [K032])

d. jinik-ê       zarok   dît-in woman-­OBL.F  child.PL  see.PST-PL ‘The woman saw the children’. (Kağızman [K067]) e. jinik-ê        qedeḥ  şikênand woman-­OBL.F  glass   break.PST.3SG ‘The woman broke the glass’. (Kobanê [K037])

  Case in Kurdish  f.

167

jinik     mase    silmîş  kir-in woman  table.PL  wipe  do.PST ‘The woman wiped the tables’. (İmranlı [K023])

g. mêrd-a      xanî  çêkird man-OBL.PL  house  make.PST.3SG ‘The men built the house’. (Kanyder [K048])

Meanwhile, the Northern Kurmanji and several locations of the Southern Kurmanji dialect regions have developed a double oblique pattern where O in the past also appears as an Oblique marked NP. Three examples of (56) are repeated here in (71). (71) a. mêrik-î   ker-ê      di-kşand      lê ama … man-OBL.M  donkey-OBL.F  PROG-pull.PST.3SG  but ‘The man was pulling the donkey but …’. Muş [K086] b. min     av-ê     rêt      ʕerd-ê 1SG.OBL  water-OBL.F  pour.PST.3SG  floor-OBL.F ‘I spilled the water on the floor’. (Kozluk [K068]) c.

min   wî     ne-dît 1SG.OBL  3SG.OBL.M  NEG-see.PST.3SG ‘I didn’t see him’. (Basselhaya [K043])

The following map indicates the locations where O is generally a bare NP in the past, those that use an Oblique O in the past (i.e. those with a double oblique pattern), and those that use both (i.e. an Oblique O and a bare NP O) (Map 2).

3.4 Interim Summary This section has dealt with the core grammatical relations such as subject and direct object in Kurdish, noting that subjects and direct objects are never adpositional in any variety of this language. The main division lies between Kurdish varieties that mark A-past and O-present oblique, and those that do not. As Oblique case is totally lost in SK, neither grammatical relations are marked in the Oblique case in this variety. In contrast, Oblique case marks O-present in several CK dialects (see Table 6) as they still retain the Oblique case in their grammar. Furthermore, both A-past and O-present (and even O-past in several locations) are marked

168 

S. Gündoğdu

Map 2  The form of O in the past across NK dialects. (black=Oblique-marked NP; white=bare NP; grey=mixed)

with the Oblique case across NK dialects despite some dialectal variation with respect to case marking of masculine nouns. The samples from the MDKD have demonstrated that the Southern Kurmanji is the only NK dialect that consistently marks bare masculine singular nouns (lacking determiners such as demonstratives or the indefiniteness suffix) with the Oblique case.

4 Non-structural Cases in Kurdish Non-structural cases are always semantically determined (thus less dependent on the verb) and they express semantic relations such as instrumental, comitative, and locative. These non-structural cases are expressed with different types of adpositions in Kurdish varieties. In this section, I provide only a brief sketch of two non-structural cases; namely locative and comitative in SK, CK, and NK varieties, based on the samples from

  Case in Kurdish 

169

the MDKD (see Haig, in this volume, for goal constituents in Kurdish, and see Kinzler, in this volume, for basic descriptive framework of the adpositional system in Kurdish). Locatives are expressed with le and ve in SK (72), le and le naw/nêw in CK (73), while it is encoded by li and (di)…de in NK (74). Note that the preposition li is sometimes dropped in several locations from Southern Kurmanji dialect (e.g. Siirt [K006], Şırnak [K009]). (72) a. me   man-im     le   Mosil 1SG stay.PST-1SG ADP Mosul ‘I stayed in Mosul’. (Baghdad [F002]) b. me   ders   xwanes-im    la   Kerkûk 1SG lesson read.PST-1SG ADP Kirkuk ‘I studied in Kirkuk’. (Baghdad [F001]) c.

eve   ve   mał   bî 3SG ADP house COP.PST.3SG ‘He was at home’. (Sahneh [G001])

(73) a. le   Musil-ê     ma-m ADP Mosul-­ OBL stay.PST-1SG ‘I stayed in Mosul’. (Dibis [S008]) b. hemû sar-ê  set-an    biyanî   le   ʕIraq-î   kuj-rî all year-OBL hundred-PL foreign ADP Iraq-OBL kill-PASS.PRS ‘Every year hundreds of civilians are killed in Iraq’. (Khalifan [S042]) c.

le    mał  ma-n-ewe ADP house stay.PST-PL-ASP ‘They stayed at home’. (Kalar [S035])

d. yek  madresa  lenaw  dêhat-aka=man   abu one school  ADP  village-DEF=1SG exist.PST.3SG ‘We had a school in our village’. (Mahabad [S019]) e. çom-êk   le nêw  şar-e river-INDF ADP   city-OBL ‘(there was) a river in the town’. (Piranshar [S031]) (74) a. min      li  Kerkûk-ê    xwand 1SG.OBL ADP Kirkuk-OBL.F read.PST.3SG ‘I studied in Kirkuk’. (Akre [K017]) b. ew-a      li    mal   bû 3SG.DIR-DEM ADP house be.PST.3SG ‘He was at home’. (K003 Kars)

170 

S. Gündoğdu c.

ez     Mosul-ê     ma-m 1SG.DIR Mosul-OBL.F stay.PST-1SG ‘I stayed in Mosul’. (Siirt [K006])

d. di   gund-ê   me      de   mekteb-ek   he-ye ADP village-EZ.M 1PL.OBL ADP school-­ INDF exist.PRS-3SG ‘We have a school in our village’. (Basselhaya [K043]) e. wê     gund-ê      da  çem-ek  hebû DEM.OBL village-­OBL.F ADP river-INDF exist.PST.3SG ‘There was a river in that town’. (Özalp [K063])

Comitatives are encoded by the preposition wel and vegeri in SK (75), legeł and de gel in CK (76), and gel/digel/ligel or by the circumposition (bi)…re in NK (77). The form of the adposition varies depending on the dialect region in NK; for instance gel/digel/ligel are used in Southeastern Kurmanji dialect region (77a–c) while bi…re/ra is used in Northern Kurmanji and …ra/re is used in other dialect regions (77d–f ). (75) a. wel   birrage=m ADP brother=1SG ‘with my brother’ (Baghdad [F001]) b. me  vegeri  xalû-m    kar  e-k-em 1SG ADP  uncle=1SG work PROG-do.PRS-1SG ‘I work with my uncle’. (Sahneh [G001]) c.

me  vegeri  xuwerza=m   bazî      kird-im 1SG ADP   nephew=1SG dance/play do.PST-1SG ‘I played with my nephew’. (Sahneh [G001])

(76) a. legeł  bra-ke-m ADP  brother-DEF=1SG ‘with my brother’ (Sulaymaniyah [S004]) b. legeł  mam-im  kar  de-k-em ADP   uncle=1SG work PROG-do.PRS-1SG ‘I work with my uncle’. (Mahabad [S029]) c.

de gel  bra=m ADP   brother=1SG ‘with my brother’ (Rowanduz [S025])

  Case in Kurdish 

171

(77) a. ez  gel   biraza-yê     xwe  leyist-im 1SG ADP nephew-EZ.M self   play.PST-1SG ‘I played with my nephew’. (Şemdinli [K078]) b. digel  bira-yê    min ADP   brother-EZ.M  1SG.OBL ‘with my brother’ (Duhok [K018]) c.

ez    ligel  mam-ê    xwe  di-xebit-im 1SG.DIR ADP uncle-EZ.M self   PROG-work.PRS-1SG ‘I work with my uncle’. (Bahçesaray [K032])

d. bi   bir-ê       min     ra ADP brother-EZ.M 1SG.OBL ADP ‘with my brother’ (Kulp [K059]) e. mi     bi   la-yê     birê     xwe  re   list 1SG.OBL ADP son-EZ.M brother-EZ.M self  ADP play.PST.3SG ‘I played with my nephew’. (Raqqa [K100]) f.

ez     ap-ê      xe   rra   di-şixul-im 1SG.DIR uncle-EZ.M self ADP PROG-work.PRS-1SG ‘I work with my uncle’. (İmranlı [K023])

The adpositions that are used to express instruments are similar (i.e. they are cognates) in three Kurdish varieties; we/ve/veger in SK, be in CK, and bi in NK. As the MDKD contains only one sentence with an instrument, for example, He squeezed the lemon with his hand, it is not possible to draw any conclusions based on this single example (see Kinzler, in this volume, for further information on instrumentals). In brief, two non-structural cases (i.e. locative and comitative) are expressed with adpositions in all varieties of Kurdish. Unlike core grammatical relations like subject and object, these non-structural cases are always adpositional. Although SK and CK varieties generally employ prepositions for these cases, NK variety uses different type of adpositions; for example, the Southeastern Kurmanji region always prefers prepositions while Northern Kurmanji employs both prepositions and circumpositions (see Haig, in this volume, and Kinzler, in this volume, for more information on the areal distribution of different adpositional types).

172 

S. Gündoğdu

5 Summary and Conclusions This chapter was an attempt to investigate the case system in major Kurdish varieties, particularly Central Kurdish (CK) and Northern Kurdish (NK), and document variety-internal dialectal variation based on the data from Manchester Database of Kurdish Dialects and from other prominent studies. It provided detailed sketches of the Oblique case system in several CK and in all NK dialects with respect to its distribution and function. For instance, it revealed that although the majority of CK dialects has abandoned Oblique case, a small number of CK dialects spoken in Iraq (i.e. Dibis, Arbil, Shaqlawa, Rowanduz, Khalifan, Ranya, Khalakan and Choman) and in Iran (i.e. Sardasht, Piranshahr, Naqadah, Oshnaviyeh, Mahabad, Urmia, and Qoshachay) do retain Oblique case system in their nominal morphology. These CK dialects use Oblique case for mainly three functions; marking (i) O in present, (ii) an oblique argument (e.g. goals of verbs of motion and place constituents) irrespective of tense, (iii) possessor or noun attribute in an ezafe construction. Based on the data presented here, it is possible to propose that that the most likely place for Oblique case marking to be maintained is with goals while the least likely place seems to be with present-tense direct objects. Moreover, it was demonstrated that Oblique case has a much wider distribution in NK and it is mainly used in five syntactic functions: it marks (i) A in past, (ii) O in present, (iii) post-predicate goals (goal, recipient, and addressee arguments in Southeastern Kurmanji dialect), (iv) complement of any adposition, and (v) possessor in an ezafe construction. The discussion based on the selected items from the MDKD suggested that the expression of the Oblique on singular feminine, indefinite, and plural nouns are more systematic across NK dialects, yet there are dialectal differences in the way masculine singular nouns are marked for the Oblique case. For instance, the locations that retain the Oblique case -î on masculine nouns are mostly mapped on the Southeastern Kurmanji dialect region (Duhok, Sersink, Zakho, Akre, Hakkari, Çukurca, Şemdinli, etc.). It was also discussed that the highest-level generalization that holds across major Kurdish varieties (SK, CK, and NK) and dialects is that core

  Case in Kurdish 

173

grammatical relations such as subject and direct object are never adpositional. The main division lies between Kurdish varieties that mark A-past and O-present oblique, and those that do not. It was demonstrated that neither grammatical relations are marked in the Oblique case in SK as Oblique case is totally lost in this variety, whereas Oblique case marks O-present in the CK dialects that retain Oblique case in their grammar. Meanwhile, both A-past and O-present are marked with the Oblique case across NK dialects despite some dialectal variation with respect to case marking of masculine nouns. It further indicated that most places from the Northern Kurmanji dialect (Tatvan, Muş, Kulp, etc.) and several locations of the Southern Kurmanji dialect regions (e.g. Bismil, Kurtalan, Siverek, Sabahiya, and Basselhaya) even mark O-past in the Oblique case. Lastly, the chapter provided a brief discussion on how non-structural cases (locative and comitative) are expressed in Kurdish varieties. It demonstrated that unlike core grammatical relations like subject and direct object, these non-structural cases are always adpositional. There is variation though with respect to the type of adpositions employed for these non-structural cases; for instance, SK and CK varieties generally use prepositions for these cases while NK mark them with prepositions and circumpositions. Meanwhile, a few methodological problems need to be addressed at this point. For instance, the MDKD has limited data on the SK dialects, thus although some generalizations are made for the Southern group in this chapter, more data is needed to confirm their validity. Also, the claims made here considering the use of the Oblique case in CK and NK dialects might suffer from some problems in interpretation; for example, missing sentences at certain locations, use of complex NPs that prevents the manifestation of the Oblique case, problem of morphological interpretation when demonstratives and possessive pronouns are involved, limited number of lexical items in some functions. Therefore, it remains to be seen through further data to what extent the overview presented here is systematic and valid.

174 

S. Gündoğdu

Abbreviations 1 First person 2 Second person 3 Third person ADP Adposition(al) ASP Aspect CK Central Kurdish DEF Definite DEM Demonstrative DIR Direct case DIRC Directional EZ Ezafe F Feminine INDF Indefinite M Masculine MDKD Manchester Database of Kurdish Dialects NK Northern Kurdish NOM Nominative NEG Negation OBL Oblique case PL Plural PREP Preposition PROG Progressive PRS Present PST Past PRV Preverb SBJV Subjunctive SG Singular SK Sothern Kurdish

Notes 1. S, A, and O are the terms used by Dixon (1994) for the subject of an intransitive clause [S], the subject of a transitive clause [A], and the object of a transitive clause [O].

  Case in Kurdish 

175

2. See Kinzler (this volume) for a survey of adpositional marking of semantic cases across Kurdish. 3. Direct and Oblique cases are the terms generally used in languages with two case systems (e.g. Iranian and Uto Aztecan languages) where direct stands for the basic case and oblique denotes to a case label for the single non-basic case (Haspelmath 2009). 4. Although -eyl (-(y)al, -el, -gal being its variants) is the common SK plural marker, the suffix -an is used as default plural morpheme in the Bijari dialect of SK (also known as Garrusi) under the influence of neighbouring CK dialects (Belelli 2019). 5. A plural noun in the DIR case, which generally functions as the subject of the clause, reveals its plurality via number agreement on the verb (Bedirxan and Lescot 2004, p. 70; Haig and Öpengin 2018, p. 19): a.

zarok hat child.DIR come.PST ‘The child came.’

b. zarok hat-in child.DIR come.PST-PL ‘The children came.’

6. Note that the vocative case and ezafe marking, which is considered as a construct case in Thackston (2006), are not included in the discussion in this study. 7. MacKenzie (1961) considers Arbil, Pižder Bingird, Rewanduz, and Xōşnāw as Soran dialects. He observes that almost all Soran and Mukri dialects maintain a distinction of two grammatical genders which manifest in the Oblique case morphemes, -ê for feminine and -î for masculine. This distinction is restricted to the form of ezafe in Bingird and Pižder, though. However, in MDKD samples, gender does not seem to be a consistent feature manifested in Oblique case marking in all these dialects. 8. The term oblique argument does not refer to the constituents with Oblique case. It is rather used as a cover term here for constituents expressing goals (of verbs of motion), place, instrument and comitative. 9. Oblique case only targets singular paradigm thus plural nouns do not have a separate Oblique form in these CK dialects. The expression of the Oblique case is suppressed when the noun concerned is followed by the ezafe or preceded by a demonstrative. In the latter case, the noun is mostly marked with the demonstrative suffix. 10. For a detailed discussion on the morphological form and the position of such goal constituents, see Haig in this volume.

176 

S. Gündoğdu

11. The northern vs. southern CK (Sorani) speaking areas here are determined based on the division identified in Matras (2019, pp. 233–234). 12. Although oblique arguments cover instrument and comitative arguments in addition to goals and place constituents, I could not include instruments and comitatives in the discussion here. There are only four test clauses with these constituents and three of them contain a complex NP with a pronominal possessor (e.g. with my nephew) where Oblique case is not manifested. Nevertheless, based on previous studies (e.g. MacKenzie [1961] and Öpengin [2013]) and several samples from MDKD, we know that these arguments are also adpositional and their complement NP is generally marked with Oblique case. For further information on adpositional system in CK, see Kinzler in this volume. 13. The possessor data in the MDKD is too thin and mostly too difficult to interpret because the number of the phrases is limited and most importantly some of the examples may be taken as fixed expressions, more like a compound, (e.g. cejna norûz ‘the feast of Newroz’). As they might not be reliable to attest case marking for possessors, they are ignored in the proposed generalization and in the map. 14. While discussing the dialectal variation in NK, I will consider Öpengin and Haig’s (2014) study which proposes a regional sub-division of Kurmanji into five distinct groups based on a selection of features in lexicon, phonology and morphosyntax: (i) Southeastern Kurmanji (e.g. Hakkari and Duhok), (ii) Southern Kurmanji (e.g. Mardin, Batman, Şırnak and Hasaka), (iii) Northern Kurmanji (e.g. Muş, Ağrı, Erzurum, Bitlis, Bingöl, Diyarbakır, and some districts of Van), (iv) Southwestern Kurmanji (e.g. Adıyaman, Gaziantep, western half of Şanlıurfa and Haleppo), and (v) Northwestern Kurmanji (e.g. Kahramanmaraş, Malatya, and Sivas). In line with Haig and Öpengin (2018), I will simply use Western Kurmanji dialect as a cover term for Northwestern and Southwestern Kurmanji dialects when the findings from both dialect groups mostly overlap. 15. The MDKD samples do not contain enough data on the use of the Oblique case in the indefinite context; thus, it is hard to make a generalization or attest the dialectal variation in this context for NK. However, it has been previously well established that all NK dialects express Oblique case on all indefinite nouns (Öpengin and Haig 2014, p. 162). 16. See Sect. 3.3. 17. NK has a number of verbal expressions for the verb speak, some of which function as a transitive verb while some do as an intransitive verb. Thus,

  Case in Kurdish 

177

the choice of the subject as A or S in sentence (19p) (They didn’t speak to us) depends on the verb choice of the location. For instance, if the verb is xeber dan then the sentence has a transitive subject (A) but if the verb is axiftin then it has an intransitive subject (S). Therefore, for this sentence, I have only considered the translations with an A. 18. Note that in NK, the case distinction on a complex NP is neutralized irrespective of its syntactic function; hence, one cannot understand whether the complex NP is either in direct or in oblique case. Only word order and the context distinguish them. For instance, the complex NP apê min ‘my uncle’ functions as A and kurê mezin ‘the tall boy’ as P in the first sentence (a) while they have reverse order and function in the second one (b) such that kurê mezin ‘the tall boy’ is A and apê min ‘my uncle’ is P (Haig 1998, p. 156): a. [ap-ê min] [kur-ê mezin] di-bîn-e uncle-EZF.M 1SG.OBL boy-EZ.M large PROG-see.PRS-3SG ‘My uncle sees the tall boy’ b. [kur-ê       mezin]  [ap-ê         min]     di-bîn-e boy-EZ.M large   uncle-EZF.M 1SG.OBL PROG-see.PRS-3SG ‘The tall boy sees my uncle’.

Nevertheless, if the complex NP is introduced with a demonstrative, then overt case is expressed (Haig and Opengin 2018, p. 23) c. Gund di nav [wan çiya-yên bilind] da ye village ADP middle DEM.PL.OBL mountain-EZ.PL high ADP COP.3SG ‘The village is in between those high mountains.’ d. [ew        çiya-yên        bilind]  li ser  sînor     in DEM.DIR mountain-EZ.PL high   on    border COP.PL ‘Those high mountains are on the border.’

19. The transitivity of the verb leyistin ‘play’ is to some extent controversial and this might be a contributing factor to case marking variations. I would like to thank Geoffrey Haig for bringing this to my attention. 20. It should be noted that these sample sentences are not really good examples for identifying an Oblique marked plural object. For instance, the plural object in the first sentence ‘potatoes’ is likely to be treated as a mass noun in many NK dialects. Thus, the conclusion derived from these examples remains very tentative. 21. See Haig (this volume) for further discussion on the position and morphological form of the goal constituents across NK dialects.

178 

S. Gündoğdu

22. I would like to thank Geoffrey Haig for this comment. 23. It should be noted that in the house or at home is expressed by the postposition …da in a few locations (e.g. Tunceli [K004], Yüksekova [K065] and Şemdinli [K078]) or by the circumposition di…da/de (e.g. Kobane [K037], Karlıova [K060] and Qesirdib [101]), yet even in these cases it is not marked with the Oblique case. 24. Certain transitive-like verbs such as nerîn ‘look’, temaşe kirin ‘watch’, and s’eh kirin ‘listen’ have their objects as adpositional NPs. However, as these verbs are not core transitive verbs but they are rather like simple activity verbs, their objects are not true direct objects. The reader is referred to Gündoğdu (2018, 2019) for a detailed discussion. 25. For further information on pronominal clitics in Kurdish varieties, see Öpengin and Mohammadiarad, in this volume. 26. See Sect. 2.2 for the dialectal variation within NK with respect to the case marking of A-past. 27. This excludes certain predicates of physical sensation and perception, desire, possession, and emotional state which require an oblique-marked subject in certain dialects regardless of tense and transitivity: a. min sar e 1SG.OBL cold COP.PRS.3SG ‘I am cold’

b. min sar bû 1SG.OBL cold COP.PRS.3SG ‘I was cold’

References Bedirxan, Celadet, and Roger Lescot. 2004. Kürtçe Dilbilgisi (Kurmanci). Istanbul: Avesta Yayınevi. Belelli, Sara. 2016. A study on language and Folklore in the City of Harsin (Kermānshāh Province, West Iran): Sketch grammar with texts and Lexicon. PhD thesis, Napel. ———. 2019. Towards a dialectology of Southern Kurdish: Where to begin? In Current issues in Kurdish linguistics, Bamberg studies in Kurdish linguistics, ed. Songul Gündogdu, Ergin Öpengin, Geoffrey Haig, and Erik Anonby, 73–92. Bamberg: University of Bamberg Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1981. Lectures on government and binding. Dordrecht: Foris. ———. 1986. Knowledge of language. New York: Praeger. Comrie, Bernard. 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  Case in Kurdish 

179

Dixon, Robert M.W. 1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dorleijn, Margreet. 1996. The decay of ergativity in Kurmanci. Language internal or contact induced. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press. Dowty, David. 1991. Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language 67 (3): 547–619. Fattah, Ismail Kamandār. 2000. Les dialectes kurdes méridionaux: étude linguistique et dialectologique (Acta Iranica 37). Louvain: Peeters. Gündoğdu, Songül. 2015. Loss of gender distinction in Muş Kurmanji. Paper Presented at SLE-48. Leiden University. ———. 2017. Variation in the ergative pattern of Kurmanji. In Wiener Jahrbuch für Kurdischen Studien-5, ed. Brizic et al., 45–62. Wien: Praesens. ———. 2018. Argument-Adjunct distinction in Kurmanji Kurdish. PhD thesis, Istanbul. ———. 2019. Asymmetries in Kurmanji morphosyntax. In Current issues in Kurdish linguistics, Bamberg studies in Kurdish linguistics, ed. Songül Gündogdu, Ergin Öpengin, Geoffrey Haig, and Erik Anonby, 93–116. Bamberg: University of Bamberg Press. Haig, Geoffrey L.J. 1998. On the interaction of morphological and syntactic ergativity: Lessons from Kurdish. Lingua 105 (3–4): 149–173. ———. 2008. Alignment change in Iranian languages. A construction grammar approach. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Haig, Geoffrey, and Ergin Öpengin. 2018. Kurmanji Kurdish in Turkey: Structures, varieties and status. In Linguistic minorities in Turkey and Turkic speaking minorities of the peripheries, ed. Christiane Bulut, 157–230. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Hassanpour, Amir. 1992. Nationalism and language in Kurdistan, 1918–1985. San Francisco: Mellen Research University Press. Haspelmath, Martin. 2002. Understanding morphology. New  York: Academic Press. ———. 2009. Terminology of case. In The Oxford handbook of case, ed. Andrej Malchukov and Andrew Spencer, 505–517. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Kittilä, Seppo, Katja Västi, and Jussi Ylikoski. 2011. Introduction to case, animacy and semantic roles. In Case, animacy and semantic roles, ed. Kittilä et al., 1–26. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Luraghi, Silvia, and Heiko Narrog. 2014. Perspectives on semantic roles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. MacKenzie, David N. 1961. Kurdish dialect studies I. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

180 

S. Gündoğdu

Matras, Yaron. 2019. Revisiting Kurdish dialect geography: Findings from the Manchester database. In Current issues in Kurdish linguistics, Bamberg studies in Kurdish linguistics, ed. Songul Gündogdu, Ergin Öpengin, Geoffrey Haig, and Erik Anonby, 225–242. Bamberg: University of Bamberg Press. Matras, Yaron, et al. 2016. The dialects of Kurdish (web resource). Manchester: University of Manchester. Available at: http://kurdish.humanities.manchester.ac.uk McCarus, Ernest N. 2009. Kurdish. In Gernot Windfuhr. ed., The Iranian languages (pp. 587–633). London: Routledge. Öpengin, Ergin. 2013. Clitic/affix interactions: A corpus-based study of person marking in the Mukri variety of Central Kurdish. PhD thesis, Paris III/Bamberg. ———. 2014. Regional variation in Kurmanji: A preliminary classification of dialects. Kurdish Studies, 2(2): 143–176. ———. 2016. The Mukri variety of Central Kurdish. Grammar, texst and lexicon. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Primus, Beatrice. 2009. Case, grammatical relations, and semantic roles. In The Oxford handbook of case, ed. Andrej Malchukov and Andrew Spencer, 261–275. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stilo, Donald. 2009. Case in Iranian. In The Oxford handbook of case, ed. Andrej Malchukov and Andrew Spencer, 700–714. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Thackston, Wheeler M. 2006. Kurmanji Kurdish. A reference grammar and selected readings. Cambridge: University of Harvard. Wunderlich, Dieter, and Renate Lakämper. 2001. On the interaction of structural and semantic case. Lingua 111 (4-7): 377–418.

Pronominal Clitics Across Kurdish: Areal Distribution, Structural Variation, and Diachrony Ergin Öpengin and Masoud Mohammadirad

1

Introduction

A paradigm of pronominal clitics are known to exist in all of the Western Iranian languages except in Sangesari (Central Plateau), Northern Kurdish (though see below on their existence in Northern Kurdish), Zazaki (Windfuhr 1975: 462), and Gilaki (Jügel and Samvelian 2016). They are historically unstressed and derive from Old Iranian genitive/dative—and may be even accusative (see Korn 2009)—pronominal clitics. However at present they are used in various ‘non-direct’ or ‘oblique’ functions in all languages possessing them. These functions include adnominal possessors, direct objects, prepositional objects, indirect participants, and a number E. Öpengin (*) English Language Department, University of Kurdistan-Hewlêr, Erbil, Kurdistan Region of Iraq, Iraq e-mail: [email protected] M. Mohammadirad University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 Y. Matras et al. (eds.), Structural and Typological Variation in the Dialects of Kurdish, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78837-7_5

181

182 

E. Öpengin and M. Mohammadirad

of particular non-canonical constructions mostly related to the domain of ‘experience’. In some of the languages the pronominal clitics have grammaticalized into obligatory markers of agent, thus become exponents of ‘agreement’. Given their pivotal role in the alignment of clausal arguments, the pronominal clitics have attracted a great deal of interest in the study of Iranian languages (see, among others, Haig 2008; Stilo 2008; Korn 2009; Shirtz 2016; Dabir-Moghaddam 2008, 2012; Jügel and Samvelian 2016). The pronominal clitics are also found in most of Kurdish or ‘Kurdic’ varieties. The Kurdish pronominal clitics have been studied mostly for their basic functions in the language (Edmonds 1955; MacKenzie 1961a, b; Öpengin 2013; Fattah 2000; Mirdehghan and Moradkhani 2010), for their role in the alignment system of the language (Bynon 1979; Haig 2008; Jügel 2009; Öpengin 2013), and, in a number of more theoretically tended works, for their placement properties (Haig 2008; Samvelian 2007a, b; Samvelian 2013; Öpengin 2013; Öpengin 2019). Most of these works have focused on the pronominal clitics in better-­ known dialects of Central Kurdish, neglecting the pronominal clitics in more southern dialects of Central Kurdish, Southern Kurdish, Laki, Gorani, and their restricted usage in Northern Kurdish. Thus despite the relatively substantial literature on various aspects of pronominal clitics in Kurdish, a comparative overview of the extent to which the pronominal clitics exist and are used in Kurdish varieties is still missing. This chapter is an initial attempt at assessing the distribution of pronominal clitics across Kurdish varieties. We do this by providing comparative dialect sketches of pronominal clitics for all the major varieties possessing these forms in Section 2. The varieties considered here are Northern Kurdish (NK), Central Kurdish (CK), Southern Kurdish (SK), Laki, and Gorani. Each sketch investigates pronominal clitics with respect to several parameters that are considered to be revealing major dialect divergences, such as forms of pronominal clitics, functional distribution of pronominal clitics, and placement properties of pronominal clitics. The emerging areal patterns of pronominal clitics with respect to these parameters are systematically outlined in Section 3, where we put forward some hypotheses relating to the historical evolution and contact-induced changes in the distribution and uses of pronominal clitics in Kurdish. Section 4 summarizes the major findings and conclusions of the study.

  Pronominal Clitics Across Kurdish 

183

2 Comparative Description of Pronominal Clitics in Kurdish Varieties In this section, we provide sketches of pronominal clitics in major Kurdic varieties such as Nothern Kurdish (NK), Central Kurdish (CK), Southern Kurdish (SK), Laki, and Gorani. We describe the variety-internal variation in pronominal clitic behaviour by examining a number of regional dialects in each variety against a number of dimensions, namely (i) the forms of pronominal clitics, (ii) the functional range of pronominal clitics, (iii) the use of pronominal clitics in particular non-canonical constructions, (iv) the placement principles of pronominal clitics, (v) the possibility of externally realized nominal possessors and prepositional objects, (vi) and the sequential order of pronominal clitics and verbal affix person markers (hereafter called “verbal affixes” for the sake of convenience) when the elements from the two sets are in combination. The dialects in each major variety are shown in Fig. 1 while brief information on the dialects is to be found in respective sections devoted to the sketches of varieties. Following are the varieties and their dialects studied in this chapter: Northern Kurdish (NK): Central Kurdish (CK): Southern Kurdish (SK): Laki (LAK): Gorani (GOR):

Gerdi (NKG), Surçi (NKS) Mukri (CKM), Suleimani (CKSu), Sanandaji (CKSa) Bijar (SKB), Ilam (SKI) Harsin (LAKH), Kakavandi (LAKK), Aleshtar (LAKA) Hawrami (GORH), Zarda (GORZ), Qala (GORQ)

For the data, these sketches draw on previous published work, our own fieldwork materials,1 and Manchester Database of Kurdish Dialects (abbreviated as MDKD). In transcribing the data, with the exception of material form Lazard (1992) on Laki, we have largely preserved the source transcription for languages for which a description is already available. For the presentation of our own data, we follow the Iranistic tradition (e.g. MacKenzie 1961a, b; Mahmoudveysi and Bailey 2013).

184 

E. Öpengin and M. Mohammadirad

Fig. 1  The dialects of major Kurdish varieties with pronominal clitics. (Sources: Kurdish [MacKenzie 1961a, b; Fattah 2000; Öpengin 2013, 2016]; Gorani [Mahmoudveysi and Bailey 2013]; Laki [Belelli 2016]) (We thank Emmanuel Giraudet form the research team ‘Mondes Iranien et indien-7528, Paris’ for making the map in Figure (1))

2.1 Pronominal Clitics in Northern Kurdish Pronominal clitics are considered to be absent in Northern Kurdish. However, they are found in some dialects in the convergence zone of NK and CK. One such dialect is the speech of the Gerdi tribe, which is scattered around a large area on Iraq-Turkey border in the south of Şemdinli (Şemzînan) district of Hakkari province in Turkey and the extreme north of Erbil province in Iraqi Kurdistan. The data was collected from one speaker (female—60 years old) in Şemdinli, and several other speakers (male and female and age range between 25 and 80 years old) living in the Diyana district of Soran province in Iraqi Kurdistan. We abbreviate it as NKG (Northern Kurdish Gerdi).

  Pronominal Clitics Across Kurdish 

185

A second candidate is the speech of the Surçi tribe, which is a dialect inbetween Northern Kurdish and Central Kurdish, spoken in the area between Diyana/Rewanduz and Akre in Iraqi Kurdistan. It may thus not be justified to classify it as part of NK but it obviously shows most of the major NK features (cf. MacKenzie 1961a, b; Haig and Öpengin 2018). The data of this dialect come from MacKenzie (1961a, b). We abbreviate this dialect as NKS (Northern Kurdish Surçi). Note that data for both of these NK dialects are rather scarce and the analysis here is thus only cursory at this stage.

Forms of Pronominal Clitics in NK There are no first- and second-person forms of clitics in our Gerdi NK data. The existing other person forms are identical with Surçi NK, as given in Table 1. The first and second plural person forms of Surçi NK, =īn and =ū, differ from the neighbouring Central Kurdish forms in that the 1PL is =(i)n in Erbil dialect and east of Mukri speech zone, while the Surçi NK 2PL is only a pragmatically determined alternative to the more widespread =tān in those dialects.

Functions of Pronominal Clitics in NK The pronominal clitics are used in a relatively limited set of functions in NK dialects, more so in Gerdi than Surçi NK.2 The adnominal possessor use of the clitics is attested only in one example in Surçi NK (1). It is slightly more often in Gerdi NK, as in the expression mēšk=im čū (brain=1pl go.pst.3sg) ‘I went crazy’ or as in (2): (1) Surçi NK (MacKenzie 1961a: 205) xaw=īn    wā  t-ē sleep=1PL EZ3 IND-come.PRS.3SG ‘We feel sleepy’. (lit. ‘Our sleep is coming’.) (2) Gerdi NK gund=yān  yē  li  wērē village=3PL EZ in there ‘Their village is there’.

186 

E. Öpengin and M. Mohammadirad

Table 1  Forms of pronominal clitics in Northern Kurdish dialects

NKG SG

PL

1 2 3 1 2 3

NKS =m =t =ī

---

=īn =ū =yān

In both dialects, but more so in Surçi, they are used principally for indexing the agent in past transitive constructions (3)–(4)–(5). (3) Surçi NK (MacKenzie 1961b: 228) kārīn-ak=īn čēkir straw.store-INDF=1PL make.PST.3SG ‘We made a straw-store’. (4) Gerdi NK mēšk-ī min=yān xwārd brain-EZ 1SG=3PL eat.PST.3SG ‘They drove me crazy. (lit. They ate my brain.)’ (5) Gerdi NK kēm īzā=m pē-we na-dīt-ī-ye little hardship=1SG with.it-POST NEG-see.PST-PTCP-COP.3SG ‘I have stood for much hardship for it’.

Although the use of the clitics in this function is not obligatory in Gerdi NK (the exact conditions yet to be discovered), in Surçi NK they seem to be used whenever there is no coreferent subject NP—that comes in oblique case. This is most evident in the following connected speech excerpt, where when the subject is overt it is coded via oblique case suffix with no further clitic indexing the subject, as in (6a) and (6b), but when the subject NP is absent, it is cross-referenced via pronominal clitics, as in (7a) and (7b).

  Pronominal Clitics Across Kurdish 

187

(6) Surçi NK (MacKenzie 1961b: 236) a. wakī Ahmad-ī dīt when PN-OBL.M.SG see.PST.3SG ‘When Ahmad saw (…) b. Ahmad-ī qabr-ak la_bo xo korī PN-OBL.M.SG grave-INDF for REFL dig.PST.3SG ‘Ahmad dug a grave for himself’. (7) Surçi NK (MacKenzie 1961b: 236) a. xo=y ta handur qabr-ī nā REFL=3SG in inside grave-OBL.M.SG put.PST.3SG ‘Then (he) put himself into the grave.’ b. kērd-ak-īš=ī tagar xo bird-a knife-INDF-ADD=3SG with REFL take.PST.3SG-DRCT qabr-ī grave-OBL.M.SG ‘(He) also took a knife with him to the grave.’

Usually the first introduction is via an overt NP in oblique case with no further pronominal clitics in the clause, but in subsequent sentences of the same discourse the pronominal clitic is used to refer to the subject, as in (8). (8) Surçi NK (MacKenzie 1961b: 228) min la_bo xo rēnjbar-ak girt, 1SG.OBL for REFL labourer-INDF keep.PST.3SG hinār=im-a jot, šiwān-ak-īš=im girt send.PST=1SG-DRCT plough shepherd-INDF-ADD=1SG keep.PST.3SG ‘I hired a labourer, I sent him to the plough, (then) I hired also a shepherd.’

Other major clitic functions as objects and adpositional complements in present tense are not attested in either of the dialects. Only in Surçi NK, clitics are also used in syntactic possession (9), though here too the use of the clitic is conditioned by the absence of an overt possessor NP. (9) Surçi NK (MacKenzie 1961b: 228) sē gā=yān hebū-n4 three ox=3PL exist.PST-3PL ‘They had three oxen.’

188 

E. Öpengin and M. Mohammadirad

Finally, at the cost of a digression, the verb systematically agrees with the object in past transitive constructions, even when the object is an overt nominal or prononominal NP in the clause, as shown in (10) and (11). This is in that sense an ergative alignment system that is similar to NK and unlike CK (cf. Haig 2008). (10) Surçi NK (MacKenzie 1961b: 230) sibyānē herdū gā-yē dī=y bird-in morning both ox-EZ other=3SG take.PST-3PL ‘In the morning he took both the other two oxen (and sold them)’ (11) Surçi NK (MacKenzie 1961b: 234) ama=y kušt-īn 1PL=3SG kill.PST-1PL ‘He has killed us’

Placement of Pronominal Clitics in NK Placement principles of CK (see under 2.2) apply also in NK dialects. Thus a clitic occurs on an object NP in (11 above), on a preposition in (12), but when the verb is the sole element in VP, it occurs on the verbal prefix (13), and on the verb stem in (8) above. (12) Gerdi NK lē=yān kiřī from=3PL buy.PST.3SG ‘They bought (it) from him.’ (13) Surçi NK (MacKenzie 1961b: 228) žin-aka čo, na=y-dā-ē woman-DEF go.PST.3SG NEG=3SG-give.PST.3SG-DRCT ‘The woman went on and did not give it to him’

There is not enough data to understand the ordering of clitics and affixes when in combination.

  Pronominal Clitics Across Kurdish 

189

To sum up, in addition to important formal differences, the clitics in NK dialects are characterized by highly restricted usage domain. They are used mainly for indexing the logical subject in past transitive constructions, where, crucially, their use is conditioned by the absence of an overt coreferent NP. They are not used in other major functions such as objects in present tense constructions, adpositional complements, and various non-canonical constructions, nor do they lead to external possession constructions (see section on CK). Most importantly, though, they are not grammaticalized as subject ‘agreement’ markers as in CK. This leaves the question open whether these pronominal clitics (their forms and restricted usage) in Surçi but especially Gerdi dialects of NK are inherited or subsequently borrowed from CK dialects, which could be the result of either direct contact or substratum effect. Given that some forms in the paradigm in Surçi NK are distinct from the immediately neighbouring CK dialects, inheritance or retention is the more probable scenario than borrowing. Nevertheless, the continued usage of pronominal clitics in these dialects is probably motivated by their presence in the immediate contact language (i.e. CK).

2.2 Pronominal Clitics in Central Kurdish Three dialects of Central Kurdish representing a north-to-south continuum are analysed here: The Mukri dialect (abbreviated as CKM) which is spoken in north-western Iran around the Mahabad town; the Suleimaniya or Sharezor dialect (abbr. CKSu) spoken around Suleimaniya in Iraqi Kurdistan; and the Sanandaj dialect (abbr. CKSa) spoken around the city of Sanandaj in the Kurdistan province of Iran.

Forms of Pronominal Clitics in Central Kurdish Table 2 shows the forms of pronominal clitics in all three dialects. The forms of first- and third-person forms are identical in all three dialects. The ‘heavy’ plural forms are seen in all three dialects, except that the northern dialect of Mukri CK has alternative forms =in and =ū for first

190 

E. Öpengin and M. Mohammadirad

Table 2  Forms of pronominal clitics in Central Kurdish dialects SG

PL

1 2 3 1 2 3

CKM

CKSu

CKSa

=it

=im =it / =ū =ī

=it / =o

=mān/ =in =tān/=ū =yān

=mān =tān =yān

and second person (which are shared, with some difference, with Surçi dialect of NK). Additionally, the two more southern dialects of Suleimaniya and Sanandaj have an alternative 2SG form as a round vocalic element.

Functions of Pronominal Clitics in Central Kurdish In all three dialects, the clitics are used as adnominal possessors (14), objects in present tense constructions (15), adpositional objects in present tense (16), and agent in past transitive constructions (17) (i.e. A-Past). Only in the last function are the clitics obligatory, hence agreement markers. (14) Mukri CK, (MDKD S-047, sentence 81) xwên=in ne-de-gerra blood=1PL NEG-IPFV-move.PST ‘Our blood could not move!’ (15) Suleimaniya CK, (MDKD S-034, sentence 12) e=y-xat-e sûç-ewe IND=3SG-throw.PRS-3SG corner-POST ‘He puts it in the corners.’ (16) Suleimaniya CK, (MDKD S-034, sentence 13) heta bodr=î pê-we e-ke-m until powder=3SG with-POST IND-do.PRS-3SG ‘Until I put baby powder on him.’

  Pronominal Clitics Across Kurdish 

191

(17) Suleimaniya CK, (MDKD S-033, sentence 27) kurd-ek-an-î ewê mekteb-ek=yan dana kurd-DEF-PL-EZ there school-INDF=3PL set.PST ‘The Kurds there set up a school.’

Likewise, in all three dialects, clitics are used in various non-canonical constructions such as syntactic possession (18)–(19), the necessity and liking construction (based on the verb wīstin ‘to need, to like’ in Mukri and Suleimaniya, and on a periphrastic construction in Sanandaj CK) (20)–(21), and sensory states like ‘being hungry’ (22). (18) Sanandaj CK (Mohammadirad 2020a: 356) sē kor=ī bīwa ū sē kanīšk three son=3SG COP.PST.PERF and three girl ‘He had three sons and three daughters.’ (19) Suleimaniya CK (MacKenzie 1961b: 102) ha=yān-a exist=3PL-COP.3SG ‘They have.’ (20) Suleimaniya CK (MDKD S-034) azad e=y-wîst goranî bi-łê PN IPFV=3SG-want.PST song SBJV-say.PRS ‘Azad wanted to sing.’ (21) Sanandaj CK aw pīražina garak=y-a bi=yān-xwā DEM old woman necesary=3SG-COP.3SG SBJV=3PL-eat.PRS.3SG ‘That old woman wants to eat them.’ (22) Mukri CK (Öpengin 2013: 232) eto birsī=t-e 2SG hungry=2SG-COP.3SG ‘You are hungry.’

The range of such non-canonical constructions is visibly larger in the northern-most dialect of Mukri, relatively more limited in central and

192 

E. Öpengin and M. Mohammadirad

southern dialects of Suleimaniya and Sanandaj. Thus, clitics can be used in Indirect Participant function (23), non-volitional sound emission verbs (24), some uncontrolled events/states (25), periphrastic potentiality (26), and causative (27) constructions. (23) Mukri CK (Öpengin 2013: 240) bełē māmostā qebūl=mān-e well priest acceptance=1PL-COP.3SG ‘Well master, we consent (to it).’ (24) Suleimaniya CK (MacKenzie 1961b: 108) hīlān=yān neigh.PST=3PL ‘They (the horses) neighed.’ (25) Mukri CK (Öpengin 2013: 237) de=m-xur-ē IND=1SG-itch.PRS-3SG ‘I itch (for it)’. (26) Mukri CK (Öpengin 2013: 240) ew suh̶ āl-e=m bo juwāb nā-de-rē-t-ewe DEM question-DEM1=1SG to answer NEG-give.PRS-PASS-3SG-ASP ‘I cannot answer this question.’ (27) Mukri CK (Öpengin 2016: 231) pē=yān de-be-m-e memleket-ī xo=mān with=3PL IND-take.PRS-1SG-DRCT country-EZ REFL=1PL ‘I will make them take (the treasure) to our country.’

Placement of Pronominal Clitics in Central Kurdish The pronominal clitics in all of the above functions follow a singular placement principle. They occur on the ‘first syntactic or morphological element’ within the Verb Phrase, skipping thus subjects, clausal conjunctions, and sentential adverbs in preverbal position. (28) is the hierarchy of such elements within VP:

  Pronominal Clitics Across Kurdish  (28)

193

The hierarchy of elements in VP for the placement of clitics: adverbs (29) > NP (30) > non-verbal element of complex predicate (31) > adposition (32) > verbal prefixes (derivational (33)/grammatical (34)) > verb stem (35) > verb stem with inflection (36)

(29) Mukri CK, (MDKD S-037, sentence 10) qet=im bawer ne-de-kird never=1SG belief NEG-IPFV-do.PST ‘I never believed at all.’ (30) Suleimaniya CK (MDKD S-033, sentence 21) ême=yan gwast-ewe bo ladê-yek-î biçûk 1PL=3PL move.PST=ASP to village-INDF-EZ small ‘They moved us to a small village.’ (31) Mukri CK (MDKD S-037, sentence 9) heta saz=im kird until arrange=1SG do.PST ‘Until I arranged (the things)’ (32) Suleimaniya CK (MDKD—S-034, sentence 8) pê=m e-łê daya with=1SG IND-say.PRS.3SG mom ‘He says to me: “daye”.’ (33) Suleimaniya CK (MDKD—S-033, sentence 6) ra=yan-kird bo Êran PVB=3PL-do.PST to Iran ‘They fled to Iran’. (34) Suleimaniya CK (MDKD—S-033, sentence 24) ewan=îş ne=yan-e-zanî 3PL=ADD NEG=3PL-IPFV-know.PST ‘They didn’t know either’.

194 

E. Öpengin and M. Mohammadirad

(35) Suleimaniya CK (MDKD—S-033, sentence 19) wut=yan say.PST=3PL ‘They said’. (36) Mukri CK bird-īn=ī take.PST-1PL=3SG ‘He took us’.

These principles apply to all three dialects and clitics in all functions.5 However, there are interesting outcomes of these principles for the placement of prepositional object clitics. There is a set of so-called absolute prepositions, which in CK can only take bound form complements, thus either pronominal clitics or verbal PMs. Given the placement rules above, in present tense a prepositional object clitic can appear on the preposition itself (37), but it can also, and very often do, move onto the element immediately preceding the preposition, as in (38). (37) Suleimaniya CK (MDKD S-034, sentence 08) pê=m e-łê daya to=1SG IND-say.PRS.3SG mother ‘He says to me: Daya’. (38) Sanandaj CK čāy=yān bo dam a-kā tea=3PL for infusing IND-do.PRS.3SG ‘He makes tea for them’.

In intransitive clauses, this fact leads a pronomincal clitic complement of an absolute preposition to be placed on the subject of the clause, as in (39). (39) Mukri CK (MDKD S-047, sentence 11) xanewade-yek-î ʕerreb=in degeł bûn family-INDF-EZ Arab=1PL with COP.PST-3PL ‘An Arab family was (there) with us’.

  Pronominal Clitics Across Kurdish 

195

Furthermore, in Sanandaj CK and very rarely also in Suleimaniya CK (more so in its southern dialects, e.g. Kirkuk, cf. MDKD, S-055) but never in Mukri, the absolute preposition usually follows the verb in the clause, in which case the placement rules above do not apply since the clitic is realized on the preposition itself, in post-verbal position, as in (40) and (41). (40) Sanandaj CK min a-ya-m pē=t 1SG IND-give.PRS-1SG to=2SG ‘(Whatever you need), I will give it to you’. (41) Sanandaj CK gi ēwāra-y šīr mař=im a-hāwird-aw bo=yān each evening-INDF milk ewe=1SG IPFV-bring.PST-ASP for=3PL ‘Every evening, I would bring them ewe’s milk’.

Restrictions on Multiple Clitics in Central Kurdish In all CK dialects, in present tense constructions, there can be two clitics both in the same clause or in sequence. (42) Mukri CK (Öpengin 2013: 348) debē ew kič-e=t=im bi-de-yē-y must DEM daughter-DEM1=2SG=1SG IRR-give.PRS-DRCT1-2SG ‘You must give this girl of yours to me’. (43) Sanandaj CK ama bi-gr-a aysa lē=d=ī a-sēn-im DEM SBJV-hold.-2SG.IMP now from=2SG=3SG IND-take.PRS-1SG ‘Hold this (for a moment), I will take it from you now’.

However, in past tense transitive constructions the use of a subject pronominal clitic is obligatory and there can also be another clitic being used either as an object, a nominal possessor, or a prepositional complement. The dialects differ on whether they retain the ‘second’ element as a

196 

E. Öpengin and M. Mohammadirad

pronomnal clitic or whether they ‘disform’ it into a verbal affix (see Section 3.2 for discussion). This can be seen in three construction types— though seen more on a continuum than as distinct types: (i) Most systematically Mukri CK and with more alternation Suleimaniya CK have one clitic per clause, reserved for the subject clitic, and express the other element (direct object, adnominal possessor, prepositional object) as a verbal affix. This leads to external possession (44)– (45)–(46) and external prepositional complementation (47)–(48): (44) Mukri CK (Öpengin 2013: 348) pūł-eke=yān ne-de-dā-m-ē money-DEF=3PL NEG.PST-IPFV-give.PST-1SG-DRCT1 ‘They would not give me my money’. (45) Suleimaniya CK (MacKenzie 1961a: 115) bačka-akān=ī a-xwārd-im child-DEF.PL=3SG IPFV-eat.PST-1SG ‘It used to eat my children’. (46) Suleimaniya CK (MDKD—S-033, sentence 9) kurd-ekan-î ewê zor yarmetî=yan da-n Kurds-DEF.PL-EZ there much help=3PL give.PST-3PL ‘The Kurds there helped them a lot’. (47) Mukri CK (MDKD—S-040, sentence 11) ke bas=î bo de-kird-im that discussion=3SG for IPFV-do.PST-1SG ‘(The bird) that he would tell me about’. (48) Suleimaniya CK (MacKenzie 1961b: 24) nan-ēk-ī j ̌wan=ī bo dirust kird-in bread-INDF-EZ nice=3SG for LVC.cook make.PST-3PL ‘She made them a fine meal’.

  Pronominal Clitics Across Kurdish 

197

(ii) However, this restriction is relatively relaxed in Suleimaniya CK such that the second element can also be expressed as a clitic (49), with no necessary disformation of the non-subject clitic into a verbal affix person marker. (49) Suleimaniya CK (MacKenzie 1961b: 114) lē=mān=ī sand-in from=1PL=3SG take.PST-3PL ‘He took them from us’.

This trend becomes relatively more widespread further to the south in Suleimaniya dialect area, for instance, in Kirkuk. Thus in pê=y=im nîşan neda ‘I did not show it to him’ and pê=tan=im wit ‘I told you (PL)’ (MDKD—S-055), both the subject and indirect object complement of the preposition are realized as pronominal clitics. (iii) On the other end of the continuum, in Sanandaj CK, there is no trace of external possession and external prepositional complementation at all, leading systematically to constructions with two clitics and locally realized possessor (50) and prepositional objects (51). (50) Sanandaj CK (Mohammadirad 2020a: 359) čanē pol-ū māl=m=o xwārd how.often money-and property=1SG=2SG eat.PST ‘How often you pillaged my money and property!’ (51) Sanandaj CK (Mohammadirad 2020a: 359) lē=mān=ī hal-kird-a borān from=1PL=3SG PVB-do.PST-DRCT snowstorm ‘The snowstorm overtook us’.

In short, while in the northern CK dialects the verbal affix PMs with past tense verb forms are used for different argument types (such as prepositional object, external possessor, direct object) there are increasing restrictions in the dialects to the south with the southernmost dialects not allowing any use of verbal affix person markers with past transitive verb forms at all.

198 

E. Öpengin and M. Mohammadirad

Realization of a Direct Object in Central Kurdish In the same vein, a bound form direct object in past transitive constructions is always a verbal affix PM in Mukri, and never a clitic, as in (52). It is the reverse configuration in Sanandaj dialect, with the object always being a clitic (53). In the in-between dialect of Suleimaniya, on the other hand, a bound form direct object is mostly, similar to Mukri CK, a verbal affix PM (54), but can also be a clitic (55). (52) Mukri CK (Öpengin 2013: 3541) nārd-ū=yān-im bo ēre send.PST-PTCP=3PL-1SG to here ‘They have sent me over to here’. (53) Sanandaj CK (Mohammadirad 2020a: 360) dī=yān=im see.PST=3PL=1SG ‘I saw them!’ (54) Suleimaniya CK dī-w=yan-ī see.PST-PTCP=2SG-2SG ‘They have seen you’. (55) Suleimaniya CK dī-w=it=yan see.PST-PTCP=2SG=3PL ‘They have seen you’.

2.3 Pronominal Clitics in Southern Kurdish Pronominal clitics are mainly used as pronouns (as opposed to ‘agreement’) in Southern Kurdish dialects (cf. Fattah 2000). Pronominal clitics in two SK dialects (cf. Fig. 1) are analysed here, namely the Bijar dialect (SKB), commonly known as Gerūsī, located in the northernmost part of SK speech zone, and the Ilam dialect (SKI), spoken in the Ilam province further in the south.

  Pronominal Clitics Across Kurdish 

199

Table 3  Forms of pronominal clitics in Southern Kurdish dialects SKI SG

PL

1 2 3 1 2 3

SKB =m

=t =ē

=d =ī =mān

=tān

=dān =yān

Forms of Pronominal Clitics in Southern Kurdish Pronominal clitics are identical in both of the SK dialects, as shown in Table 3. The minor differences (i.e. t vs. d in the form of second persons, and ē vs. ī in the form of 3SG) are of phonological nature (voicing, and degree of openness, respectively).

Functions of Pronominal Clitics in Southern Kurdish Unlike the NK and CK, SK dialects do not distinctively mark past transitive subjects. Instead, regular verb agreement suffixes mark the subject in all construction types, following a typical nominative-accusative alignment. This is—with some minor differences—basically the familiar Persian system. Nevertheless, pronominal clitics are still used in a number of syntactic functions, such as marking adnominal possessors (56), direct objects both in present tense (57) and in past tense (58), prepositional objects both in present tense (59) and past tense (60). In all these functions, their use is non-obligatory, conditioned by the absence of a coreferent NP. (56) Ilam SK (Fattah 2000: 883) pāk-ɪ sar=ɪm bɪ-ka clean-EZ head=1SG SBJV-do.IMP.2SG ‘Clean my hair’. (57) Ilam SK (Fattah 2000: 885) ri=t nišān=ɪm bė wana koš-ɪm=at face=2SG sign=1SG give.IMP.2SG otherwise kill.PRS-1SG=2SG ‘Show me your face, otherwise I will kill you’.

200 

E. Öpengin and M. Mohammadirad

(58) Bijar SK dī-w-m=ay see.PST-PTCP-COP.1SG=3SG ‘I have seen him’. (59) Bijar SK iskān-ē čāy irā=m b-ī-ār-a cup-INDF tea for=1SG SBJV-EP-bring.PRS-2SG ‘Bring me a cup of tea’. (60) Ilam SK (Fattah 2000: 604) qālī da=t dɪzī-n rug from=2SG steal.PST-3PL ‘They stole the rug from you’.

Moreover, on a relatively much smaller scale, pronominal clitics mark experiencers in some non-canonical constructions, such as the predicates of sensory states (61) and less often the possessor in predicative possessive constructions (and only in Bijar SK) (62). (61) Bijar SK wirsī=mān-a hungry=1PL-COP.3SG ‘We are hungry’. (62) Bijar SK (Mohammadirad 2020a: 362) bizn-a īšī šīr=im ni-ya goat-DEF say.PRS.3SG milk=1SG NEG-exist.PRS.3SG ‘The goat says ‘I don’t have milk”.

In Ilam SK, there is a special existential construction in which the clitic marks the subject (63). (63) Ilam SK h-as-i=yān exist.PRS-COP.3SG-EP=3PL ‘Are they there? (lit. Do they exist?)’

  Pronominal Clitics Across Kurdish 

201

Thus, in addition to not being used to mark a past transitive subject, compared to CK (and NK), the pronominal clitics in SK are used in far fewer ‘non-canonical’ constructions.

Placement of Pronominal Clitics in Southern Kurdish Clitic placement in SK shares some principles with CK but also substantially differs from it. A clitic (direct or indirect) is placed within the verb complex, which includes the verbal and nominal/adpositional elements in complex predicates, as in (64) and (57). They thus skip the preverbal elements. Similarly, with bare verbs, the pre-stem elements (TAM and preverbs) are not available hosts for clitics, they are also skipped for clitic placement, as in (65)–(66). In such contexts, pronominal clitics co-occur with verbal agreement suffixes. In such combinations, the clitics systematically follow the verbal agreement suffixes, as in (67), for direct object, and (68), for indirect object. (64) Bijar SK (Mohammadirad 2020a: 363) ristgār=ī kird-ū-m relieved=3SG do.PST-PTCP-COP.1SG ‘I have rescued him’. (65) Bijar SK (Mohammadirad 2020a: 362) d-wayg-a=y-a māl bāwk=ī IND-take.PRS-3SG=3SG-DRC house father=3SG ‘He takes her to her father’s home’. (66) Bijar SK (Mohammadirad 2020a: 363) aw kar-a=y PVB do.PRS-2SG.IMP=3SG ‘Open it’. (67) Bijar SK (Mohammadirad 2020a: 364) na-nasī-m=ayān NEG-know.PST-1SG=3PL ‘I didn’t recognize them’.

202 

E. Öpengin and M. Mohammadirad

(68) Ilam SK (Fattah 2000: 883) sañ-ɪ xwa=t tɪlā dė-m=at weight-EZ REFL=2SG gold give.PST-1SG=2SG ‘I will give you gold as much as your weight’.

Finally, prepositional object clitics are only realized in situ; thus, unlike in CK, no clitic displacement or non-local realization of objects is allowed. This is seen in (59) and (60), where the prepositional object clitic does not move forward in clause to be realized on the object. Given that clitics can be both direct objects and prepositional objects, it would be expected to have instances where two clitics are in sequence on a preposition, each standing for one of the two mentioned functions, but there are no such examples in our data, and such examples were considered as highly ungrammatical by native speakers. This, of course, follows from the placement principles of SK, where the mobility of prepositional object clitics is not allowed, as seen in (69). (69) Ilam SK *arā=t=ī kil kam / arā=t kil=ī ka-m for=2SG=3SG round do.PRS-1SG for=2SG round=3SG do.PRS-1SG ‘That I send it over to you’.

To summarize, clitics in Southern Kurdish have mainly pronominal function, as opposed to obligatory agreement. Its grammar has evolved into a nominative-accusative argument-marking system. Being mostly realized with their head elements, the clitics follow much simpler placement rules. This results in the intolerance to both clitic clusters and clitic/ affix sequences with clitics preceding verbal agreement affixes. Southern Kurdish clearly diverges from Central Kurdish in these respects.

2.4 Pronominal Clitics in Laki Laki is the variety spoken in the north of Lorestan province up to the south-east of Kermanshah and south of Hamedan provinces, as well as in some areas in Ilam province of Iran. Three dialects of Laki are analysed here: Kakavandi dialect (abbr. LAKK), and Harsini variety (abbr. LAKH),

  Pronominal Clitics Across Kurdish 

203

both spoken in Harsin, in the south-east of Kermanshah, and Aleshtar variety (abbr. LAKA), spoken in the city of Aleshtar, north of Lorestan province. Among these, Harsin Laki is considered as a transitional dialect between Laki and Southern Kurdish (cf. Belelli 2016: 14). The data for Aleshtar Laki is from Lazard’s concise grammar sketch (1992), while the data for Kakavandi is from Mohammadirad (2020a).

Forms of Pronominal Clitics in Laki Disregarding superficial phonological differences, the forms of pronominal clitics are largely identical in all Laki dialects, as shown in Table 4. The forms in Aleshtar Laki differ in having rounded vowels and being reduced by one consonant, which is also shared by Kakavandi Laki for 3PL form. These two dialects have an additional /t/ phoneme in the form of 3SG— though the phoneme’s only sporadic appearance conspires to the fact that it might not be part of the form of the pronominal clitic but instead a contextually motivated epenthetic or thematic element.

Functions of Pronominal Clitics in Laki Pronominal clitics are used in a number of syntactic functions in Laki dialects. Shared in all dialects are their functions of marking an adnominal possessor (70), object in present tense (71), and prepositional object in present tense (72). Their use in these functions is not obligatory but conditioned by the absence of a coreferent NP. Table 4  Forms of pronominal clitics in Laki dialects

SG PL

1 2 3 1 2 3

LAKH

LAKK =m =t

=ī/=ē

=ē mān tān

=yān

LAKA

=ān/=an

=mon =ton =on

204 

E. Öpengin and M. Mohammadirad

(70) Harsin Laki (Belelli 2016: 63) mīmī=t bi-mir-ē aunt=2SG SBJV-die.PRS-3SG ‘What a surprise! [lit. may your aunt die]’ (71) Kakavandi Laki (Mohammadirad 2020a: 383) gorg nāy bar-ē=tān wolf NEG.come.PRS.IRR IRR.eat.PRS-3SG:A=2PL ‘Lest the wolf come (and) eat you’. (72) Aleshtar Laki (Lazard 1992: 236) čilgīsū ī dit=it b-ē-a bin=im PN DEM daughter=2SG SBJV-give-IMP.2SG to=1SG ‘Chelgisu! Give me your daughter’.

The most notable difference among Laki dialects concerns the marking of a past transitive subject. It is marked via obligatory pronominal clitics in Aleshtar (73) and Kakavandi (74) but via verbal agreement suffixes in Harsin Laki (75). That is to say, the former two dialects align with CK in having separate marking for past transitive subjects (the so-called agential construction, MacKenzie 1961a, b) while the latter dialect of Harsin aligns with SK in marking all subjects with verbal agreement suffixes regardless of tense or transitivity. (73) Aleshtar Laki (Lazard 1992: 232) māl-i hājī=on qismat kird home-EZ PN=3PL division do.PST ‘They shared Haci’s fortune’. (74) Kakavandi Laki (Mohammadirad 2020a: 380) dī=ān see.PST=3PL ‘They saw’. (75) Harsin Laki aw=īš-a bird-īmin DEM=ADD-DEM1 take.PST-1PL ‘We took her too’.

  Pronominal Clitics Across Kurdish 

205

Out of typical non-canonical constructions, in Harsin Laki the pronominal clitics are used only for marking the experiencer in sensory states of being hungry and being thirsty (76), while in Aleshtar and Kakavandi they are also used with the verb ‘to need/to want’ (77). Syntactic possession is based on the verb daštin ‘to have’, which is a transitive verb form following the canonical grammar of the language for the marking of its arguments. However, sometimes syntactic possession is realized via clitics in a construction similar to those of CK, as in (78).6 (76) Harsin Laki (Belelli 2016: 120) gwisna-s=ī tišna-s=ī hungry-COP.3SG=3SG thirsty-COP.3SG=3SG ‘She is hungry (and) thirsty’. (77) Kakavandi Laki (Mohammadirad 2020a: 379) ma-gist=it ča bi-zān-ī IND-want.PST=2SG what SBJV-know.PRS-2SG ‘What did you want to know?’ (78) Aleshtar Laki (Lazard 1992: 225) dit-ē tātazā=m bī fira ranīn bī girl-INDF cousin=1SG COP.PST a lot beautiful COP.PST ‘I had a cousin, who was very beautiful’.

As a faint reflex of an older-stage ergative construction, in Aleshtar Laki, an overt object NP can sometimes trigger number agreement on the verb, a feature that is observed also in CK (see Öpengin 2013: 253) and Balochi (see Haig 2018, also for a discussion on the retention of number in object agreement from a typological perspective). (79) Aleshtar Laki (Lazard 1992: 238) agar ē hobūbāt-al-a jīā=t kird-in if DEM grain-PL-DEM1 separate=2SG do.PST-3PL ‘If you separated the grains’.

206 

E. Öpengin and M. Mohammadirad

Placement of Pronominal Clitics in Laki For their placement, pronominal clitics in Laki dialects follow the same placement principles of preverbal domain as CK dialects, by attaching to the first syntactic phrase or word within VP (cf. (80)–(81)–(82)–(83)– (84)). Note that in Laki, along with Gorani (see below in 2.5), post-­ verbal particles are used instead of common Kurdish preverbs. Consequently, they are not possible clitic hosts (85). (80) Kakavandi Laki (Mohammadirad 2020a: 380) axinka=n košt-∅ that.much=3PL kill.PST-3SG ‘They beat (killed) him a lot’. (81) Kakavandi Laki (Mohammadirad 2020a: 380) ham čū-īl-a=m birī-a too wood-PL-DEF=1SG cut.PST-PERF ‘I have chopped down the wood as well’. (82) Aleshtar Laki (Lazard 1992: 225) a xwisa öw firār=im kird from chagrin 3SG flee=1SG do.PST ‘Because of the pain she brought upon me, I fled’. (83) Kakavandi Laki (Mohammadirad 2020a: 380) agard=ān na-či with=3PL NEG-go.PST.3SG ‘He didn’t go with them’. (84) Aleshtar Laki (Lazard 1992: 229) pātišā pirsī-t=ē vit=ē king ask.PST-EP=3SG say.PST=3SG ‘The king asked, said’. (85) Aleshtar Laki Lazard 1992: 237) b-ār-im=ē er SBJV-bring.PRS-1SG=3SG POVB ‘That I bring it out’.

  Pronominal Clitics Across Kurdish 

207

However, different from CK and similar to SK and Hawrami, pre-­ stem TAM and negation markers are not possible hosts for clitics, as illustrated in (86), also in (71) and (85) above. (86) Kakavandi Laki (Mohammadirad 2020a: 380) na-šnāsī-n=im NEG-know.PST-3PL=1SG ‘I didn’t recognize them’.

With the exception of 3SG clitic (which have a placement rule of its own), The VP-second positioning applies to clitics in all functions. They land on the first available element in the verb phrase as their host, as in the placement of the preposition complements in the following present tense constructions (87)–(88): (87) Kakavandi Laki (Mohammadirad 2020a: 382) hān=an abin-a m-uš-ē such=3PL to-IND IND-say.PRS-3SG ‘She says such to them’. (88) Kakavandi Laki xū=t abin-a māy nice=2SG to-IND IND-come.PRS.3SG ‘It’s nice what’s happening to you’.

One important exception, which is also a highly particular feature of Aleshtar and Kakavandi dialects, is that a 3SG pronominal clitic diverges from the above described placement principles and, no matter the syntactic environment, is placed on the verb, as in (89) and (90) where in the former it marks the prepositional object realized on the verb while in the latter it refers to a transitive subject realized on the verb despite the presence of the normally available host (in bold face) in the preceding context. (89) Kakavandi Laki (Mohammadirad 2020a: 380) sēf-ēl-a agard jam-ā ma-ka-n=ē apple-PL-DEF with collect-IND IND-do.PRS-3PL=3SG ‘They collect the apples with him’.

208 

E. Öpengin and M. Mohammadirad

(90) Kakavandi Laki (Mohammadirad 2020a: 381) golowī-a ma-činyā=y pear-IPFV IPFV-pick.PST=3SG ‘He was picking pear(s)’.

Restrictions on Multiple Cliticization in Laki No clitic combinations are attested in present tense constructions of Laki dialects. In Aleshter and Kakavandi past tense constructions, in addition to obligatory subject clitic, a non-subject argument (e.g. object, prepositional object, and possessor) could theoretically be realized by clitics (as in present tense). However, just like in CK, only the transitive subject is retained as a pronominal clitic, while the possessors (91), objects (92), and adpositional objects (93) are realized as (or ‘disformed into’) verbal person agreement suffixes. This amounts to external possession and externally realized prepositional complement constructions in these dialects, as illustrated in (91) and (93). (91) Kakavandi Laki (Mohammadirad 2020a: 383) das=t-a ma-girt-im hand=2SG-IPFV IPFV-take.PST-1SG ‘You would take my hand’. (92) Kakavandi Laki (Mohammadirad 2020a: 382) fan=im dā-y-nān-a trick=1SG give.PST-PTCP-2PL-PERF ‘I have tricked you’. (93) Aleshtar Laki (Lazard 1992: 238) dit=im dā-yn-a bē daughter=1SG give.PST-2SG-DRCT to ‘I gave you (my) daughter’.

In Harsin dialect, where a transitive subject is not marked via pronominal clitics, all objects (94) and prepositional complements (95) remain as pronominal clitics. Consequently, there are no instances of external possession and externally realized prepositional complements.

  Pronominal Clitics Across Kurdish 

209

(94) Harsin Laki (Belelli 2016: 124) har ava-s-a ki mi dī-m=as=ē just DEM-COP.3SG-DEM COMP 1SG see.PST-1SG-COP.3SG=3SG ‘This is exactly the one I have seen’. (95) Harsin Laki hīč pül-ī vabin=mān nī-y-ā-n-a no money-INDF to=1PL NEG-EP-give.PST-3PL-PERF ‘They haven’t given us any money’.

Order in Clitic and Affix Sequences in Laki Clitic combinations are excluded in Laki dialects. However, pronominal clitics occur in combination with verbal person agreement suffixes when the verb is the only available host in clause. Interestingly, in all Laki dialects, regardless of the functions they fulfil, verbal person suffixes come first and pronomincal clitics second. Thus, in Harsin, the object clitics in present and past tense constructions follow the subject suffixes in (96) and (97). (96) Harsin Laki (Belelli 2016: 231) m-āž-ēt=yān-a šān IND-throw.PRS-3SG=3PL-DRCT shoulder ‘She puts them on (her) shoulders’. (97) Harsin Laki (Mohammadirad 2020a: 387) dī-m=yān see.PST=3PL ‘I saw them’.

In Aleshter and Kakavendi, the object clitic in present tense construction in (98) follows the verbal person suffix. Interestingly, in past transitive constructions, where the forms swap and the clitics fulfil subject agreement while the verbal person suffixes stand for objects (direct or indirect), the order remains the same in which suffixes precede the clitics, as in (99)–(100)–(101).

210 

E. Öpengin and M. Mohammadirad

(98) Kakavandi Laki xwaš=im ni-m-ā-y b-ün-im=at pleased=1SG NEG-IND-come.PRS.3SG SBJV-see.PRS-1SG=2SG ‘I don’t like to see you’. (99) Kakavandi Laki (Mohammadirad 2020a: 383) arē dī-n=im yes see.PST-3PL-1SG ‘Yes, I saw them’. (100) Aleshtar Laki (Lazard 1992: 235) tamom bār kird-in=ē all load do.PST-3PL=3SG ‘He loaded them all’. (101) Aleshtar Laki (Lazard 1992: 237) pēl-ē arē kird-in=ē bridge-INDF for do-3PL=3SG ‘He built a bridge for them’.

To summarize, Laki dialects differ in the extent to which they employ pronominal clitics as pronouns versus agreement markers. Thus, in Harsin the clitics are used only as pronouns (like in SK and, for instance, Persian), while in Aleshter and Kakavendi they are also used to mark agreement in the past domain (like in CK). As for their placement, the clitics follow ‘second position’ placement principle, as in CK; however, unlike CK, verbal prefixes (inflectional or derivational) are not possible hosts for clitic placement, on a par with SK and Gorani. The idiosyncratic placement of a 3SG subject clitic, as limited to verbs, sets Laki apart from all other languages with pronominal clitics. Furthermore, in combinations of pronominal clitics and verbal affix person markers, the clitics systematically occur after the verbal affixes, which, of course, conforms to typical clitic versus affix behaviour but this sets the language remarkably different from the CK where the order is often reversed. Laki thus shows a great deal of intermediary behaviour in between CK and SK.

  Pronominal Clitics Across Kurdish 

211

2.5 Pronominal Clitics in Gorani Gorani is the variety spoken mainly in a number of dispersed small localities between Kermanshah and Kurdistan provinces in Iran, and in some smaller pockets in the Kurdish region in Iraq. Three dialects are analysed here: (i) Hawrami (Takht & Lohun) varieties (abbr. GORH); (ii) Zarda variety (abbr. GORZ); and Qala variety (GORQ) spoken in Ghorveh, in the south-east of Kurdistan province of Iran. Gorani has case and gender in its nominal morphology, and gender agreement on verbs. In most of its dialects it shows the West Iranian tense-based split ergativity. Among the dialects under investigation, however, only Hawrami shows all of these features; gender distinction is lost in Zarda, but case distinction is still remaining; while in Qala both gender and case systems have been lost.

Forms of Pronominal Clitics in Gorani Forms of pronominal clitics are almost identical across Gorani dialects, presented in Table 5. The most notable difference setting Gorani apart from typical Kurdish is its having the š-forms of third persons. The form of third persons with š (reflexes of Old Iranian genitive/dative *-šai) or with a vowel (reflexes of Old Iranian genitive/dative *-hai) has long been considered an Iranian isogloss (Windfuhr 1975: 259; Korn 2009: 160). With respect to this isogloss, Gorani clearly stands apart from Kurdish, aligning with Persian, Middle Persian, Parthian, and a number of other Western Iranian languages. Table 5  Forms of pronominal clitics in Gorani dialects

SG

PL

1 2 3 1 2 3

GORH =ṱ =mā =tā =šā

GORZ =m =t =š =mān =tān = šān

GORQ

212 

E. Öpengin and M. Mohammadirad

Functions of Pronominal Clitics in Gorani In all three dialects, the clitics are used as adnominal possessor (102), object in present tense (103), adpositional objects in present tense (104), and subject in past transitive constructions (105). Only in the last function are the clitics obligatory, hence marking agreement. (102) Gorani Hawrami (MacKenzie 1966: 66) giro-ēw zārol ̣-ak-ē=š lu-ēn-ē lā=š each.day-INDF child-DEF-PL.DIR=3SG go.PRS-IPF-3PL side=3SG ‘Everyday his children would go to him’. (103) Gorani Zarda (Mahmoudveysi and Bailey 2013: 46) mi-kuš-mē=t IND-kill.PRS-1PL=2SG ‘We will kill you’. (104) Gorani Qala (Mohammadirad 2020a: 373) yay kār-ī bina=t m-āč-ī a task=INDF to=2SG IND-say.PRS-1SG ‘I will tell you a task (to do)’. (105) Gorani Zarda (Mahmoudveysi and Bailey 2013: 58) xo māngāw-aka=šān bard-an EMPH cow-DEF=3PL take.PST-PERF ‘Well, they have taken the cow’.

In some Hawrami dialects, especially in the Takht dialect, the oblique case marking of subject NPs and their cross-referencing via pronominal clitics are in complementary distribution (very much like in NK dialects). Thus, in the following excerpt, oblique-marked subject NP renders the A-past indexing clitic redundant, whereas in the follow-up sentence, the A-past clitic resumes the absent subject NP.  In other words, A-past clitics are not tolerated in the presence of oblique-marked A-Past NPs.

  Pronominal Clitics Across Kurdish 

213

(106) Gorani Hawrami (Takht dialect) (Mohammadirad 2020a: 366) a. āđī jamāwarī kard-ē-(ē)n-o 3SG.OBL.M collection do.PST-PTCP.PL-3PL-ASP ‘He has collected them b. ū tashīh=iš kard-ē-(ē)n and correction=3SG do.PST- PTCP.PL-3PL and corrected them’.

In all Gorani dialects the imperfective verb forms (both present and past) are based on the present stem of the verbs. Hence pronominal clitics are not used with imperfective past transitive verbs. (107) Gorani Hawrami (MacKenzie 1966: 65) kwš-ēn-ē=š kill.PRS-IPF-1SG =3SG ‘I would kill him’. (108) Gorani Qala či nām xiyābān piyādarawī kar-īn-ē at inside street walking do.PRS-IPF-1SG ‘I was walking in the street’.

Moreover, in all Gorani dialects, pronominal clitics are used in some non-canonical constructions, including syntactic possession (which is based on the existential base hebūn in Hawrami and Zarda dialects, but on the verb daštin ‘to have’ in Qala, as in Laki) (109)–(110), necessity and liking constructions (111), and sensory states (112). (109) Gorani Hawrami (MacKenzie 1966: 78) pādšā=ēw bē duē kur-ē=š bēnē king=INDF be.PST.3SG two boy-PL.DIR=3SG COP.PST.3PL ‘There was (once) a king (who) had two sons’. (110) Gorani Zarda (Mahmoudveysi and Bailey 2013: 66) da gila māngāw=im bī-yan ten CLF cow=1SG exist.PST-COP.3PL ‘I had ten cows’.

214 

E. Öpengin and M. Mohammadirad

(111) Gorani Hawrami (MacKenzie 1966: 36) čēš=ıt garak-ā what=2SG want-COP.3SG.M ‘What do you want?’ (112) Gorani Hawrami (MacKenzie 1966: 68) ay rāwiar fıra āwrā w tažna=m-ā VOC traveller very hungry and thirsty=1SG-COP.3SG ‘O traveler, I am very hungry and thirsty’.

The range of non-canonical constructions is the largest in the northern-­ most Hawrami dialect, more limited in Zarda, and quite restricted in Qala. Thus, in the former two but not in the latter clitics are also used in marking an indirect participant (113), and used in analytic causative (114) and potentiality constructions (cf. Öpengin 2012). (113) Gorani Hawrami (MacKenzie 1966: 68) ī māmala=m-a qubūl nī-ā DEM bargain=1SG-DEM1 acceptance NEG.COP.3SG.M ‘I do not agree to this bargain’. (114) Gorani Hawrami (MacKenzie 1966: 63) pana=m wārd-∅ to=1SG eat.PST-3SG ‘I made him eat it’. (115) Gorani Zarda (Mahmoudveysi and Bailey 2013: 146) min=īč hüč=im pay na-kir-yā 1SG=ADD nothing=1SG to NEG-do.PRS-PASS ‘I too, there was nothing to be done by me’

To complete the picture of argument marking, in Hawrami objects (including when an overt NP) are regularly indexed on the verb via person-­gender agreement suffixes, following a typical ergative alignment. This is not observed in Qala and Zarda.

  Pronominal Clitics Across Kurdish 

215

(116) Gorani Takht (Mohammadirad 2020a: 371) zārola-(a)kē=m bard-ē=šā child.DIM-PL.DEF.DIR=1SG take.PST-3PL=3PL ‘They took away my children’. (117) Gorani Takht (Mohammadirad 2020a: 368) agar sabā Mīnā=t dī-a if tomorrow PN.DIR=2SG see.PST-3SG.F ‘If you happen to meet (met) Mina tomorrow!’

Placement of Pronominal Clitics in Gorani Pronominal clitics are placed following a second-position placement rule within the verb phrase (excluding thus subject and clausal complementizers), though, similar to Laki and different from CK, verbal inflectional prefixes (negation and indicative) are not available hosts (i.e. verb stem is not detached from its prefixes for clitic placement). (118) Gorani Hawrami (MacKenzie 1966: 66) fıra=tā ādız kard-a-nā very=2PL angry do.PST-PTCP.M-COP.1SG ‘You have made me (m.) very angry’. (119) Gorani Zarda (Mahmoudveysi and Bailey 2013: 155) pas-akān=im bard sheep-DEF.PL=1SG take.PST ‘I took the sheep and goats’. (120) Gorani Hawrami (MacKenzie 1966: 66) ̌ ba_kullī J uāb=ıš d-ē generally answer=3SG give.PST-3PL ‘He answered them finally’. (121) Gorani Hawrami (MacKenzie 1966: 63) pana=m wārd-∅ to=1SG eat.PST-3SG ‘I made him eat it’.

216 

E. Öpengin and M. Mohammadirad

(122) Gorani Hawrami (MacKenzie 1966: 61) xarīk-anā hur=ıš wāz-ū busy-COP.1SG PVB=3SG rise.PRS-1SG ‘I am just hanging it up’. (123) Gorani Qala (Mohammadirad 2020a: 375) wāt=šā say.PST=3PL ‘They said’. (124) Gorani Qala (Mohammadirad 2020a: 375) garak=im bī bi-sān-ī=š necessary=1SG COP.PST IRR-take.PRS-1SG=3SG ‘I wanted to buy it’. (125) Gorani Hawrami (MacKenzie 1966: 53) na-wāt-ī=m pana NEG-tell.PST-2SG=1SG to ‘Did I not say to you?’

Following the above mentioned second-position placement rule, prepositional object clitics can either be realized in situ (104 above) or preposed on an element preceding the head preposition (126–127). Such preposing of prepositional complement clitics is not available in Qala dialect (128). (126) Gorani Hawrami (MacKenzie 1966: 20) zàr-u piāłè-w čāy=m dà panà money-EZ cup.OBL.INDF-EZ tea=1SG give.IMP to ‘Give me the money of (=for) a cup of tea’. (127) Gorani Zarda (Mahmoudveysi and Bailey 2013: 51) bar-aka-l=m pay wāz kar-a door-DEF-DIM=1SG for open do.2SG.IMP ‘Open the small door for me!’

  Pronominal Clitics Across Kurdish 

217

(128) Gorani Qala (Mohammadirad 2020a: 375) kas-ī kār-ū kāsibī bina=m ni-m-ū person-RESTR job-and business to=1SG NEG-IND-give.PRS.3SG ‘Nobody will give me a job’.

Finally, in all Gorani dialects prepositions frequently appear in post-­ verbal position. In such instances, in Zarda and Qala the clitics are realized in situ on prepositions (129), violating thus the second-position placement rule, whereas in Hawrami, the clitic can be realized on the verb (130) or on elements even before the verb (126 above), abiding thus by the more general placement principle. (129) Gorani Zarda (Mahmoudveysi and Bailey 2013: 158) mi-d-o po=mān-o IND-give.PRS-3SG ADP=1PL-ADP ‘He (the snake) will bite us’. (130) Gorani Hawrami (MacKenzie 1966: 68) lākın īnā mı-da-w=ıt pana but here IND-give.PRS-1SG=2SG to ‘But here I give it to you’.

Restrictions on Multiple Cliticization in Gorani In all Gorani dialects, in tri-valent present tense constructions, there could in theory be two concatenated clitics (one for the direct object and one for a prepositional complement), but this is strictly avoided by separate placement of the clitics, as in (131). (131) Gorani Qala (Mohammadirad 2020a: 376) bilā=t bi-kiyān-ī=š to=2SG send.PRS-1SG=3SG ‘(That) I send it over to you’.

In past transitive constructions, where the subject is necessarily marked via pronominal clitics, there could additionally be clitics marking such non-subject arguments as possessors, direct objects, and prepositional

218 

E. Öpengin and M. Mohammadirad

objects. Gorani dialects differ from each other, just as in CK, in the extent to which such non-subject arguments are marked via clitics or ‘disformed’ into verb agreement suffixes. In Hawrami, and less strictly in Zarda, only one clitic per clause is allowed. Consequently, the non-subject arguments such as objects (132), prepositional objects (133), and possessors (only in Hawrami) (134) are realized via verb agreement suffixes. But even in Hawrami, preposition complements can sporadically also be marked via a second clitic, as in (135). (132) Gorani Zarda (Mahmoudveysi and Bailey 2013: 49) hāwird-īm=šan ābādī wē=mān bring.PST-1PL=3PL village REFL=1PL ‘They took us to our village’. (133) Gorani Takht (Mohammadirad 2020a: 371) čiklīt=im pay sānā-(a)-nī chocolate=1SG for buy.PST-PTCP.M-COP.2SG ‘I have bought chocolate for you’. (134) Gorani Hawrami (MacKenzie 1966: 53) bāxča-ka=š dī-aymē garden-DEF=3SG see.PST-1PL ‘He saw our garden’. (135) Gorani Hawrami (MacKenzie 1966: 64) agar wāt=ıt pana=m lu-ēn-ē pay baγdā-y if say.PST=2SG to=1SG go.PRS-IPF-1SG to PN-OBL ‘If you told me, I would go to Baghdad’.

In Zarda, the restriction is considerably looser such that non-subject arguments can be (and often are) realized through a second clitic. (136) Gorani Zarda (Mahmoudveysi and Bailey 2013: 153) qayrē qisa=m pana=šān kard a bit saying=1SG to=3Pl do.PST ‘I scolded them a bit’.

  Pronominal Clitics Across Kurdish 

219

(137) Gorani Zarda (Mahmoudveysi and Bailey 2013: 113) čāga dī gišt=mān=šān bastarī kard there then all=1PL=3PL hospitalization do.PST ‘There, then they hospitalized all of us’.

The Qala dialect illustrates the other end of the continuum, where such non-subject arguments in past transitive constructions are consistently expressed through pronominal clitics. Thus, no external possession or externally realized prepositional objects are allowed in this dialect. (138) Gorani Qala (Mohammadirad 2020a: 376) āiyl-ayl-aga=m=šā bard child-PL-DEF=1SG=3PL take.PST ‘They took away my children’. (139) Gorani Qala (Mohammadirad 2020a: 376) zarīfīkaw niyā=šān=iš nām sabad-aga gently put.PST=3PL=3SG inside basket-DEF ‘Gently, he put them into the basket’. (140) Gorani Qala (Mohammadirad 2020a: 377) bābā=š qisa=š pina=š kard Father=3SG talk=3SG to=3SG do.PST ‘His father rebuked him’.

Interestingly, a clear parallelism of variety-internal variation conspires between Gorani and CK dialects with respect to the marking of non-­ subject arguments in past transitive constructions: Mukri CK and Hawrami dialect of Gorani are entirely parallel in rather strictly excluding the use of a clitic for non-subject arguments (and preponderance of externally realized arguments); Sanandaj CK and Qala Gorani, on the other hand, are entirely parallel in systematic use of pronominal clitics for marking non-subject arguments (and total absence of externally realized arguments); while, finally, Suleimaniya and Zarda Gorani are more or less parallel in showing in-between character in these respects.

220 

E. Öpengin and M. Mohammadirad

Clitic and Affix Sequences in Gorani All Gorani dialects allow clitic and affix combinations on the verb in present tense. As in Laki dialects, regardless of the functions they fulfil, verbal person suffixes come first and pronominal clitics second, as illustrated for an object clitic in (141) and for a prepositional object clitic in (142) where the clitics follow the verbal person suffixes. (141) Gorani Zarda (Mahmoudveysi and Bailey 2013: 46) bā b-ar-mē=šan pey Dālahū PTCL SBJV-bring.PRS-1PL=3PL to PN ‘Let us take them to Dalahu’. (142) Gorani Hawrami (MacKenzie 1966: 68) īnā mi-da-w=ıt pana PTCL IND-give.PRS-1SG=2SG to ‘I give it to you’.

In Hawrami and Zarda, where in past transitive constructions a subject clitic and an object person suffix can be in concatenation (thus, the reverse functional distribution of present transitive constructions), the order remains the same such that the clitics follow the person suffixes. (143) Gorani Zarda (Mahmoudveysi and Bailey 2013: 49) bard-īmē=š pay Hamadān-ī take.PST-1PL=3SG to PN-OBL.M ‘He took us to Hamadan’. (144) Gorani Takht (Mohammadirad 2020a: 372) hīštāy na-gēlnā-(a)-nī=m-va pay not.yet NEG-tell.PST-PTCP.M-COP.2SG=1SG-ASP to ‘I haven’t narrated (it) to you yet’.

In Qala, where in such constructions both of the arguments are clitics (as in Sanandaj CK), the order is systematically one in which the object clitic is first and the subject clitic the second.

  Pronominal Clitics Across Kurdish 

221

(145) Gorani Qala (Mohammadirad 2020a: 377) či ārāyī košt=mān=it from hunger kill.PST=1PL=2SG ‘You killed us of hunger’.

To summarize, the Gorani pronominal clitics diverge from Kurdish in having the so called -š third-person forms. The more archaic Hawrami dialect of Gorani is characterized by the alternate use of pronominal clitics with oblique case marking (which, as in the case of Surçi dialect, is telling as to the direction of change in Kurdic languages towards argument indexation systems with either pronominal clitics—as in CK and Laki—or oblique case marking—as in NK, see next section for further discussion). The more southern and eastern dialects of Zarda and Qala (Ghorveh) are in contact with SK and the Sanadaj dialect of CK, respectively, and their tendency to mark non-subject arguments via pronominal clitics might as well have been shaped through contact with those dialects.

3 Areal and Historical Patterns in the Forms and Grammar of Pronominal Clitics in Kurdish Dialects The patterns underlying pronominal clitics’ forms, functions, and placement show certain traits across Kurdish that allow for viewing their behaviour in more general terms. This section summarizes and assesses several of such general traits.

3.1 Variation in Pronominal Clitic Forms in Kurdish The sections on the forms of pronominal clitics in respective dialects showed that there is considerable variation in clitic forms both within and among Kurdish varieties. However, most of this variation is of superficial phonological nature. Actual formal variation stemming from historically distinct lexical items (i.e. non-cognate forms) is rather limited. Table  6 presents distinct pronominal clitic forms disregarding much superficial phonological variants.

222 

E. Öpengin and M. Mohammadirad

Table 6  Forms of pronominal clitics across Kurdish varieties (simplified) SG

PL

NK

CK

LAK

SK

GOR

1

im

im

im

im

Im

2

it

it / ū

it

it

It

3

ī

ī

ī

ī

iš

1

-- / īn

mān / in

mān

mān

mān

2

-- / ū

tān / ū

tān

tān

tān

3

yān

yān

yān

yān

šān

The single most important piece of formal variation concerns the forms of the third-person pronominal clitics. In all varieties the third persons include a vowel -ī (or its contextual variant -y), except Gorani which has an -š consonant in its corresponding forms. These forms have different lexical sources: In Old Iranian two sets of genitive/dative clitics existed, known as *-šai and *-hai forms, used in complementary contexts. The Gorani forms are reflexes of the *-šai forms, on a par with Parthian, Middle Persian, Modern Persian, and some Central Plateau languages, whereas the Kurdish forms have evolved from the *-hai forms, on a par with some Balochi dialects and some other Iranian languages (Windfuhr 1975: 259; Korn 2009: 160–161). Note, however, that although this is a crucial isogloss distinguishing languages and language groups within Iranian, some Balochi dialects do combine third-person forms of both sources. Thus in Iranian Balochi the 3SG is -ī from *-hai forms, while the 3PL is -iš from *-šai forms.7 The second important difference concerns the first and second plural forms. The alternative forms -īn/-in for 1PL (in NK Surçi and Mukri CK respectively) and -ū for 2PL are derived from historically single pronoun forms (either from Old Iranian dative/genitive *-nah and *-wah or accusative *nāh and *wāh pronouns), whereas the more widespread forms of -mān and -tān are combinations of singular clitic forms with plural ending -ān. The historically single forms are found exclusively in the north-­western peripheries of pronominal clitics zone (see Fig. 1) in Kurdish. Furthermore, while they are the only forms in the north-western-most Surçi dialect, they become more alternative towards the east and south of CK speech zone to be totally replaced by the double-source forms in, for instance, Suleimaniya. Assuming the archaic nature of the single forms and the relative isolation of

  Pronominal Clitics Across Kurdish 

223

the northern periphery dialects, one could assume that the double forms must have spread from south to the north. Yet another important formal difference concerns the CK alternative 2SG clitic form -u/-o, the former found rarely in Suleimaniya and the latter in Sanandaj dialect. Unlike the otherwise widespread form -it, which derives from Old Iranian genitive/dative -tai, this form must have a different source, hypothesized to be the Old Iranian accusative pronoun (*-θwā) (Korn 2009: 163). These historically grounded differences help us make few observations on the interrelations of Kurdish dialects: (i) Gorani is set apart from Kurdish by its distinct third-person forms; (ii) the northern-most dialects (whether NK or CK) are differentiated from the rest by having 1PL and 2PL clitic forms derived from historically single pronoun forms, indicating also northward spread of more generic Iranian plural forms based on the combination of singular forms with plural ending; (iii) a 2SG form -u/-o with historically unclear origin sets the southern-most dialects of CK separate from the rest of Kurdish.

3.2 The Range of Pronominal Clitic Functions Across Kurdish There are a number of generalizations to be made regarding the functions of clitics across Kurdish varieties, most important of which are synthesized below, summarized in Table 7. First of all, the varieties differ in their use or not of pronominal clitics for marking an agent in past transitive constructions: (i) In the northernmost NK (Gerdi and Surçi) and in the Hawrami dialect of Gorani, the pronominal clitics mark the past transitive agent only in the absence of an oblique case-marked coreferent NP in the clause. The pronominal clitics are not ‘obligatory’, or, in other words, not fully grammaticalized as ‘agreement’ indexes in these dialects. (ii) They are fully grammaticalized markers of past transitive agents in all CK dialects, in the Gorani dialects of Qala and Zarda, as well as in the Laki dialect of Kakavand and Aleshtar. (iii) Finally, in entire SK and in the Laki dialect of Harsin, geographically bordering SK, pronominal clitics are not used for marking past transitive agents at all.

No − ±

PRT

−

PRT

PRS

−

Oblig.

No

PRS

−

PRT

Oblig.

−

PRS

±

−

No

−

+

No

−

+

No

−

+

No

GORH

+

−

Yes

−

+

No

−

+

No

±

+

No

CKM

+

−

Yes

−

+

No

−

+

No

−

+

No

LAKK/LAKA

+

−

Yes

±

+

No

−

+

No

±

+

No

CKSu

+

−

Yes

±

+

No

±

+

No

+

+

No

GORZ

+

−

Yes

+

+

No

+

+

No

+

+

No

CKSa/GORQ

−

−

No

+

+

No

+

+

No

+

+

No

SK/LAKH

+: function marked by clitics; −: function absent for clitics; ±: function in question can alternatively be marked by clitic person markers

Agent

Oblique object

No

−

PRT

Oblig.

±

PRS

Direct object

No

Oblig.

Possessor

NK

Tense obligatory

Functions of clitics

Table 7  Clitic functions across Kurdish

224  E. Öpengin and M. Mohammadirad

  Pronominal Clitics Across Kurdish 

225

Interestingly, the NK dialects and Gorani of Hawraman, where the use of agent clitics is tolerated only when an overt agent NP is not marked for oblique case, exhibit robust ergative alignment pattern. Whereas the CK and other Gorani and Laki dialects with fully grammaticalized agent-­ clitics have lost (the canonical) ergative alignment, despite keeping a formal difference between a transitive and intransitive subject through the agential construction. Assuming that the older stages of these varieties inherited both oblique case and pronominal clitics, with somewhat overlapping functions, the largely unrelated Gerdi and Surçi NK and Hawraman Gorani dialects represent the older stage of morphosyntactic configuration. Evolving from that source configuration (represented in NK Surçi and Gorani Hawraman), the NK ended up retaining ergative construction by getting rid of optional agent clitics and securing Object-­ Verb agreement, whereas CK and those Laki and Gorani dialects with agential construction ended up grammaticalizing the use of pronominal clitics for transitive subjects at the expense of doing away with Object-­ Verb agreement.8 A wholly different third path must have been taken in SK and SK-like Laki dialects where, probably under heavy Persian influence and societal bilingualism, neither the oblique case was retained nor the erstwhile optional pronominal clitics were grammaticalized into subject-­agreement markers. These three morphosyntactic configurations of course align with three major alignment types, namely the canonical ergative alignment of NK and Hawraman Gorani, the morphologically ergative agential construction of CK and some Laki and Gorani dialects, and finally, the Persian-type fully nominative SK and neighbouring Laki dialects. Secondly, the dialects differ remarkably on the use or not of pronominal clitics as non-subject arguments such as direct objects and oblique objects (including prepositional complements) in past tense. Here too we see a cline: no such use is attested in the northernmost NK. The usage is restricted to present tense constructions in northern CK (Mukri and Suleimaniya) and Laki (Kakavand) as well as the northern Gorani dialects of Hawraman and less so in Zarda. In the past tense of these dialects, these two object types are expressed via verbal affix person markers. Finally, in the bordering area between CK and SK (thus in CK of Sanandaj), in all SK and Laki dialects bordering SK, and the southern

226 

E. Öpengin and M. Mohammadirad

Gorani dialect of Qala/Ghorveh), both of these object types are regularly marked via pronominal clitics—and never via verbal affix person markers. Thus, a more or less strong areal pattern emerges here (cf. Fig. 1 and Table  7), with the northern and north-eastern half of the pronominal clitics zone dispreferring the use of clitics in non-subject functions while the south-eastern half strongly favouring their use in this function. To better understand this current distribution, we should refer to possible historical changes. To start with, NK lost the use of pronominal clitics in all but agent function in early stages, motivated by the robustness of the set of oblique pronouns (which are functionally mostly equivalent to pronominal clitics, cf. Korn 2009). Assuming a previous ergative stage for the other varieties, it can be claimed that the northern dialects of CK, Gorani and Laki, which use the clitics for both types of objects, have not only remained the same in using the verbal person markers for direct objects—though their grammatical status has mostly been relaxed from being obligatory—but have also replaced the pronominal clitics for marking oblique objects (this scenario was already noted in MacKenzie 1961a, restated in Jügel 2009; motivations behind this extension are analysed in Öpengin 2013). At the other end of the axiom, the SK and the neighbouring Harsin Laki with neither ergativity nor agential construction simply follow a nominative-accusative argument-indexing pattern by using the clitics in all object functions and in all types of constructions. However, assuming that the northern CK pattern to be closer to the source stage, the more significant change must have occurred in the in-between dialects of Sanandaji CK, and the Qorvah Gorani (and more restrictedly in Zarda Gorani) with the extension of the use of pronominal clitics to mark the direct object, and, less strikingly maybe, the oblique object. This is clearly the result of a morphosyntactic simplification, since by such an extension, the tense-based argument-indexing difference is levelled, and, especially with the marking of oblique arguments, non-­ local realization of arguments is avoided. In other words, the use of verbal affix person markers for oblique arguments (external possessors, prepositional complements) necessarily involves non-local realization of an argument (as it can be seen in examples 133–135), but by using pronominal clitics (realized on the possessed NP or preposition), such complexity is avoided. Such simplification becomes especially relevant considering that

  Pronominal Clitics Across Kurdish 

227

the area is a contact zone between various varieties, with heavy societal bilingualism, and where the dominant language is mostly the SK which has typical nominative-accusative system. The third point to consider is the degree to which the pronominal clitics are used in marking the salient or ‘experiencer’ argument in various non-canonical constructions, such as syntactic/predicative possession, necessity and liking expressions, sensory states of being hungry/thirsty/ tired, indirect participation, sound emissions, uncontrolled events, analytic potentiality and causative constructions. Here we see a clear parallelism between the grammaticalization of agent-marking clitics in the past and the prevalence of non-canonical constructions. Thus, (i) the northern CK and Hawrami seem to possess the largest number of non-­canonical subject constructions (see 23–27); (ii) the SK and other more southern CK (of Sanandaj), Gorani, and Laki dialects, possess fewer such non-­ canonical constructions, usually limited to necessity/liking expressions and some sensory states; (iii) finally, the NK dialects too seem to use pronominal clitics only for syntactic possession and expressions of liking, though again only when the clause does not already have a coreferent NP. We should note that while the possession is based on an existential construction in the rest of Kurdish, all Laki, SK and its contact dialect Gorani of Ghorveh have developed (through contact with Persian, or secondary contact with SK for Gorani and Laki dialects) a verb daštin ‘to have’ (Cf. Persian dāštan).9

3.3 Variation in the Placement of Pronominal Clitics Kurdish varieties differ in (i) where in the clause a pronominal clitic (of varying functions) should be placed; (ii) the degree to which clitic combinations are allowed; and (iii) their order when they form a sequence with verbal affix person markers. Firstly, in all Kurdish the clitics are mobile, thus not subcategorized for a word class or a particular clausal constituent. They follow a ‘second-­ position’ placement principle within the verb phrase (thus excluding the subject and clause-external topics and complementizers), immediately following the first constituent in the clause. However, while in CK and NK the first constituent can be a morphological element such as preverb

228 

E. Öpengin and M. Mohammadirad

Table 8  Possible clitic hosts in Kurdish dialects Possible clitic hosts

NK

CK

GOR

LAKK/LAKA

SK/LAKH

Subject

−

−

−

−

−

Complementizer

−

−

−

−

−

Object noun phrase

+

+

+

+

−

Nominal component in a LVC

+

+

+

+

+

Preposition

x

+

+

+

+

Preverb

+

+

+

−

−

TAM/NEG

+

+

−

−

−

Verb stem (present)

x

−

+

+

+

Verb stem (past)

+

+

+

+

+

(+): possible; (−): not possible; (x): not relevant (organisation of the table inspired by the Table 3 in Haig and Nemati 2013)

or verbal TAM-negation prefixes, in SK, GOR and LAK dialects the first constituent is necessarily an independent word, a syntactic element, skipping thus the verbal prefixes as possible clitic hosts—though in Gorani the few preverbs can host clitics but they could easily be analysed as independent words. The availability or not of prefixal elements for hosting clitics is thus an important isogloss grouping Southern Kurdish, Gorani, and Laki together as different from Central and Northern Kurdish, as can be seen in Table 8. However the mentioned ‘second-position’ placement principle is violated in some dialects when it comes to the prepositional complement clitics. Thus, Gorani of Ghorveh, Laki of Harsin, and SK do not allow for non-local (pre-positioning) realization of prepositional complement clitics, while the other dialects (Laki Kakevandi, CK, and Gorani of Hawraman and Zarda) do allow for such movement that assures the positioning of the clitic in ‘second’ position. Secondly, the dialects differ in allowing the sequential occurrence of clitics in the same position/clause. This point is relevant only in the context of agential construction or the conjoint use of clitics in multiple functions in the same clause, thus largely irrelevant for SK and NK (cf. Table  9). Elsewhere, the more conservative (and heartland) dialects of CK (Mukri and Suleimaniya) and Gorani (Hawrami) as well as Laki allow only for one clitic per clause in past transitive constructions. And this single clitic is always the agent/subject clitic. The other (oblique)

229

  Pronominal Clitics Across Kurdish  Table 9  Multiple cliticization and mobility of oblique clitics across Kurdish Multiple cliticization within VP in past transitive constructions

The mobility of oblique argument clitics

OBJ

OBL

POSS

PRS

PST

CKM

−

−

−

+

+

GORH

−

−

−

+

+

LAK

−

−

−

+

+

CKSu

−

±

±

+

±

GORZ

±

±

+

+

±

CKSa

+

+

+

+

−

GORQ

+

+

+

−

−

SK/LAKH

+

+

+

−

−

(+): possible; (−): not possible; (±) mainly absent but rarely also possible

arguments such as prepositional complements and nominal possessors, which are expressed via clitics in present tense constructions, are realized by (or ‘disformed’ into) verbal affix person markers on the verb, hence realized at distance to their head elements. The process leads to externally realized clausal arguments, possessors and oblique objects. No such restriction on multiple cliticization is seen in the southern dialect of CK and the southernmost dialects of Gorani (Qorvah, and most often also Zarda), where accordingly no external possession or non-local prepositional complementation is at stake. Finally, the sequential ordering of particular pronominal clitics in combination with verbal person markers or other pronominal clitics shows divergent outcomes in Kurdish dialects, summarized in Table 10. As seen in Table 10, regardless of the construction in which they occur, in Laki, Hawrami, and SK, in all clitic and verbal person marker combinations, the clitics follow the verbal person markers (in concord with typical clitichood behaviour, cf. Halpern 2001). In CK, however, in combinations of agent clitics and object verbal person markers, the clitics occur first in combinations (see Öpengin 2013, 2019 for an explanation for this theoretically unexpected behaviour of CK clitics). Finally, in the border dialects of southern CK and southern Gorani (of Ghorveh), the combination is between an agent clitic and an object clitic, where the agent clitic follows the object clitic. This leads to an interesting parallelism in the order of arguments between Southern CK and Gorani despite

230 

E. Öpengin and M. Mohammadirad

Table 10  The ordering of argument indexes on past tense verb stems Clitic-affix sequences in past tense constructions V=A−O CKM

V−O=A

V−A=O

+

GORH

+

LAK

+

CKSu

V=O=A

+

GORZ

+ +

CKSa

+

GORQ

+

SK/LAKH

+

V: verb; A: transitive subject; O: object

using different categories of person forms. This might have to do with heavy language contact, including the long-held hypothesis of a Gorani substratum in CK and reflecting also the tight socio-historical connection represented best in Gorani’s being the literary court language in otherwise southern CK-speaking Ardalan principality in seventeenth to eighteenth centuries (cf. Leezenberg 1992).

4 Summary and Conclusions This chapter set out to document and investigate the variation in some formal and functional dimensions of pronominal clitics across and within major Kurdish (or Kurdic) varieties—namely Northern Kurdish, Central Kurdish, Southern Kurdish, Laki, and Gorani. It provided sketches of variety-internal dialectal variation with respect to clitic forms, their functional range, and their placement properties. These individual variety sketches reveal a great deal of first-hand information into the presence and nature of pronominal clitics in Kurdish. For instance, almost a standard statement in Iranian linguistics has up to now been one that classifies Northern Kurdish as one of the few Western Iranian languages that do not possess pronominal clitics altogether. However, this chapter provided preliminary data from two dialects of Northern Kurdish attesting the presence of pronominal clitics in this variety, along with characterizing their formal and functional aspects. Likewise, these sketches

  Pronominal Clitics Across Kurdish 

231

documented remarkable dialectal variation in the forms and placement properties of pronominal clitics within the three varieties of Central Kurdish, Gorani, and Laki, usually in following geographically based clines. The first-hand data assembled and presented in variety sketches were then synthesized to reveal the emerging areal patterns, which were further discussed in the light of historical evolution of pronominal clitics in Kurdish and West Iranian as well as the effects of language contact in the region. Kurdish varieties provide a neat pattern of the development of an older ergative stage in past tense (seen in Gorani and Northern Kurdish) into nominative-accusative stage (in Sothern Kurdish) through the intermediary of transitional dialects (such as southern dialects of Central Kurdish or its neighbouring Gorani dialect of Ghorveh). This illustrates also the stages through which the alignment in Iranian languages must have passed until reaching full-fledged accusative pattern in some languages. It was also seen that in the more conservative Northern Kurdish and Gorani dialects there exists a correlation between the presence of oblique case-marked nominal subjects and the absence of subject-marking pronominal clitics. This attests to the originally pronoun (as opposed to ‘agreement’) status of pronominal clitics while showing once again the close functional relationship between oblique case and pronominal clitics. Reflecting this evolution from resumptive pronoun-like cross-­reference indexes, the pronominal clitics are never placed on subjects or complementizers, but rather on the first syntactic or morphological element within the Verb Phrase. A crucial difference between Kurdish varieties concerns availability of verbal morphological units (e.g. negation, TAM-­ prefixes) for hosting clitics. Thus, while in Northern Kurdish and Central Kurdish such bound morphemes can be detached from their host for clitic placement, in geographically contiguous Gorani, Laki, and Southern Kurdish this is not an available clitic position. Finally, the sequential ordering of subject and object argument indexes via pronominal clitics and verbal agreement suffixes shows areally motivated variation. It remains to be seen through further research whether and to what extent the variation patterns revealed here parallel the development of pronominal clitics in the rest of (western) Iranian languages.

232 

E. Öpengin and M. Mohammadirad

Notes on the Transcription Conventions As a general rule we’ve kept the transcription conventions used in the source works. The two primary transcription conventions used in this chapter are the standard Latin-Kurdish alphabet system (which is also used in MDKD) and the transcription convention of Iranian philology that was initially set up in MacKenzie (1961a, b). The major differences between the two are laid out here: IPA [a] [aː] [1̵̇] [eː] [iː] [uː] [ʃ] [ʧ] [ʤ] [r]

Iranian Philology a ā i, ı ē ī ū š č J,̌ j ž ř

MDKD- Latin-Kurdish alphabet e a i ê î û ş ç c j r, rr

Acknowledgements Masoud Mohammadirad’s work on this chapter was enabled by funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 665850. We would like to thank Geoffrey Haig for his many important comments on an initial draft of this chapter.

Abbreviations ADD additive ADP adposition ASP verbal aspectual marker CKM Central Kurdish Mukri CKSa Central Kurdish Sanandaj CKSu Central Kurdish Suleimaniya COP copula DEF definite DEM demonstrative

  Pronominal Clitics Across Kurdish 

DEM1 demonstrative suffix DIM diminutive DRCT directional DRCT1 verbal directional morpheme EMPH emphatic particle EP epenthesis EZ ezafeh F feminine GORH Gorani Hawrami GORQ Gorani Qala GORZ Gorani Zarda IMP imperative IND indicative INDF indefinite IPF imperfect IPFV imperfective IRR irrealis LAKA Laki Aleshtar LAKH Laki Harsini LAKK Laki Kakavandi LVC light verb complement M masculine NEG negative NKG Northern Kurdish Gerdi NKS Northern Kurdish Surçi OBL oblique PASS passive PL plural PN proper noun POST postpositional element POVB post-verb PRS present PST past PTCL particle PTCP participle PVB preverb REFL reflexive RESTR restrictive

233

234 

E. Öpengin and M. Mohammadirad

SBJV subjunctive SG singular SKB Southern Kurdish Bijar SKI Southern Kurdish Ilam TAM tense-aspect-mood marker VOC vocative

Notes 1. All the material for Sanandaji CK, Bijar SK, Laki Kakevandi, and Gorani Qala, as well as part of the data for Gorani Hawrami and Laki Harsini comes from the corpus of natural speech and controlled speech (including also elicited data) developed in the form of a database of Iranian languages in Mohammadirad (2020a). 2. Pronominal clitics are found as relics in larger NK in at least two other contexts. First, they are part of the so-called absolute prepositions lē, pē, jē, tē which are probably—historically—the combinations of a simple preposition with a 3rd singular pronominal clitic. Second, the quotative verb form gotī that is used in Bahdini dialect of NK (see Öpengin and Haig 2014) but also survives in NK proverbs and oral literature is most probably yielded from the combination of a 3SG clitic =ī on the past stem of the verb gotin ‘to say’, thus got=ī (say.pst=3SG). However, these have become unanalysable function words in those dialects and as such cannot be considered as indications of the ‘presence’ of pronominal clitics as a productive category in NK. 3. The particle in this (2) and the following example (3) glossed as ezafe (EZ) functions in the expression of the tense and predication. For a description of these usages of ezafe in Kurdish see Haig and Öpengin (2019). 4. Note that the existential base shows number agreement with the possessee, which is absent in CK. 5. There are sporadic exceptions to these rules sometimes due to the pragmatics and information structure while some exceptions are more directly due to the irregular nature of language material. For instance, in Sanandaj CK, a verbal prefix de- is chunked with the vowel-initial stem -ēr ‘to bring’, resulting in t-ēr-. Given that the verbal prefix here is reduced to a non-syllabic segment t- it is not a suitable stress-bearing host, the clitic thus irregularly skips this slot and occurs at the end of the verb form, as in tēr-im=ī (IND.bring.PRS-1SG=3SG) ‘I will bring it’.

  Pronominal Clitics Across Kurdish 

235

6. However, this example is tricky and can alternatively be translated as ‘there was a cousin of mine, who was very beautiful’. Hence, clitic PMs cannot be assumed to mark the possessor in predicative possessive constructions. 7. For paradigms of pronominal clitics in Balochi see Korn 2009: 164, and Jahani and Korn 2009: 654. 8. Note that this projection comes close to what had already been suggested in Haig (2004: 268), who, citing data from the Bingird dialect, pointed to the co-existence of case and clitics as the original construction. 9. See Mohammadirad (2020b) for a typological study of predicative possessive constructions across West Iranian languages.

References Belelli, Sara. 2016. A study of language and folklore in the city of Harsin (Kermānshāh province, west Iran). PhD thesis, Napel. Bynon, Theodora. 1979. The ergative construction in Kurdish. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 42 (02): 211–224. Dabir-Moghaddam, M. 2008. On agent clitics in Balochi. In The Baloch and others, ed. Carina Jahani, Agnes Korn, and P. Titus, 83–101. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Dabir-Moghaddam, Mohammad. 2012. Linguistic typology: An Iranian perspective. Journal of Universal Language 13: 31–70. Edmonds, Cecil J. 1955. Prepositions and personal affixes in Southern Kurdish. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 17 (03): 490–502. Fattah, Ismail Kamandār. 2000. Les dialectes kurdes méridionaux: étude linguistique et dialectologique (Acta Iranica 37). Louvain: Peeters. Haig, Geoffrey. 2004. Alignment in Kurdish: A diachronic perspective. Habilitation, University of Kiel. Available online at: https://www.academia.edu/2081233/ Alignment_in_Kurdish_a_diachronic_perspective (6 June 2019). ———. 2008. Alignment change in Iranian languages: A construction grammar approach. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. ———. 2018. The grammaticalization of object pronouns: Why differential object indexing is an attractor state. Linguistics 56 (4): 781–818. Doi: https:// doi.org/10.1515/ling-2018-0011 Haig, Geoffrey, and Fatemeh Nemati. 2013. Clitics at the syntax-pragmatics interface: The case of Delvari pronominal enclitics. Paper held at the Fifth International Conference on Iranian Linguistics (ICIL5), Bamberg, 24–26th August 2013.

236 

E. Öpengin and M. Mohammadirad

Haig, Geoffrey, and Ergin Öpengin. 2018. Kurmanji Kurdish in Turkey: Structure, varieties and status. In Linguistic minorities in Turkey and Turkic-­ speaking minorities of the peripheries, ed. Christiane Bulut, 157–230. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Halpern, Aaron. 2001. Clitics. In The handbook of morphology, ed. Andrew Spencer and Arnold M. Zwicky, 101–122. Oxford: Blackwell. Jahani, Karina, and Agnes Korn. 2009. Balochi. In The Iranian languages, ed. Gernot Windfuhr, 634–692. London/New York: Routledge. Jügel, Thomas. 2009. Ergative Remnants in Sorani Kurdish? Orientalia Suecana 58: 142–158. Jügel, Thomas, and Pollet Samvelian. 2016. Les pronoms enclitiques dans les langues ouest-iraniennes: Fonctions et distribution géographique. Bulletin de la société de linguistique de Paris 111 (1): 391–432. Korn, Agnes. 2009. Western Iranian Pronominal Clitics. Orientalia Suecana LVIII: 159–171. Lazard, Gilbert. 1992. Le dialecte laki d’Aleshatar (Kurde méridional). Studia Iranica 21 (2): 215–245. Leezenberg, Michiel. 1992. Gorani influence on Central Kurdish: Substratum or prestige borrowing? Unpublished Ms. Retrieved from http://home.hum. uva.nl/oz/leezenberg/GInflCK.pdf. Last accessed 22 Feb 2018. MacKenzie, David N. 1961a. Kurdish dialect studies I. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 1961b. Kurdish dialect studies II. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 1966. The dialect of Awroman (Hawrāmān-ī luhōn): grammatical sketch, texts, and vocabulary. K  benhavn: Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab. Mahmoudveysi, Parvin, and Denise Bailey. 2013. The Gorani language of Zarda, a village of west Iran: texts, grammar, and lexicon. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Mirdehghan, Mahinnaz, and Simin Moradkhani. 2010. Personal pronouns in the Kakavandi Laki Dialect of Harsin (Kermanshah, Iran). Iranian Studies 43 (4): 513–531. Mohammadirad, M. 2020a. Pronominal clitics in Western Iranian languages: Description, mapping, and typological implications. PhD dissertation. Sorbonne Nouvelle – Paris 3. ———. 2020b. Predicative possession across Western Iranian languages. Folia Linguistica 54 (3): 497–526. https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-­2020-­2038. Öpengin, Ergin. 2012. Adpositions and argument indexing in the Mukri variety of Central Kurdish: Focus on ditransitive constructions. Orientalia Suecana LXI: 187–198.

  Pronominal Clitics Across Kurdish 

237

———. 2013. Clitic/affix interactions: A corpus-based study of person marking in the Mukri variety of Central Kurdish. PhD thesis, Paris III/Bamberg. ———. 2016. The Mukri variety of Central Kurdish: Grammar, texts and lexicon. Wiesbaden: Reichert. ———. 2019. Accounting for clitic and affix combinations in Central Kurdish. In Current Issues in Kurdish Linguistics, ed. Songul Gündogdu, Ergin Öpengin, Geoffrey Haig, and Erik Anonby, 244–261. Bamberg: University of Bamberg Press. Öpengin, Ergin, and Geoffrey Haig. 2014. Regional variation in Kurmanji: a preliminary classification of dialects. Kurdish Studies 3: 143–176. Samvelian, Pollet. 2007a. What Sorani Kurdish absolute prepositions tell us about cliticization. In Texas Linguistic Society IX: The morphosyntax of ­underrepresented languages, ed. Frederic Hoyt, Nikki Seifert, Teodorescu Alexandra, and Jessica White, 263–283. Stanford: CSLI Publications. ———. 2007b. A lexicalist account of Sorani Kurdish prepositions. In Proceedings of the HPSG07 Conference, ed. Stefan Müller. Stanford. ———. 2013. Les prépositions simples et les prépositions absolues dans les dialectes kurdes sorani (centraux). In Prépositions et postpositions—approaches typologiques et formelles, ed. Jesse Tseng, 173–203. Hermès-Lavoisier. Shirtz, Shahar. 2016. Indirect participant as core arguments in Middle Persian. In Furthur Topics in Iranian Linguistics, Cahiers de Studia Iranica 51, ed. Jila Ghomeishi, Carina Jahani, and Agnès Lenepvue-Hotz, 175–194. Leuven: Peeters. Stilo, Donald. 2008. Two sets of mobile verbal person agreement markers in the Northern Talyshi language. In Aspects of Iranian linguistics, ed. S.  Karimi, V.S. Samiian, and D.L. Stilo. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Windfuhr, Gernot L. 1975. Isoglosses: A Sketch on Persians and Parthians, Kurds and Medes. In: Monumentum Henrik S. Nyberg II [Acta Iranica 5], pp. 457–472.

A Cross-Dialect Account of Kurdish Past Tense Categories, with Special Reference to Southern Kurdish Sara Belelli

Conversion chart of transcription systems (restricted to items attested in examples): MDKD (Hawar-based)

Present study

MacKenzie (1961)

Blau (1989)

a e ê i î o û ç c j ş r [r] (occas. rr in CK and SK, otherwise [ɹ]) r [ɾ] ł

ā a ē i ī o ū (NK, CK) č ǰ ž š ř

ā a ē i ī ō/ô ū č ǰ ž š rˉ

â â â a a a e e/ė ê ǝ ı ǝ/e i i i o o o/o: (/ū/ vs. /u/ does not apply as such to SK) c č č j ǰ ĵ ž j ž š š š rˉ ṟ (r word-­initially) r̊ (r word-­initially)

r ɫ

r ł

r ḻ

Fattah (2000)

r ḻ

Aliyari (2017)

r Ĭ

S. Belelli (*) “L’Orientale” University of Naples, Naples, Italy e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 Y. Matras et al. (eds.), Structural and Typological Variation in the Dialects of Kurdish, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78837-7_6

239

240 

S. Belelli

1 Introduction and Goals The verbal system of Kurdish languages, and past tense forms in particular, has long been the subject of sedulous linguistic research aimed at investigating the development of so-called split ergativity both within the Kurdish language group and in broader Iranian perspective (cf. Matras 1992/1993; Dorleijn 1996; Haig 2008). At the same time, however, fewer words have been spent to define the general configuration of Tense-­ Aspect-­Mood (TAM) categories in Kurdish varieties, notwithstanding the high degree of cross-dialectal and cluster-internal complexity emerging from descriptive literature.1 This contribution is an attempt at summarizing some observations on the latter subject, with a focus on Southern Kurdish (SK) and a chiefly comparative/dialectological approach. The core questions to be addressed are: how does grammatical tense interact with additional aspectual properties in the expression of past-time reference in SK? How does SK behave in comparison to Central Kurdish (CK) and Northern Kurdish (NK) varieties? Is there any variation in form and/or function operating cluster-­ internally and across dialect clusters? The investigation will consist in a morphological and semantic overview of the subsystem of tense/aspect forms prototypically characterized as ‘past’ in the indicative mood: that is, Preterit (Sect. 4), (Past) Imperfect (Sect. 5), Perfect (Sect. 7), Pluperfect (Sect. 8). For the sake of completeness, we will also include two SK Progressive periphrases (Sect. 6) used in past-time contexts. Past forms in Subjunctive and Irrealis moods—less salient in a discussion of tense categories, though observed to host high degree of dialectal variation—will be left out for future studies.

2 Sources Elicited data on individual Kurdish varieties have been for the most part obtained from the Manchester Database of Kurdish Dialects (Matras et al. 2016, abbreviated MDKD), searched according to the

  A Cross-Dialect Account of Kurdish Past Tense Categories 

241

Tags ‘verb-past-itr’, ‘verb-past-tr’, ‘verb-perf ’. These samples were sufficient to cover in a complete and detailed manner the wide territorial span of NK and CK varieties, but not yet that of SK. Indeed, if choosing SK varieties as the main focus of this study complies with a growing interest for this little-known group of Iranian parlances, it naturally conflicts with the paucity of first-hand data and suffers from a fair degree of uncertainty surrounding the definition of SK as linguistic entity and object of study. Acknowledging the absence of more refined dialectological distinctions, the definition of SK adopted here— reflecting the broadest possible delimitation of the group, with transitional varieties such as Laki-Kermanshahi and Kordali included—is based on the elaborations in Fattah (2000), as understood and commented in Belelli (2019) and Belelli (2021). The MDKD samples pertaining to dialects of the SK group thus defined come from the locations of Baghdad (F001, F002), Khanaqin (S057), Sahneh (G001), and Kermanshah (S013). Additional examples from unrepresented varieties have been retrieved from the textual corpus of Fattah (2000), from the Badre’i text in Blau (1989), from the Kalhori and Sanjabi materials in Aliyari Babolghani (2017), from oral narratives collected in Kermanshah Province and partly published in Belelli (2021), and from two unprocessed recordings stored in the DoBeS Archive.2 To favour readability and comparison, transcriptions have been harmonized broadly based on the conventions adopted in Belelli (2020, 2021).3 The choice of a scientific transcription for the language materials in this chapter does not belittle the value of the Latin-based orthography standardized for NK, and efficiently applied with minor adjustments also to CK and SK data in the MDKD. However, a broadly phonemic and regionally unmarked transcription—in line with the tradition started by MacKenzie (1961)—seemed more suitable for a study encompassing all three macro-varieties of Kurdish. The instances of variation from the conventions adopted in the MDKD and other sources are summarized in a dedicated chart at the beginning of the chapter. To facilitate the search and retrieval of online data, place names and glottonyms have been kept

242 

S. Belelli

as they feature in the MDKD, alongside sample numbers. The remaining occurrences have been uniformed accordingly. Due to the lack of a unified terminology for the denomination of the relevant Kurdish verb forms in descriptive works, we have opted for those of wider usage in Kurdish and Iranian linguistics. Reference to English labels will be made whenever useful for disambiguation and clarity. The overall methodological and terminological framework follows Comrie (1976, 1985).

3 Generalities on Past Tense/Aspect Forms in Iranian The verbal system of New Iranian languages is characterized by the presence of tense, aspect, mood, and voice distinctions, as well as by a dichotomy between past and non-past stems on which the whole constellation of verbal forms is derived. The latter situation, relevant for the description of the Kurdish tense/ aspect categories concerning us here, can be seen as the historical outcome of a major shift—believed to have occurred gradually across Late Old and Early Middle Iranian—from an aspect-centred to a tense-­centred verbal system. While the system of Old Avestan appears to be largely grounded on a basic aspectual opposition between an imperfective (so-­ called present) vs. a perfective (so-called aorist) stem, Later Avestan and particularly Old Persian (on which see Rossi forthcoming) attest for an ongoing transition towards a system based primarily on a binary distinction of tense, with the parameter ‘past’ marked by the augment a- (cf. Skjærvø 2009, p. 126). Moreover, Old Persian saw the emergence of a new analytic form based on the verbal adjective in -ta-, commonly referred to as ‘Past Participle’, competing with the inherited synthetic (augmented) ‘Imperfect’4 and the already moribund Aorist in the expression of complete situations in the past. This so-called manā kartam construction is commonly connected to

  A Cross-Dialect Account of Kurdish Past Tense Categories 

243

the rise of ergative alignment in later Iranian languages, including most varieties of Kurdish.5 This restructuration process came to completion in Middle Iranian times when the Old Iranian system collapsed and was rebuilt based on the Past Participle, further grammaticalized into a Past stem in later Iranian languages (for an overview of the process, see Bubenik 1997; Windfuhr 2009, pp. 24–25). Due to the full integration of the inherited participial form into the basic system of tenses, most new Iranian languages recreated innovated past participles through other morphemes, that is, adjectival suffixes, on which new analytic tense/aspect forms were built.

3.1 Generalities on Past Tense/Aspect Forms in Kurdish Thence, Kurdish languages—as virtually all contemporary Western Iranian languages6—grammaticalize a core past/non-past time opposition that lays at the very base of tense distinctions. Nonetheless, beyond their temporal values, tense categories remain deeply intertwined with aspectual shades that need to be taken into consideration in any comprehensive treatment of the verbal system of these varieties. Before going into detail on the latter question, it is worth recalling some preliminary notions on the verbal system of Kurdish, and SK in particular. It is in fact well known that both NK and CK manifest forms of ergativity/agentiality in the conjugation of transitive verbs built on the Past stem. In all the dialects of these two groups, the ergative/agential construction involves a marked A (i.e. logical subject of transitive constructions), either in the Oblique case or expressed by an appropriate bound pronoun, an unmarked O (i.e. object of transitive constructions), either in the Direct case or its simple uninflected form, and a verb prototypically agreeing with the O, despite violations of this norm are fairly widespread (cf. Haig 2008, p. 231ff., 296ff.). The range of variation spans between the ‘canonical’ ergativity observed in some dialects of NK (1) to

244 

S. Belelli

the agential construction involving bound pronouns, characteristic of CK (2). (1) NK min av k’itāb=a xwānd-Ø 1SG.OBL PROX.DIR book=DEM.DIR read.PST-3SG (2) CK min am kitēb=a=m xwēnd-Ø=awa7 1SG PROX book=DEM=BP1SG read.PST-3SG=PRT ‘I read (PST) this book’.

Unlike other Kurdish varieties and most languages and dialects spoken in the same region, SK varieties are typologically characterized by a straightforward nominative-accusative alignment, without any formal difference in the conjugation of transitive and intransitive verbs in the present (3a) and the past (3b). This means that core Arguments—S (i.e. subject of intransitive constructions), A, and O—of simple (synthetic) verbal forms are unmarked for case and the subject of any verb, irrespective of transitivity and tense, is normally cross-referenced via a personal agreement suffix on the verb.8 (3) SK a. mi(n) ē/ī kitāw=a (a−/da−/ma-)xwan-im 1SG PROX book=DEM (IMPF-)read.PRS-1SG ‘I read (PRS) this book’ b.

mi(n) ē/ī kitāw=a xwānd-im 1SG PROX book=DEM read.PST-1SG ‘I read (PST) this book’.

This feature of SK grammar is recognized as an isogloss of major dialectological significance, involving all dialects of this group and capable of delineating a sharp boundary between them and their closest linguistic neighbours.9 Indeed, even other regional languages and dialects spoken in proximity to SK—namely Laki ‘proper’ and Gorani/Hawrami—show forms of agentiality, as illustrated in (4–5).10

  A Cross-Dialect Account of Kurdish Past Tense Categories 

245

(4) Laki mi(n) ē/ī kitāw=a=m hwēan-Ø/xwan-Øa 1SG PROX book=DEM=BP1SG read.PST-3SG (5) Gorani mi(n) ē/ī kitāw=a=m wan-Ø 1SG PROX book=DEM=BP1SG read.PST-3SG ‘I read (PST) this book’. a

Various forms of the Past Stem of this verb are reported in the literature on Laki. Their prevalence within Laki dialects, however, remains unchecked

Despite these differences in alignment and agreement patterns, the basic morphological properties of SK past categories show substantial analogies with their counterparts in other Kurdish varieties, as well as in cognate Western Iranian languages. Kurdish verbal expressions for locating situations in past time can be either simple (synthetic) or complex (analytic): simple forms, that is, Preterit and Imperfect, are based on the Past stem, transparently related to the Infinitive (marked by a suffix -(i)n). Complex forms, that is, Perfect and Pluperfect, are opaquely or transparently built on a Past Participle derived from the Past stem through dedicated morphemes, and require a Present or Past Copula verb. In Kurdish—as in other Western Iranian languages such as New Persian and Balochi—‘perfectivity is [morphologically] unmarked, or rather the finitized PP [Past Participle] form [i.e. the Past Stem] is aspectually ambiguous’ (Bubenik and Ziamajidi 2018, p. 80). Only the Imperfect is formed through dedicated aspectual markers, varying to some degree in individual dialects or bundles of dialects. All forms, both simple and complex, combine with agreement markers expressing the categories of person and number, and with morphemes expressing negation. More detail on morphological variation concerning these forms will be provided for each tense/aspect category in the paragraphs that follow, before proceeding to the analysis of their semantic properties.

246 

S. Belelli

4 Preterit 4.1 Morphology of Kurdish Preterits The morphological properties of NK and CK Preterits are compatible with parallel SK forms, being uniformly built on the bare Past stem combined with appropriate person-number agreement. NK and CK personal suffixes (Table 1) are nearly identical in all dialects pertaining to each group. Minor variation is observed in South-­eastern NK dialects that show—as neighbouring CK—an additional distinction between the 1PL and the other two persons of the plural, as illustrated in (6b). (6a) NK Qamishly (MDKD K033) ta am/aw dīt-in 2SG.OBL 1PL.DIR/3PL.DIR see.PST-1PL/3PL ‘You(SG) saw us/them’. (6b) NK Akre (MDKD K044) ta am dīt-īn 2SG.OBL 1PL.DIR see.PST-1PL ‘You(SG) saw us’. Table 1  NK and CK Past personal suffixesa NK

CK

SG

PL

SG

1 -im

-in -īn

-im -īn

2 -ī -ē 3 -Ø

PL

: South-east (= CK, cf. Öpengin and Haig 2014, p. 162)

-in

-ī(t) -in

-in

-Ø

: South-east (cf. MacKenzie 1961, §286) -in

Unless otherwise stated, the forms in tables are those occurring after consonant. In corresponding post-vocalic forms the unstable (“short”) vowel /i/ is normally deleted, while stable (‘long’) vowels are either converted into corresponding semivowels or preceded by inserted glides

a

In both NK and CK, verbal agreement is with the S of intransitive Preterits (7a–b) and—at least in ‘canonical’ ergative/agential c­ onstructions—with the O of transitive Preterits (8a–b). CK varieties further require bound pronouns (Table 2) as obligatory markers for the A of transitive verbs.

  A Cross-Dialect Account of Kurdish Past Tense Categories 

247

Table 2  CK bound pronouns 1

2

3

SG

PL

=im

=mān =in

=it =u

: marginal (e.g. Shaqlawa, Baneh MDKD S045, S048 to ēma=w bīnī ‘you.SG saw us’)

=ī

=tān =ū

: Oshnaviye (marginal, cf. MacKenzie 1961, §197; Öpengin 2016, p. 92) : Mukri (informal? Cf. MacKenzie 1961, §197; Öpengin 2016, p. 92)

=yān

(7a) NK Cizre (MDKD K014) az hāt-im māl-ē 1SG.DIR come.PST-1SG home-OBL.F (7b) CK Sulaymaniyah (MDKD S005) min hāt-im bo māɫ=awa 1SG come.PST-1SG to home=PRT ‘I came (back) home’.

(8a) NK Sersink (MDKD K038, K039) awī havāl=ēn/=ēd xwa dīt-in 3SG.OBL.M friend=EZ.DEF.PL self see.PST-3PL ‘He saw his friends’. (8b) CK Sulaymaniyah (MDKD S034) aw řafīq-akān=ī bīnī-Ø 3SG friend-DEF.PL=BP3SG see.PST-3SG ‘He/she saw his/her friends’.

In both NK and CK, negation is expressed by a prefix na-: (9a) NK Şırnak (K009) min na-xwānd-Ø 1SG.OBL NEG-study.PST-3SG ‘I did not study’. (9b) CK Erbil (S002, S021) (min) na-m-xwēnd-Ø=awa 1SG NEG-BP1SG-read.PST-3SG=PRT ‘I did not read (over) [‘study’ in the MDKD]’.

248 

S. Belelli

Table 3  SK Past personal suffixesa SG

PL

1

-im

: common SK

-īm(in)b -īmān -īmīn -imin -īn

2

-ī(d) -īdin

: majority of SK : Kalhori-Sanjabi-Zanganeh (supplementary) : Laki-Kermanshahi : Badre’i : Kordali

-in -īn -ītin

: common SK : occasionally after vowel, especially /ā/, in Preterit and Imperfect forms

-in

-ī(t) -id -ī(n)

3

-Ø -t/−d/−g

-ītān -īdān -īnān

: majority of SK : Bijari : Badre’i (marginal) : Kordali (marginal) : Kalhori-Sanjabi-­Zanganeh; Kolya’i (marginal) : majority of SK : Kalhori-Sanjabi-­Zanganeh : Laki-Kermanshahi (Harsin; Chehr) : Laki-Kermanshahi (Sahneh; Payravand; Bisotun) : Payravand; Bisotun (marginal, = Laki ‘proper’) common SK

See Fattah (2000, p. 466ff.) for more details on the distribution of forms The forms -īm and -īmin are in free variation in many SK dialects, with a strong propensity for the latter with Past stems ending in /ī, y, ü/: in this case, the presence of the segment -in disambiguates 1SG and 1PL forms, řasī-m ‘I arrived’ vs. řasī-min ‘we arrived’. As suggested by Öpengin (p.c.), this variation resembles the optional -in of 3SG Present endings in South-eastern NK and CK dialects of the transition area (cf. MacKenzie 1961, §283 and §208, respectively), where the segment might be helpful in distinguishing 2SG and 3SG forms. Notably, similar instances concern also 2SG and 3SG Present and Past endings in some KalhoriSanjabi-Zanganeh and Ilami-Malekshahi dialects (on which cf. Fattah 2000, p. 473, 485 and passim)

a

b

Despite relevant differences in alignment patterns, the general structure of the SK Preterit is consistent with that of the same category in other varieties of Kurdish: in all SK dialects, it is formed by the bare Past stem combined with an appropriate item from the set of Past personal suffixes (Table 3). It is noticeable, however, that the form of agreement markers used in individual SK dialects or dialect clusters is not at all uniform. The Kalhori-­ Sanjabi-­Zanganeh subgroup is characterized by maximal affinity to CK forms, while Laki-Kermanshahi and Kordali varieties diverge the most from the rest of SK.

  A Cross-Dialect Account of Kurdish Past Tense Categories 

249

Such morphological richness—especially concerning 2SG, 1PL, and 2PL suffixes—calls for an explanation. A part of the answer may lay in the convergence of inherited verbal suffixes with the set of clitic pronouns originally used as A markers in CK-like past transitive constructions, immobilized after the verb as agreement markers contextually to the demise of ergativity (cf. Bubenik 1997, p. 306; Haig 2008, p. 300). If this is the case, there might have been, in origin at least, two distinct sets of past endings occurring with transitive and intransitive verbs in SK, but these seem to have largely coalesced and be currently used indiscriminately of the transitivity parameter. As in NK and CK, negation is expressed on SK Preterits by the prefix na-: (10) SK Laki-Kermanshahi, Sahneh (MDKD G001) ma na-čī-m=a šar 1SG NEG-go.PST-1SG=DRCT town ‘I didn’t go to the town’.

4.2 Semantics of Kurdish Preterits The Kurdish Preterit is commonly described as covering the semantic ranges of the English Past Simple. Like its English counterpart, it is prototypically used to denote situations that took place before the time of the utterance/the present moment, locating them in generic past time. However, its core aspectual characterization is perfectivity: the situation described is typically encoded as a whole, viewed in its entirety, without any statement on its internal temporal constituency. Taking a look at correspondences in the MDKD for the SK sentences in (11c–14)—among which those in (8) above and (11a–b) below—it is safe to assume that the Preterit manifests similar semantic values in virtually all Kurdish varieties, where it works as neutral perfective used as unmarked tense to describe complete events in past time.

250  (11a)

S. Belelli NK Hakkâri (MDKD K016) min torb-ak=ī pātātēs kirī-Ø 1SG.OBL bag-INDF=EZ.M potato buy.PST-3SG

(11b) CK Sulaymaniyah (MDKD S020) kīsa/farda-yēk patat=im kiřī-Ø bag-INDF potato=BP1SG buy.PST-3SG (11c)

SK Kermanshah (MDKD S013) mi yē kīsa sēbzamīnī san-im 1SG INDF bag potato buy.PST-1SG ‘I bought a bag of potatoes’.

The nature of this form emerges clearly from the SK data in the MDKD, where it typically translates English Simple Past verbs without further adverbial specifications. (12) SK Laki-Kermānshahi, Sahneh (MDKD G001) ava řafīq-ayl=ī dī-Ø 3SG friend-PL=BP3SG see.PST-3SG ‘He/she saw his/her friends’. (13) SK Kalhori, Khanaqin (MDKD S057) pirtiqāl-aga wa dast=ī xwa=y ʕasir kird-Ø orange-DEF with hand=EZ self=3SG juice do.PST-3SG ‘He/she squeezed the orange with his/her hand’. (14) SK Baghdad (MDKD F001) ma kār=im xālās kird-im 1SG work=BP1SG complete do.PST-1SG ‘I finished my work’.

Likewise, the use of tenses other than the Preterit in NK and CK equivalents of these sentences in the MDKD is extremely unusual, and perhaps in part determined by non-systematic/idiosyncratic factors.11 In order to specify time location, SK Preterit verbs can combine with lexical elements—time adverbs and adverbial phrases, such as ‘last night’ in (15), ‘yesterday’ in (16a–b), or ‘last year’ in (17)—without any apparent restriction in terms of temporal distance.

  A Cross-Dialect Account of Kurdish Past Tense Categories 

251

(15) SK Laki-Kermanshahi, Sahneh (MDKD G001) mi düa.šaw fira gīra kird-im 1SG last_night a_lot cry do.PST-1SG ‘I cried a lot last night’. (16a) SK Kermanshah (MDKD S013) düaka ma Hasan dē-m yesterday 1SG Hasan see.PST-1SG ‘Yesterday I saw Hasan’. (16b) SK Sanjabi, Gahvareh (Aliyari Babolghani 2017, p. 360 no.31) döka wagard māɫ=ā čī-m(in) ařā wēša yesterday with family=PRT go.PST-1PL to forest ‘Yesterday we went to the forest with (our) family’. (17) SK Kolya’i (Fattah 2000, p. 239) pišī-yaga=mān pāraka panj ̌ tütik howird-Ø cat-DEF=BP1PL last_year five kitten bring.PST-3SG ‘Our cat had five kittens last year’.

Examples (18–19) further illustrate that Preterits can be used also for situations that are internally complex or extending over a time period of considerable length, provided that they are viewed as enclosed by a beginning and an end. (18) SK Laki-Kermanshahi, Sahneh (MDKD G001) ava vagar ma sāʕat-ayl=i fira-y qisa_kird-Ø 3SG with 1SG hour-PL=EZ many-INDF? speak.PST-3SG ‘He/She spoke to me for many hours [but stopped speaking at some point]’. (19) SK Laki-Kermanshahi, Sahneh (MDKD G001) āyīl-aka kull=ī řuž bāzī_kird-in children-DEF all=BP3SG/EZ?12 day play.PST-3PL ‘The boys played all day [but stopped playing at some point]’.

The vast majority of NK and CK equivalents of these two sentences in the MDKD involve a Preterit verb, although imperfective forms are occasionally attested.13 Indeed, due to a certain flexibility/neutrality concerning the degree of remoteness and the duration of the situation described by a Preterit—not

252 

S. Belelli

necessarily punctual, contrary to what Fattah (2000, p. 374) suggests for SK14—this represents the unmarked category selected for encoding complete situations in past time, be they recent or distant, momentary or not. In several SK dialects, the Preterit functions as basic tense of the narration, often used beside or in combination with the historical Present in the description of linear sequences of past events. (20) SK Kalhori-Sanjabi-Zanganeh (Fattah 2000, p. 860 no.14) düat=īš čud=aw nāw sar=i žin girl=ADD go.PRS.3SG=DRCT inside head=EZ woman nā-Ø        bān=i  rān=ē        u    sar=ī         nuris-Ø put.PST-3SG on=EZ thigh=BP3SG and head=BP3SG look.PST-3SG ‘So, the girl entered [lit. enters], placed the woman’s head on her lap and searched her head (for lice)’. (21) SK Badre’i of Baghdad (Blau 1989, p. 49 no.55) hāt-in=āw nazīk, tamāšā a-ka-n yē come.PST-3PL=DRCT close look IND-do.PRS-3SG INDF šaxs-ēg       hā-Ø               la_tē [...] person-INDF be.there.PRS-3SG inside ‘They came close and saw [lit. see] there was [lit. is] a person inside there [...]’.

The perfective nature of the Kurdish Preterit is defined and reinforced by contrast with the aspectual characterization of morphological Imperfect forms describing the internal structure of a situation as habitual, continuous, or repetitive in the past. As we will see in Sect. 5, however, not all SK dialects overtly grammaticalize such perfective/imperfective opposition: those that do not resort to the Preterit also for the expression of imperfective nuances in the past. On the other hand, most Kurdish varieties manifest a non-­ perfect/perfect aspectual opposition. In this regard, the Preterit contrasts with the Perfect (Sect. 7), that applies to past events seen as having current relevance, validity or observable outcomes in the present. The applicability of this general rule, however, seems at odds with the apparent existence, at least in a subgroup of SK varieties, of a Preterit/Perfect competition for the expression of non-perfect situations in past time.

  A Cross-Dialect Account of Kurdish Past Tense Categories 

253

Finally, it should be mentioned that the Kurdish Preterit—being in fact a form with ‘Aorist’ functions just like its New Persian equivalent (cf. Windfuhr 1985, pp. 417–418)—has subsidiary non-past usages (cf. McCarus 2009, p. 610 on CK). This observation applies also to SK Preterits, occasionally denoting an imminent future (22), a past in the future/future perfect (23), or a future in the past/future conditional (24). (22) SK Kalhori, Khanaqin (MDKD S057) min   ču-m ařē māɫ 1SG go.PST-1SG to home ‘I’m going home’. (23) SK Laki-Kermanshahi, Harsin (Belelli 2021, 6:130) har_vaqt dus_dāšt-ī gušt=i šotor b-ār-Ø whenever like.PST-2SG meat=EZ camel SBJV-bring.PRS-2SG.IMPR ařā  wiž=it      bi-xwa-Ø for  self=BP2SG SBJV-eat.PRS-2SG.IMPR ‘Whenever you like [lit. liked], take some camel meat (out) and eat it for your own benefit’. (24) SK Ilami-Malekshahi (Fattah 2000, p. 874 no. 53–55) kēwānu-a     üš-ēg=ē          «ē    kawš=a       hin=i old.lady-DEF say.PRS-3SG=3SG PROX shoe=DEM thing=EZ ton=a?». agar wit-Ø «a», kēwānu üš-ēg [...] you=COP.PRS.3SG if say.PST-­3SG yes old.lady say.PRS-­3SG ‘The old lady would ask her [lit. asks her] “Is this shoe yours?”. If (the girl) would have answered [lit. answered] “yes” the lady would say [lit. says] [...]’

5 Imperfect 5.1 Morphology of Kurdish Imperfects The Imperfect is the past tense/aspect form showing the greatest degree of morphological variation throughout Kurdish. Morphological Imperfects exist in both NK and CK where they consist of an aspectual affix (Table 4), preceding the Past stem of the verb specified for person and number

254 

S. Belelli

Table 4  NK and CK imperfective markers NK

CK

di- : common NK da- : common CK da- : West/North-west (e.g. Elbistan, Adiyaman-Urfa) t: South/South-east a- : Sulaymaniyah, etc. (cf. MacKenzie 1961, a- : South-east (marginal, e.g. §206); Sanandaj, etc. (cf. Christensen Surchi, cf. MacKenzie and Barr 1939, p. 220) 1961, §281)

through appropriate agreement markers (Table 1). As for Preterits, agreement patterns vary according to verb transitivity. Besides the common NK form di-, the aspectual affix da- (akin to the CK one) is attested in some North-western NK dialects, while a form t- occurs in Southern NK dialects. (25a) NK Elbistan (MDKD K022) mērik k’ar da-k’išānd-Ø man donkey IMPF-pull.PST-3SG (25b) NK Beroj, Tepkê (MDKD K106, K109) zilām k’ar t-kišānd-Ø man donkey IMPF-pull.PST-3SG ‘The man was pulling the donkey’.

CK varieties commonly have da-, except in the region of Sulaymaniyah where a- is used. The latter form is attested also in other CK dialects of Iraq (e.g. Sangaw) and the Iranian province of Kordestan (in so-called Sina’i or Ardalani dialects, e.g. Sanandaj, Baneh, Saqqez). (26a) CK Sangaw (MDKD S074) piyāw-aka kar-aka=y řā a-čēšā-Ø man-DEF donkey-DEF=BP3SG PRT IMPF-pull.PST-3SG (26b) CK Baneh (MDKD S048) kābirā    kar-aka=y          řā    a-kēšā-Ø man-DEF donkey-DEF=BP3SG PRT IMPF-pull.PST-3SG ‘The man was pulling the donkey’.

If NK di- and CK da- are clearly different vocalizations of the same morpheme, NK t−/a- and CK a- might be explained as deriving from an

  A Cross-Dialect Account of Kurdish Past Tense Categories 

255

original *at- form, if the hypothesis advanced by Stilo (2007) for Central Plateau dialects can be extended also to Kurdish.15 As with Preterits, NK and CK Imperfects are normally negated by a prefix na-: (27a) NK Karlıova (MDKD K060), etc. kar     na-di-čū-Ø donkey NEG-IMPF-go.PST-3SG (27b) CK Khalakan (MDKD S075) kar-aka na-da-hāt-Ø=a pēš donkey-DEF NEG-IMPF-come.PST-3SG=DRCT forward (27c) CK Saqqez (MDKD S051) kar-aka      pēš        na-a-kawt-Ø16 donkey-DEF forward NEG-IMPF-fall.PST-3SG ‘The donkey would not advance/was not advancing’.

Isolated exceptions are recorded in Western NK, where the negative prefix is nā-: (28) NK Adiyaman-Urfa (Haig 2018, p. 126 fn. 8) nā-da-kir-in NEG-IMPF-do.PST-3PL ‘They were not doing it’.

The impression drawn from the MDKD, however, is that the form nāmight be more widespread in NK than generally assumed, perhaps limitedly to counterfactual contexts, for example, Varto tu nā-di-hāt ‘you would not come’ MDKD K087; Sewîdiyê az nā-di-čū ‘I would not have gone’ MDKD K107; Kelhê k’ar nā-di-hāt ‘the donkey would not come’ MDKD K108. We may envisage, in these cases, an extension of use of the negative morpheme nā- substituting di- in the Present Indicative, although this hypothesis remains speculative.17 The form nā- occurs also in CK varieties having a- as formant of affirmative Imperfects, either in substitution to the aspectual marker, or in combination with it (as in 29). (29) CK Sangaw (MDKD S074) kar-aka hič nā-a-hāt=a pēš=awa donkey-DEF nothing NEG-IMPF-come.PST=DRCT front=PRT ‘The donkey would not advance’.

256 

S. Belelli

In addition to this kind of morphological Imperfects, MacKenzie (1961, §§283, 311) notes the presence in South-eastern NK of a ‘Present Imperfect’ consisting of a particle dā followed by the Present stem conjugated for person and number. This construction has been described as being more or less coextensive with the Imperfect in denoting continuous state or habitual/repetitive action in the (distant?) past, as well as in the expression of counterfactual eventualities in the present or (near) past.18 (30) NK Kanyder (MDKD K048) hagar dūnē bārān na-bārī-bā-Ø if yesterday rain NEG-rain.PST-SBJV.PST-3SG dā    či-n=a            pārk PRT go.PRS-1PL=DRCT park ‘If it hadn't rained yesterday, we would go/have gone to the park [by now]’. (31) NK Kanyder (MDKD K048) agar ta bāš šūl kir-bā-Ø if 2SG.OBL well work do.PST-SBJV.PST-3SG pār-ak=ī           bāš     dā     paydā_ka-y money-INDF=EZ.M good PRT find.PRS-2SG ‘If you had worked hard, you would earn/have earned a lot of money [by now]’.

This supplementary tense category of NK—formally akin to NK futures marked by dē and apparently incompatible with negation—is unknown to both CK and SK, likewise devoid of inherited morphological futures. As the other two groups, most SK dialects have a basic prefixed Imperfect conjugation, built through an aspectual imperfective affix (Table 5) attaching to the Past stem followed by Past personal endings (Table 3). Table 5  SK imperfective markers adi(=a) ma-

: Kolya’i, Badre’i, Laki-Kermanshahi of Sahneh : Bijari, most Ilami-Malekshahi, Kordali : most Laki-Kermanshahi (= Laki ‘proper’)

Much variation is observed in the SK affixes used to mark imperfectivity on the Past stem: items akin to NK and CK forms are common in SK dialects possessing morphological Imperfects, with the notable exception of most Laki-Kermanshahi varieties using a morpheme ma- combined

  A Cross-Dialect Account of Kurdish Past Tense Categories 

257

with an obligatory =a clitic, of uncertain origin, attaching to the element preceding the verbal phrase. This discontinuous (=a) ma- morpheme, shared with Laki ‘proper’, is comparable with Gorani ma- (cf. Mahmoudveysi et al. 2012, p. 40), Persian mi- (< Middle Persian hamē(w) ‘for all time, forever’) and cognates.19 The form of the negative prefix is dependent on that of the aspectual affix. To a- corresponds the negation na-. As already observed for CK, these two morphemes commonly coalesce in a form nā- (as in 32). (32) SK Badre’i of Baghdad (Blau 1989, p. 49 no.49) xwa=yān nā-zānis-in ya koř kačaɫ=a self=BP3PL NEG.IMPF-know.PST-3PL PROX boy bald=COP.PRS.3SG ‘They (themselves) didn’t know this was [lit. is] the bald boy’.

Less frequently, the aspectual and negative markers are juxtaposed, with the intervention of a glottal stop (as in 33) or more rarely a glide /y/ in between (e.g. Dinavar na-y-a-kird-im ‘I wasn’t doing’, Fattah 2000, p. 398). (33) SK Laki-Kermanshahi, Sahneh (MDKD G001) pyāw-aka xar-aka a-kīšā-Ø walī xar-aka man-DEF donkey-DEF IMPF-pull.PST-3SG but donkey-DEF na-[Ɂ]a-ču-Ø            wa_nuwā NEG-IMPF-go.PST-3SG forward ‘The man was pulling the donkey but the donkey would not advance’.

Most dialects using di- negate the Imperfect by means of a prefix nya(perhaps < *ni-da- through *n(i)-ya-) replacing the aspectual marker. Only a minority of these have nē- (perhaps < *na-di- through *na-­ y(i)-) or ni-: (34a) SK Ilami-Malekshahi (Fattah 2000, p. 875 no.98) ha düd=ī di-kird-Ø u dam nya-gird-Ø ITER smoke=BP3PL IMPF-do.PST-3SG and heat NEG-take.PST-3SG (34b) SK Kordali (Fattah 2000, p. 901 no.98) hē     dī      di-kird-Ø          o    taš   nē-gird-Ø ITER smoke IMPF-do.PST-3SG and fire NEG-take.PST-3SG (34c) SK Bijari (Fattah 2000, p. 905 no.98) har    dü     di-kird-Ø         u     gir    ni-gird-Ø ITER smoke IMPF-do.PST-3SG and fire NEG-take.PST-3SG ‘It [the wood] kept smoking and would not catch fire’.

258 

S. Belelli

The prefix ni-ma- negates Imperfects built with (=a) ma-, dispensing with the presence of the =a clitic of affirmative forms: (35) Laki-Kermanshahi, Bisotun (Belelli, unpublished recording) hüčkē ni-ma-zānist-Ø=ī=š nobody NEG-IMPF-know.PST-3SG=BP3SG=ADD ‘Well, nobody knew him’.

A second, smaller group of SK dialects—namely, some Kalhori-­Sanjabi-­ Zanganeh, some Ilami-Malekshahi, and a minority of Kolya’i—possess an alternative ‘infixed’ Imperfect conjugation (cf. Fattah 2000, p. 375ff.) combining the Past stem with an affix -(y)ā- followed by Past personal endings (Table 3, with optional -d/−t/−g in the 3SG). This form seems to identify situations as prototypically durative,20 as opposed to punctual or momentary. In example (36), the Imperfect describes the same situation of the Preterit verb in (15), but looking at its time extension, rather than its relevant time limits. (36) SK Kalhori, Khanaqin (MDKD S057) düwaka šaw fira giri-yā-m yesterday night a.lot cry.PST-IMPF?-1SG ‘I cried/kept crying a lot last night’.

Here, the final /ī/ of the Past stem girī- ‘to cry’ is reduced to /i/ before the affix -yā-. More often, however, the stem vowel coalesces with the semivocalic element of the affix (cf. Fattah 2000, p. 376), making the position of the morpheme boundary difficult to locate. For these dialects, the negative marker is either nya- or na-, as in (37): (37) SK Kermanshah (Fattah 2000, p. 891 no.98) har dud kird-yā-d u āgir na-gird-yā-d ITER smoke do.PST-IMPF?-3SG and fire NEG-take.PST-IMPF?-3SG ‘It [the wood] kept smoking and would not catch fire’.

Also the SK dialects that possess prefixed Imperfects may see the presence of an additional affix -(y)ā- restrictedly to stems ending in /ī, y, ü/ (as in

  A Cross-Dialect Account of Kurdish Past Tense Categories 

259

38–39), with full coalescence between the stem vowel and the semivowel of the affix. This circumstance results in what Fattah (2000, pp. 377–378) defines as a morphologically redundant ‘double affixation’. (38) Laki-Kermanshahi, Bisotun (Belelli, unpublished recording) hamīša nām ī šar-il=a va libās=i darwīšī=a always in PROX city-PL=DEM in clothes=EZ dervish-like=IND ma-gardyā-Ø IND-stroll.PST.IMPF?-3SG ‘He used to stroll around these cities in dervish clothing’. (39) Laki-Kermanshahi, Harsin (Belelli 2021, 6:186) töwirg=a ma-wāryā-Ø hail=IND IND-rain.PST.IMPF?-3SG ‘It was hailing’.

It is interesting to note that this SK ‘infixed’ Imperfect is unparalleled (or at least extremely rare) in other Kurdish varieties,21 a fact that compels us to look for other possible explanations on the nature and origin of the -(y)ā- morpheme involved in these constructions. In Kurdish, formally similar morphemes are used in a range of functions related to detransitivization—such as in the SK passive past conjugation (cf. Fattah 2000, 502ff.)22 and with unaccusative/anticausative verbs (cf. Haig and Öpengin 2018, p. 201), which would indeed fit examples 36, 37, and 39 above—as well as in the formation of the SK Past Subjunctive. In this respect, Fattah (2000, pp. 376–377) warns about the possibility of a ‘formal confusion’ between ‘infixed’ Imperfects, passive Preterits and Past Subjunctives (when devoid of the modal marker bi-) in all the SK varieties concerned. It is still unclear whether we should consider the ‘imperfective’ and passive/anticausative -yā- morphemes as having the same origin.23 If this is not the case, we may alternatively postulate—limitedly to the ‘imperfective’ affix—a grammaticalization process, not necessarily recent, from a locative structure akin to CK infinitival periphrases with la … (d)ā denoting progressive action, for example, la řoyštin-(d)ā-yn ‘we are going’ (cf. McCarus 2009, p. 619). The question, however, cannot be disentangled based on the available data and deserves closer investigation.

260 

S. Belelli

5.2 Semantics of Kurdish Imperfects Notwithstanding the morphological differences characterizing SK Imperfects, their semantic properties look consistent in all varieties possessing these forms. Imperfect verbs prototypically combine imperfective aspect with past-time reference, describing the internal constituency of a situation as habitual, continuous,24 or repetitive/iterative in the past. (40) SK Badre’i (Fattah 2000, pp. 868–869 no.100) düat […] wa nīmešaw=ār […] ar a-hāt-Ø, nāw=i girl at midnight=PRT out IMPF-come.PST-3SG inside=EZ māɫ-aga    pāk     a-kird-Ø […]        dam=i      kwānig    ařā=y house-DEF clean IMPF-do.PST-3SG heat=EZ fireplace for=BP3SG a-dā-Ø,           āw=i        čāy  ařā=y      a-nyā-Ø=w IND-give.PST-3SG water=EZ tea for=BP3SG IMPF-put.PST-3SG=DRCT dār,     ēgil  a-čü-Ø             xwē        a-šārt-Ø=āw stove then IMPF-go.PST-3SG self.BP3SG IMPF-hide.PST-3SG=PRT ‘The girl […], (every day) at midnight, would come out […] would clean the house for her, stoke the fire for her, put the water for the tea on the stove for her, and then she’d go hide again’. (41) SK Laki-Kermanshahi, Sahneh (MDKD G001) žin-aka har_řuž panjara-yl-aka a-škānd-Ø woman-DEF every_day window-PL-DEF IMPF-break.PST-3SG ‘The woman broke windows every day [ITER ‘all day’ in the MDKD]’.

Contrary to NK and CK, where Imperfects are normally used to denote progressiveness25 in past time (cf. McCarus 2009, p. 610), SK Imperfects are only residually applied to progressive situations, as most SK dialects possess dedicated periphrases (Sect. 6) for this specific range of meanings. However, according to some sources, an additional form based on Present Perfect morphology and marked by the imperfective prefix di- (as further discussed in Sect. 7) may encode past progressive semantics separately in some varieties of NK, as well (cf. Bulut 2000, p. 150, who nonetheless admits to ‘have never come across these progressive forms in literature’, id. p. 177 fn. 3).

  A Cross-Dialect Account of Kurdish Past Tense Categories 

261

In both SK and CK—unlike NK where conditionals are more frequently used (cf. Thackston 2006, pp. 64–65)—Imperfects play important roles also in hypothetical contexts, being the straightforward choice for the apodosis of counterfactual conditions.26 (42a) SK Laki-Kermanshahi, Sahneh (MDKD G001) ar firatir kār a-kird-ī pül=i if more work IMPF-do.PST-2SG money=EZ bīštir  va  dast    a-tyāwird-ī27 more to   hand IMPF-bring.PST-2SG (42b) SK Kalhori, Khanaqin (MDKD S057) agar tu fira xās kār bi-kird-ā-yī if 2SG very well work SBJV-do.PST-SBJV.PST-2SG pāra=y       xās-ī          ḥāsil   a-kird-ī money=EZ good-INDF total IMPF-do.PST-2SG ‘If you had worked hard, you would have earned a lot of money’. (43) SK Laki-Kermanshahi, Sahneh (MDKD G001) agar düwaka wārān n-āt=ü īma if yesterday rain NEG-come.PST=COP.PST.3SG we a-čī-yā-ym=a                pārk IND-go.PST-IMPF?-1PL=DRCT park ‘If it hadn’t rained yesterday, we would go to the park’.

However, as already mentioned in Sect. 4, not all SK dialects possess a distinct Imperfect conjugation. Most varieties of the Kalhori subgroup, in the absence of morphological markers of imperfectivity,28 attribute aspectual traits of habituality, continuousness, and iterativity in the past to Preterit verbs, with the optional use of temporal or modal adverbials (such as fira ‘much, a lot’ in 44) specifying imperfective semantics. (44) SK Kalhori, Khanaqin (MDKD S057) piyāw-aka fira xar-aga=y kīšī-Ø man-DEF much donkey-DEF=BP3SG pull-3SG bas    xar-aga      na-hāt-Ø         wagard=ī but donkey-DEF NEG-come-3SG with=BP3SG ‘The man was pulling the/his donkey (very much) but the donkey would not advance’.

262 

S. Belelli

This can be noted also from a comparison of the Kalhori text in (45) with its Badre’i equivalent in (40), where prefixed Imperfects are used. (45) SK Kalhori (Fattah 2000, p. 862 no.100) düat-a la nīmēšaw dir āt-Ø [...], nāw=i girl-DEF at midnight out come.PST-3SG inside=EZ māɫ    pāk=aw   kird-Ø […]  dam=i     kwānē       ařā=y house clean=PRT do.PST-3SG heat=EZ fireplace for=BP3SG dā-Ø,             āw=i        čāy  ařā=y       nā-Ø=w IND-give.PST-3SG water=EZ tea for=BP3SG put.PST-3SG=DRCT bān,  düāxir  čē-Ø         xwē        šārd-Ø=āw over then   go.PST-3SG self.BP3SG hide.PST-3SG=PRT ‘The girl […], (every day) at midnight, would come out […] would clean the house for her, stoke the fire for her, put the water for the tea on the stove for her, and then she’d go hide again’.

In (46a–b), we observe that Kalhori Preterits parallel also ‘infixed’ Imperfect forms in other varieties of the Kalhori-Sanjabi-Zanganeh group: (46a) SK Kalhori, Gilan-e Gharb (Aliyari Babolghani 2017, p. 372 no.56) čī-m=a har_j ī̌ -g birā-ga=y Āmad go.PST-1SG=DRCT wherever-INDF brother-DEF=EZ Ahmad wāl=ā      bird-im with=PRT bring-PST-1SG (46b) SK Sanjabi, Gahvareh (ibid.) čī-yā-m            ařā  har_ku=rā     birā-ga=y go.PST-IMPF?-1SG to  wherever=PRT brother-DEF=EZ Āmad     wagard  xwa=m=ā       bird-yā-m Ahmad with      self=BP1SG=PRT bring.PST-IMPF?-1SG ‘Wherever I would go, I would bring Ahmad’s brother with me’.

Fattah (2000, p. 735) informs that Preterit verbs make up for the lack of a morphological Imperfect tense also in hypothetical contexts. The strategy adopted in Kalhori varieties devoid of a prefixed past imperfective forms is remarkable, as it seems to imply a full neutralization of the prototypical perfective semantics of the Kurdish Preterit or, so to speak, a coalescence of two apparently contradictory aspectual properties—that is, perfectivity and imperfectivity—in one and the same verbal form.

  A Cross-Dialect Account of Kurdish Past Tense Categories 

263

This situation further confirms that Kurdish Preterits are characterized as ‘perfective’ only by secondary contrast with a marked imperfective past category, in line with the aspectual ambiguity of participle-derived Past stems pointed out in Sect. 3.1. In the absence of grammatical markers of imperfectivity, Kalhori Preterits are interpreted as encoding Tense in the first place, leaving the aspectual distinction to be disambiguated by the context. Perhaps only in such cases it is fully correct to speak of a Kurdish ‘Simple Past’ category largely comparable to that of English.29 Looking at the parallels of example (44) in the MDKD, we notice that Preterit forms are occasionally preferred to Imperfects also in some South-­ eastern NK dialects30 and some CK dialects of Iraq31 despite none of them being devoid of morphological Imperfects. The significance of this evidence, however, remains uncertain.32 (47a) NK Yüksekova (MDKD K065) mērik-ē k’ar kēšā-Ø [...] man-OBL.M donkey pull.PST-3SG (47b) CK Halabja (MDKD S073) piyāw-aka  kar-aka       guhdirēž-aka=y man-DEF    donkey-DEF long.ear-DEF=BP3SG řā     kyēšā-Ø33 [...] PRT pull.PST-3SG ‘The man was pulling the donkey [...]’.

In virtually all SK varieties iterative and continuous semantics can be reinforced by the use of a particle ha(r) (hē in Kordali), as in (34a–c) above and (48) below. This particle is found also in Gorani (cf. Mahmoudveysi et al. 2012, p. 43) and is functionally comparable to the aspectual particle hey ‘continuously, repeatedly’ of colloquial Persian and Lori dialects (cf. Windfuhr and Perry 2009, pp. 444, 535; MacKinnon 2002, p. 132, respectively). (48) SK Kalhori (Fattah 2000, p. 860 no.3) ay řužgār=a bāwažin-ag=ē ha kār PROX day=DEM stepmother-­DEF=BP3SG ITER work wa  kuɫ=ē             kīšā-Ø on   shoulder=BP3SG pull.PST-3SG ‘Her stepmother had her working all day long [lit. kept putting work on her shoulders]’.

264 

S. Belelli

6 Progressive Periphrasis In most CK and NK Kurdish varieties, where morphological Imperfects cover past progressive meanings, Progressive periphrases are unattested. On the contrary, two periphrastic constructions are available to SK for the specific expression of progressive aspect in past time.34 The first type combines an auxiliary verb with a main predicate conveying the core semantics of the situation. The auxiliary is either dāštin ‘have’—in Laki-Kermanshahi, Kolya’i, Kordali and Kalhori-Sanjabi-­ Zanganeh dialects—as in the Persian construction (cf. Jeremiás 1993), or nīštin/ništin ‘sit’—in Ilami-Malekshahi and Badre’i dialects—perhaps reminiscent of the lexical marker qāʿid ‘seated, sitting’ of the Arabic progressive construction. The main verb is invariably in the Imperfect (or Preterit, if no Imperfect form is present in the system), while the tense of the auxiliary depends on the verb used: dāštin is conjugated in the Preterit (Sect. 4), while nīštin/ ništin occurs in the Pluperfect (Sect. 8). (49a) SK Kordali, Kolya’i, Kalhori-Sanjabi-Zanganeh (Fattah 2000, p. 505) dāšt-in kār (a−/di-)kird-in have.PST-3PL work (IND-)do.PST-3PL (49b) SK with ‘infixed’ imperfects, e.g. Qasr-e Shirin (ibid.) dāšt-in        kār       kird-yā-n have.PST-3PL work do.PST-IMPF?-3PL (49c) SK Ilami-Malekshahi, Badre’i, etc. (Fattah 2000, p. 506) nīšt=ün              kār      (a-/di-)kird-in sit.PST=COP.PST.3PL work (IND-)do.PST-3PL ‘They were working’.

Even if the Progressive Periphrasis appears to be used mainly in affirmative contexts, it is reportedly possible to make it negative by negating the main verb (as in 50). (50) SK Kermanshah (Fattah 2000, p. 504) dāšt-im kār n(y)a-kird-yā-m have.PST-1SG work NEG-do.PST-IMPF?-1SG ‘I wasn’t working’.

  A Cross-Dialect Account of Kurdish Past Tense Categories 

265

The second type of Progressive construction found in SK consists of a specialized adverbial expression—that is, lap(a)sā, dapasā, wapasā, pasāy ‘still, again and again’; laqa(s) ‘(very) much, strongly’; (h)aytāy, la(y)tāy ‘suddenly, instantly’; awsa ‘at that time, then’, and variants—preceding an Imperfect verb (or Preterit, in Imperfect-less SK varieties). This strategy is adopted in Bijari, Kolya’i, Kalhori-Sanjabi-Zanganeh, Ilami-­ Malekshahi, and Badre’i dialects in parallel or alternatively to the first type of Progressive periphrasis (as in 52a–b). (51) SK Kolya’i (Fattah 2000, p. 507) lapasā kār a-kird-in still work IND-do.PST-3PL ‘They were working’. (52a) SK Kalhori, Gilan-e Gharb (Aliyari Babolghani 2017, p. 393 no.94) wa_dowr=i  howz-aga  nīšt=ün       o    pasāy around=EZ   pool-DEF    sit.PST=COP.PST-3PL and still āw    pāšī-n=a         dam(i)čow  yak=ā water splash.PST-3PL=DRCT face       one_(another)=PRT (52b) SK Sanjabi, Gahvareh (ibid.) wa_lā=y     howz-aga  dā_ništ=ün              o    dāšt-in beside=EZ pool-DEF    sit.PST=COP.PST-3PL and have.PST-3SG āw          kird-yā-n               qey         yak=ā water do.PST-IMPF?-3PL body one_(another)=PRT ‘They were seated around the pool/at the poolside and were splashing water on each other’.

Unfortunately, the low attestation of past progressive constructions in the SK data at hand impedes a deeper insight on regional variation regarding these forms.

7 (Present) Perfect 7.1 Morphology of Kurdish (Present) Perfects The (Present) Perfect is one of the two complex (analytic) forms of the Kurdish verbal system. Its basic structure originally consists of a Past Participle—built on the Past stem through dedicated morphemes (Table 6)—plus a Present clitic Copula (Table 7).

266 

S. Belelli

Table 6  Kurdish Past Participle formants35 NK

-ī

CK

-ū -ī -ig -ī/-ē -ig/-igj -a

SK

: common CK : Erbil, etc. (cf. MacKenzie 1961, §213) : Sanandaj, etc. (cf. Christensen and Barr 1939, pp. 220, 224) : common SK : Ilami-Malekshahi, Badre’i, Bijari : Kordali (= Lori)

Table 7  Present clitic Copula used in NK and CK Perfects36

1 2 3

NK SG =ma =(y)ī =(y)a

PL =na =na =na

CK SG =im =ī(t) =a

PL =īn =in =in

The composition, however, may differ cross-dialectally concerning person/number agreement—in both NK and CK, based on the transitivity parameter—as well as in the degree of preservation of the participial formant on the Past stem before copular and/or agreement clitics. The morphemes building the Kurdish Past Participle are particularly diverse: we may notice, within the SK group, the presence of forms akin to both NK and CK. In addition, a form -ig bundles together Ilami-Malekshahi, Badre’i, and Bijari dialects of SK with Sina’i dialects of CK. This can be interpreted as a shared retention of an older adjectival suffix, comparable to the -ag formant of innovated Middle West Iranian Participles, reflected in the formation of the Perfect in other Western Iranian languages (e.g. Balochi, cf. Bubenik and Ziamajidi 2018, p. 74 and passim). In NK, the conjugated forms of the Present clitic Copula follow the rules of agreement with the S of intransitive verbs and the O of transitive verbs. In most NK varieties, the original participial morpheme is either reduced to a vowel /i/ before the Copula (as in 53a) or dropped entirely, especially in the case of stems ending in vowel. This makes the participial nature of the verbal base opaque in the majority of cases.37 As it seems, the marker -ī of the NK Participle is more frequently retained in South-­ eastern NK, especially in the 2SG and 3SG, with verbs whose Past stems end in a consonant (as in 53b).

  A Cross-Dialect Account of Kurdish Past Tense Categories 

267

(53a) NK Sersink (MDKD K038) min sē j ̌ār-ān mārdīn dīt-i=ya 1SG.OBL three time-PL.OBL Mardin see.PST-PTCP=COP.PRS.3SG hatā      nūka until now (53b) NK Çukurca (MDKD K025) min ḥatā nika sē j ̌ār-ān mārdīn 1SG.OBL until now three time-PL.OBL Mardin dīt-ī=ya see.PST-PTCP=COP.PRS.3SG ‘I have seen Mardin three times so far’.

Note, however, that some South-eastern NK dialects of the Cizre-­Silopi-­ Zakho area have been observed to form the Perfect by adding the copula directly to the Past stem also with consonant-final stems (as in 54a–b). (54a) NK Gulli (MacKenzie 1961, §289 fn. 1) min dinyā na-dīt’=a 1SG.OBL world NEG-see.PST=COP.PRS.3SG ‘I have not seen the world’. (54b) NK Gulli (ibid.) ta          bo_čī [...]  kušt'=a 2SG.OBL  why [...]       kill.PST=COP.PRS.3SG ‘why have you killed...?’

Also in CK, person and number agreement is expressed on intransitive Present Perfects by a conjugated Present clitic Copula verb (Table 7), while the transitive construction requires appropriate A markers (Table 2) and a default 3SG Present clitic Copula verb.38 In the absence of other hosts, the mobile A markers are inserted between the verbal base and the Copula, with the exception of the 3SG39 (e.g. xwārd-ū=m=a, xwārd-ū=t=a, xwārd-ū=yat=ī, xwārd-ū=mān=a, xwārd-ū=tān=a, xwārd-ū=yān=a ‘I have eaten, you have eaten, he/she has eaten, etc.’). In CK Preterits, the Participial nature of the verbal base is transparent throughout the paradigm. (55) CK Erbil (MDKD S032) min mārdīn sē j ̌ār=im dī-w=a 1SG Mardin three time=BP1SG see.PST-PTCP=COP.PRS.3SG ‘I have seen Mardin three times (so far)’.

268 

S. Belelli

In both NK and CK, the morpheme negating this tense/aspect category is na-. (56a) NK Dêrka Ber Avê (MDKD K005) ̌ mi tijār kelhā Diyārbakir-ē 1SG.OBL never fortress Diyarbakir-OBL.F na-dīt-i=ya NEG-see.PST-PTCP=COP.PRS.3SG (56b) CK Mawat (MDKD S076) min tā ēsta qaɫā=ī Diyārbakir=im 1SG until now fortress=EZ Diyarbakir=BP1SG na-dī-w=a NEG-see.PST-PTCP=COP.PRS.3SG ‘I have never seen the Diyarbakir fortress’.

In the majority of SK dialects, the Present Perfect is built on the Past Participle—formed on the Past stem with the suffixes in Table 6—specified by Past personal endings (Table 3) and a default 3SG Present clitic Copula =a(s).40 Agreement suffixes supersede the Past Participle formant in most persons, blurring the participial nature of the verbal base that becomes indistinguishable from the bare Past stem. Even so, a vowel /ī/—reflecting the original Past Participle formant—frequently resurfaces in the 3SG before person markers, especially with verbs whose Past stems end in a consonant (as in 65 further below). Only a minority of Ilami-Malekshahi dialects preserve the suffix -ig/−igj more or less intact in other persons as well: (57) SK Ilami-Malekshahi (Fattah 2000, p. 883 no.12) patig-a=m         bā       bird-ig-Ø=as=ē cloth-DEF=BP1SG wind bring.PST-PTCP-3SG=COP.PRS.3SG=BP3SG w   xis-ig-Ø=as=ē                            ē       māɫ=a and throw.PST-PTCP-3SG=COP.PRS.3SG=BP3SG PROX house=DEM ‘My cloth, the wind has carried it away and has thrown it in this house [where it is still]’.   

The morpheme negating the SK Perfect is uniformly na-.

  A Cross-Dialect Account of Kurdish Past Tense Categories 

269

(58) SK Laki-Kermanshahi, Sahneh (MDKD G001) ayl-il-aka amřuž hīč sēv-ī na-xward-in=a child-PL-DEF today any apple-INDF NEG-eat.PST-3PL=COP.PRS.3SG ‘The children have not eaten any apples today’.

The SK dialect of Bijar represents a remarkable exception to the common Perfect structure described so far, combining the Past Participle with a conjugated Present clitic Copula. In this case, the participial nature of the verbal base is transparent throughout most of the paradigm, and person/ number agreement is overtly expressed on the verb of existence (hāt-­ igj=im, hāt-iy=īd, hāt-iy=a, hāt-iy=īmān, hāt-igj=in, hāt-igj=in ‘I have come, you have come, he/she has come, etc.’, cf. Fattah 2000, p. 542). It is perhaps worth noticing that the surface structure of the common SK Perfect is overall similar to that of NK forms—with a Copula ending in -a in virtually all persons—and, to some extent, to that of CK transitive Perfects with incorporated A markers. On the contrary, the atypical SK formation observed in Bijari largely parallels that of CK intransitive Perfects. Differently from other SK dialects, Bijari does not seem to have undergone the process of ‘degrammation of the copula’ recognized as having played ‘a significant role in the formation of compound temporal (Perfect, Pluperfect) and modal categories (Evidential, Conjectural) in New Persian, Kurdish, Balochi and Tajik’ (cf. Bubenik and Ziamajidi 2018, p. 96), although the significance of this evidence in terms of semantic characterization of Perfect verbs in this specific variety remains unexplored. In addition to the generalized Kurdish Present Perfect structure illustrated so far, an alternative formation—unparalleled in both CK and SK—can be created in South-eastern NK using ezāfe-like particles in combination with Past Participles. This construct seems largely restricted to affirmative and declarative clauses:41 (59) NK Akre (MDKD K044) min zor kitēb=ēd xwand-ī 1SG.OBL many book=EZ.DEF.PL read.PST-PTCP ‘I have read a lot of books’.

270 

S. Belelli

As already mentioned in Sect. 6, some sources make reference to yet another past tense category in NK—labelled ‘narrative Imperfect’ or ‘Past progressive’—structured as a typical Present Perfect, but preceded by the imperfective marker di-. These forms—that Bulut (2000, p. 167) defines as ‘extremely problematic’ for their ambiguous morphological structure42—are described in Blau and Barak (1999, p. 73) as combining ‘l’aspet résultatif du parfait et la notion de durée ou de répétition dans le passé de l’imparfait’. As further discussed in Sect. 7.2, they may also bear specific indirective/inferential connotations.

7.2 Semantics of Kurdish (Present) Perfects In aspectual terms, the SK Perfect prototypically expresses resultative-­ stative and experiential semantics. The situation described by a Perfect verb is generally viewed as having persisting/observable outcomes at the time of the utterance (as in 60–61) or general/universal validity at any moment within the time interval leading up to the present (as in 62). (60) SK Laki-Kermanshahi, Sahneh (MDKD G001) do pyāw dastgīr bī-n=a two man arrested be.PST-3PL=COP.PRS.3SG ‘Two men have been arrested [and are still in prison]’. (61) SK Kalhori, Gilan-e Gharb (Aliyari Babolghani 2017, p. 365 no.41) čanī pül wāl=ā hāwird-īt=a? how_much money with=PRT bring.PST-2SG=COP.PRS.3SG ‘How much money have you brought along [i.e. do you currently have in your pockets]?’ (62) SK Laki-Kermanshahi, Sahneh (MDKD G001) ma ī kitāw=a xwan-im=a 1SG PROX book=DEM read.PST-1SG=COP.PRS.3SG ‘I’ve read this book [at least once, sometime in the past]’.

The fact that Perfect forms are inherently focused on a present reference time should be expected to determine some restriction on their

  A Cross-Dialect Account of Kurdish Past Tense Categories 

271

co-­occurrence with lexical temporal specifications, as happens in English (cf. Comrie 1976, p. 54). Indeed, throughout Kurdish, the presence of temporal adverbs in the clause is allowed if their semantics includes the present moment and/or relates to the experiential implications of the verb (as in 53a–b, 56a–b, 58 above, and 63 below). (63) Laki-Kermanshahi, Sahneh (MDKD G001) tā ēsa sē dafʕa mārdīn dī-m=a until now three time Mardin see.PST-1SG=COP.PRS.3SG ‘I have seen Mardin three times so far’.

Even so, the retrospective nature of Perfects locates the relevant situation prior to the present moment, in a way broadly comparable to Preterit verbs. Such similarity in tense characterization can indeed explain why, in a number of SK dialects and perhaps elsewhere in Kurdish,43 the Perfect seems to be taking over the Preterit as straightforward choice for the expression of a broader range of past time situations, in a way akin to spoken varieties of Romance languages—such as French, Romanian, Italian—as well as in German (cf. Comrie 1976, p. 53, 61; 1985, p. 81ff.). According to Fattah (2000, p. 374), in SK this shift is all the more frequent from the line Kermanshah-Qasr-e Shirin-Bisotun northwards (Sahneh, Kolya’i, Bilavar, etc.), and generally requires that the reference time of the situation be not too strictly specified by lexical or contextual cues. This constraint ultimately favours ‘distant past’ interpretations. Even if the data available at present do not allow us to check Fattah’s observations for all the dialects concerned, primary speech data from Harsin and Payravand,44 as well as secondary evidence from the Kalhori-­ Sanjabi-­Zanganeh group45 largely substantiate this assumption. We notice, in fact, a striking prevalence of Perfect verbs in many narrative texts at hand, as well as the frequent extension of this category to aspectual contexts that would in principle require a verb in the Preterit. (64) Laki-Kermanshahi, Sahneh (MDKD G001) ̌ ava ava anjām dā-y-Ø=a46 DIST DIST accomplishment give-PTCP-3SG=COP.PRS.3SG ‘He/she [lit. that one] did/accomplished that’.

272 

S. Belelli

In some instances—such as recapitulations of preceding events at the epilogue of tales (as in 65), or recalling of old events in real-life storytelling (as in 66)—‘distant past’ readings are nearly inevitable. In (66), these are further confirmed by the presence of the adverb qadīm ‘in old times, back in time’ referring to a nonspecific distant past context, sharply cut from any present-time reference or relative recency of the situation. (65) SK Laki-Kermanshahi, Harsin (Belelli 2021, 1:132–134) min   ī      nama  diris_kird-im=a, 1SG PROX felt    prepare.PST-1SG=COP.PRS.3SG kird-im=as=a                   var=im [...],  hāt-im=a, do.PST-1SG=COP.PRS.3SG=DRCT on=BP1SG  come.PST-1SG=COP.PRS.3SG iska  kat-ī-Ø=as=a                        šun=im        tā now fall.PST-PTCP-3SG=COP.PRS.3SG=DRCT after=BP1SG until pyā=m        kird-ī-Ø=a.                      iska    gi found=BP1SG do.PST-PTCP-3SG=COP.PRS.3SG now that pyā=m        kird-ī-Ø=a.            sar   āyl-il-a found=BP1SG do.PST-PTCP-­3SG=COP.PRS.3SG head child-PL-DEF biřī-Ø=a cut.PST-3SG=COP.PRS.3SG ‘I made this felt, I wore it, I came (here and), at that moment, he started looking for me [...] until he found me. As soon as he found me, he slaughtered the kids’. (66) SK Laki-Kermanshahi, Payravand (Haig et al. n.d.-b, laki_conv_2:04:06–04:11) īma=yš qadīm kīšāvarz bī-min=a. 1PL=ADD old farmer be.PST-1PL=COP.PRS.3SG zamīn  kīšāvarzī    dāšt-īmin=a. land    agriculture have.PST-1PL=COP.PRS.3SG ‘Back in time, we were farmers, too. We used to own agricultural land’.

These usages of the SK Preterit clearly remind of the ‘passé révolu’ or ‘passato interrotto’, a sub-category of Indirectivity/Inferentiality identified also by Lazard (1985, p. 33ff.) and Rossi (1989, pp. 288–289) in Persian and Afghan Balochi. In Lazard’s words, this category can be defined as ‘a relatively old past, but most importantly a past that is cut off from the present’ (id., p. 35) in which the speaker’s distancing from the topic/ event ‘is temporal: it is determined by the fact that the events related belong to a period completed at some point before the time of the utterance’ (id., p. 38, my translation).

  A Cross-Dialect Account of Kurdish Past Tense Categories 

273

In (67–68), we also observe that SK Perfect verbs can imply relative anteriority with respect to a focal point set by a Preterit, in the same way as a Pluperfect would (Sect. 8).47 (67) SK Kermanshah (Fattah 2000, p. 891 no.97) dün-id [...] yay talāša-yg kaft-iy-Ø=as=a see.PRS-3SG one branch-­INDF fall.PST-PTCP-3SG=COP.PRS.3SG=DRCT bān=i   zāü         u        hāwird-Ø=ay         ařā=y   māl on=EZ ground and bring.PST-3SG=BP3SG to=EZ house ‘She saw [lit. sees] a branch had fallen to the ground and she brought it home’. (68) SK Kalhori, Sanjabi (Aliyari Babolghani 2017, p. 368 no.48) harka dī-y-Ø=a=m salām=im kird-Ø whoever see.PST-PTCP=COP.PRS.3SG=BP1SG greeting=BP1SG do.PST-3SG ‘Whoever saw me, greeted me’.

The ‘distant past’ semantics observed in some SK Perfects, as well as a certain functional syncretism of Perfect and Pluperfect in the expression of relative anteriority has been reported also for CK (MacKenzie 1961, §246) and NK (Bulut 2000, p. 160). The ‘distant past’ functions of the Perfect, recognized as being close to the category of Indirectivity/Inferentiality (cf. Comrie 1976, p. 108ff.), lead us to wonder whether this SK verbal form can also take on proper Inferential connotations. Although instances such as (69) below may in fact be interpreted as a second-hand report—provided that the speaker had not witnessed the events he related—this interpretation can be ascertained only in the presence of further lexical detectors of Indirectivity/Inferentiality (as in 70). (69) SK Laki-Kermanshahi, Payravand (Haig et al. n.d.-b, laki_conv_2:16:52–17:02) [...] vaxtī fowt_kird-ī-Ø=a mardim gīs sar [...] when die.PST-PTCP-3SG=COP.PRS.3SG people lock head biř-in=a, [...]             tā    yak   sāɫ     a    ābādī=a cut.PST-3PL=COP.PRS.3SG until one year DIST village=DEM ʕāzīat      gird-in=a [...] mourning take.PST-3PL=COP.PRS.3SG ‘When he died, people cut their locks [...] (the people of) that village mourned for a year’.

274 

S. Belelli

(70a) SK Kalhori, Gilan-e Gharb (Aliyari Babolghani 2017, p. 385 no.82) ažnaft-im=a la māɫ hear.PST-1SG=COP.PRS.3SG from home kird-in=as=id=ow               dayšt do.PST-3PL=COP.PRS.3SG=DRCT out (70b) SK Sanjabi, Gahvareh (ibid.) šinaft-im=a                (ka)       la    māɫ hear.PST-1SG=COP.PRS.3SG (that) from home kird-in=as=it=a                dayšt do.PST-3PL=COP.PRS.3SG=DRCT out ‘I heard that they have kicked you out of the house’.

Similarly, quotative/reportative and inferential shades have been identified in NK Perfects (cf. Dahl 1985, pp. 149, 152–153) although ‘in most constellations where the perfect is used, it does not seem to be a sufficient marker of indirectivity’ (Bulut 2000, p. 163). Within Kurdish, specific inferential functions have been attributed to the rare NK prefixed ‘di- Perfects’ (Bulut 2000, pp. 166–175) that might indeed possess semantic properties closely akin to Persian indirectives (cf. Windfuhr 1982; Lazard 1985, 2000). At the present stage of knowledge, however, there is no clear evidence of the existence and current use of formally comparable categories in CK and SK varieties.

8 Pluperfect (Past Perfect) 8.1 Morphology of Kurdish Pluperfects (Past Perfects) The Pluperfect is the second compositional (analytic) tense category of the Kurdish system. It is originally derived from a Past Participle—for the most part indistinguishable from the bare Past stem throughout Kurdish—plus a conjugated Past Copula (Table 8) prosodically leaning on the verbal base. The Copula can be analysed as a combination of the Past form of the verb of existence and the Past personal suffixes (Table 1). In NK, the Past Copula—whose initial consonant may be weakened to /w/ in some varieties, for example, Elbistan—agrees with the S or the

275

  A Cross-Dialect Account of Kurdish Past Tense Categories  Table 8  Past Copula used in NK and CK Pluperfects NK 1 2 3

CK

SG

PL

SG

PL

bū-m bū-yī bū-Ø

bū-n bū-n bū-n

bū-m bū-y(t) bū-Ø

bū-yn bū-n bū-n

O based on the transitivity parameter. A vowel /i/, probably a relic of the Past Participle formant, occurs before the Copula with verbs whose Past stems end in a consonant (as in 71). (71) NK Elbistan (MDKD K022) aw k’itāw=a ku li dīyārbak’ir-ē DIST book=DEM that at Diyarbakir-OBL.F hil_girt-i-wū               wandā  wū take.PST-PTCP-COP.PST.3SG lost    COP.PST.3SG ‘That book that he had bought in Diyarbakir is [lit. got] lost’.

In some NK dialects, the final vowel of Past stems ending in -ī is also (perhaps analogically) reduced to /i/ before the Copula.48 Also in CK, agreement with the S of intransitive verbs is expressed on the Past Copula (Table 8), whose initial consonant can be weakened to /w/ or entirely deleted in some varieties, for example, Sina’i, Warmawa.49 Transitive verbs require an appropriate bound pronoun (Table 2) as obligatory A marker, and a default 3SG Copula (as in 72). (72) CK Sangaw (MDKD S074) aw k’itēb=a=y ka li dīyārbakir DIST book=DEM=REL that at Diyarbakir kirī-bū=y                   win  bū buy.PST-COP.PST.3SG=BP3SG  lost    COP.PST.3SG ‘That book that he had bought in Diyarbakir is [lit. got] lost’.

Also in CK varieties, a vowel /i/ can be realized before the Copula with Past stems ending in a consonant.50 The SK Pluperfect is consistently formed by a Past Copula agreeing with the subject of the verb. The Copula base (Table 9)—either fully enclitic, or prosodically leaning on the main verb as in most NK and CK

276 

S. Belelli

Table 9  SK Past Copula bases =u/=ü/=ī bu/bü/bī wī

common SK Kalhori of Iraq Kordali

varieties—is specified for person/number by the appropriate Past agreement suffix (Table 3). (73) SK Sanjabi, Gahvareh (Aliyari Babolghani 2017, p. 374 no.60) taqriban kot-ig nān xwārd=üm about half-INDF bread eat.PST=COP.PST.1SG ‘I had eaten almost a half (loaf of) bread’.

As observed in NK and CK, the original participial nature of the verbal base is largely obscure, except for a relic vowel /i/ resurfacing throughout the paradigm in the varieties preserving Past Copulas with initial b- (e.g. Khanaqin xwārd-i-bīm/büm, xwārd-i-bī(d)/bü(d) ‘I had eaten, you had eaten’, cf. Fattah 2000, pp. 380–381). The morpheme na- invariably negates Kurdish Pluperfects. (74) SK Laki-Kermanshahi, Sarmaj-e Hosseinkhani (Haig et al. n.d.-a, laki_conv_1:31:26) na-firut=üt=ē NEG-sell.PST=COP.PST.3SG=BP3PL ‘He had not sold it’.

8.2 Semantics of Kurdish Pluperfects (Past Perfects) The Kurdish Pluperfect is an absolute-relative tense used for locating a situation prior to a reference point in the past, usually set by a verb in the Preterit (as in 75–76), and/or determined by contextual implications. Its main function is to relate a string of situations in chronological order. (75) SK Laki-Kermanshahi, Sahneh (MDKD G001) aw kitāw=a ki ma va dīyārbakir san=üm DIST book=DEM that 1SG at Diyarbakir buy.PST=COP.PST.1SG gom bī-Ø lost be.PST-3SG ‘That book that I had bought in Diyarbakir is [lit. got] lost’.

  A Cross-Dialect Account of Kurdish Past Tense Categories 

277

(76) SK Kalhori, Gilan-e Gharb (Aliyari Babolghani 2017, p. 375 no.61) tāza xaft=üm (ki) čiřī-d=im just sleep=COP.PST.1SG (when) call.PST-3SG=BP1SG ‘I had just fallen asleep, when he called me’.

This tense can at times convey simple remote past connotations, with a semantic range approximating the ‘distant past’ usages of Perfects discussed in Sect. 7.2. This can be noticed in several instances of variation between Perfect wit-i=ya and Pluperfect wit=ü, both translatable as an English Past Simple ‘he/she said’, introducing direct speech in narrative texts (cf. Aliyari Babolghani 2017, pp. 452–453). The details of this functional overlap, however, could not be determined precisely. Also in (77), the speaker recalls the death of his brother’s cow using a string of Pluperfect forms stressing remoteness in the past, or rather second-­hand knowledge if indirective/inferential semantics is to be considered as a correlative of Kurdish (Present and Past) Perfect forms, as generally assumed for NK (cf. Bulut 2000, p. 173ff.). (77) SK Laki-Kermanshahi, Sarmaj-e Hosseinkhani (Haig et al. n.d.-a, laki_conv_1, 31:19–31:21) pāraka yē gā-y [...] gwisnē bü, howl last_year INDF cow-­INDF hungry.BP3SG be(come).PST.3SG scared bü,               xwird=ü,                mird=ü be(come).PST.3SG eat.PST=COP.PST.3SG die.PST=COP.PST.3SG ‘Last year a cow [...] she was hungry, she was scared, she ate (infected fodder and) died’.

As already observed for the NK ‘di- Perfect’ in Sect. 7, we should record the existence in NK of an additional form—of very rare occurrence, mainly attested with modal verbs and in the context of literary translations—based on Pluperfect morphology, but preceded by the imperfective marker di-. According to Bulut (2000, p. 170) these complex ‘di- Pluperfect’ units, at least to some extent, ‘seem to display inferential character. In most constellations, though, they simply represent an imperfect’.

278 

S. Belelli

Pluperfects can also take on modal functions, often substituting Imperfects and Past Subjunctives in both the apodosis and protasis of counterfactual conditions, perhaps expressing an additional shade of volition (or ‘wishful thinking’, in the terms of Bubenik and Ziamajidi 2018, p. 91). (78)

SK Kalhori, Khanaqin (Fattah 2000, p. 736) agar bi-zānist-ā-m hāt-i-bīm if SBJV-know.PST-SBJV.PST-1SG come.PST-PTCP=COP.PST.1SG ‘If I had known, I would have come [for sure]’.

(79a)

SK Kalhori, Gilan-e Gharb (Aliyari Babolghani 2017, p. 383 no.78) a(gar) zü č=ümin51 hatman if early go.PST=COP.PST.1PL certainly řas=ümin=a                     pē reach.PST=COP.PST.1PL=DRCT to.BP3SG

(79b) SK Sanjabi, Gahvareh (ibid.) a(gar)  zü     bi-čī-yātā-ym(in)52         hatman if       early SBJV-go.PST-SBJV.PST-1PL certainly řasī-yā-ymin=a              pē reach.PST-IMPF?-1PL=DRCT to.BP3SG ‘If we would have gone earlier, we would have reached him for sure’.

Although translating the same English sentence, (79b) might be analysed as a plain statement on how consequences would have been different if the initial condition had applied, while (79a) might express an additional shade of regret that things turned out differently from what was expected or desired.

9 Summary The Kurdish verb forms used in the past-time domain show many morphological similarities, but a fair degree of regional variation in details of structure and semantic properties. In a subgroup of SK—namely most Kalhori dialects—we observed the lack of an overt perfective/imperfective opposition, grammaticalized in the majority of Kurdish varieties by Preterit vs. (prefixed) Imperfect forms. Most Kalhori dialects do not possess a distinct morphological

  A Cross-Dialect Account of Kurdish Past Tense Categories 

279

Imperfect conjugation in their system, and resort to Preterit verbs also for the expression of the notions of habituality, continuousness, and iterativity in the past. A structurally problematic ‘infixed’ Imperfect is also available to some SK dialects, either beside or in substitution of prefixed Imperfect forms. This category, rare or inexistent in other Kurdish clusters, seems to convey durative semantics in the first place, but is frequently generalized to the expression of other nuances of imperfectivity in the past. At least in SK, certain imperfective shades—particularly iterativity and continuousness—can be specified or reinforced through lexical means, that is, iterative particles and intensifying adverbials, reminding of the historical role of similar elements in the grammaticalization of morphological markers of imperfectivity in Western Iranian languages. The use of SK Imperfect verbs is seldom extended to cover closely related progressive shades—as is common for both CK and NK—although these are more frequently encoded by dedicated Progressive periphrases, either calqued on Persian (and Arabic?) moulds or involving, again, specialized adverbials. Furthermore, the SK samples at our disposal support the cursory remarks found in the literature concerning a ‘decay’ of the Preterit in several, mainly northern varieties of SK. In these dialects, the Perfect is apparently undergoing an extension of use, implying a ‘gradual relaxation of the requirement of present relevance’ (Comrie 1976, p. 11) and a drift towards distant/interrupted past interpretations. The magnitude of this phenomenon throughout SK is not yet quantifiable, although it does not seem to have gone as far as overriding the role of the Preterit completely as basic past tense form. The use of Perfect forms seems all the more common in oral narrations, indicating that narrative style is indeed a favourable terrain for this ‘Perfect-to-Preterit’ shift to take place. The existence and scope of similar phenomena in NK and CK varieties and beyond remain to be assessed more thoroughly. The question of whether Kurdish Perfects show proper indirective/ inferential connotations is debatable. Expanding previous observations on NK, we may say that in virtually all Kurdish varieties ‘indirective shades expressed by perfects are very vague and need additional allusions’ (Bulut 2000, p. 174) to be narrowed down. Some occurrences of this form in SK might indeed imply hearsay or second-hand knowledge, but

280 

S. Belelli

in the absence of explicit detectors of actual inference or indirect evidence—that is, adverbials or quotation verbs—this cannot be established with certainty. Nonetheless, a general compatibility of this tense/aspect category with the description of unwitnessed or reported events can safely be claimed for SK, too. At the present stage of knowledge, only NK would seem to possess additional categories—so-called ‘di- Perfects’—for the specific expression of indirective semantics. The origin, structure and range of use of atypical NK ‘ezāfe Perfects’ is a topic deserving further study, as are the exact reasons behind the apparent hypertrophy of Present Perfect constructions in Kurdish varieties. In general, the Pluperfect basically implies relative anteriority in past-­ time contexts, although remote past readings seem common in SK, somehow functionally overlapping with the ‘distant past’ interpretations available to SK Perfect forms. Moreover, the range of application of SK Pluperfects intersects with that of Imperfects in modal context, where both tense/aspect categories are common, albeit with slightly different semantic correlates. What we hope to have demonstrated throughout this overview of Kurdish past tense categories, awaiting to be refined and complemented by more detailed SK evidence, is that the complexity of the TAM system of Kurdish languages requires closer attention than is normally attributed to it in descriptive literature. It is in fact simplistic—and perhaps not entirely true, as in the case of certain SK dialects—to consider the system of Kurdish past tense/aspect forms as structured on an aoristic Preterit core expressing both general and perfective events, in contrast with a marked imperfective tense (Imperfect) and an analytic retrospective/resultative-stative tense (Perfect): a configuration that, paraphrasing Windfuhr (2009, p. 25), became as such in pre-modern times ‘and has not changed since’. Indeed, in a constant tension between temporal and aspectual characterization, the system of Kurdish languages appears to be subject to various restructuration and adjustment processes. These are certainly not ‘cataclysmic’ or abrupt, proceeding at different paces and taking different shapes within and across dialect clusters, but it cannot be excluded that some of them may ultimately lead—as already happened in older stages of the history of Iranian languages—into major morphological, structural and semantic changes.53

  A Cross-Dialect Account of Kurdish Past Tense Categories 

281

Abbreviations - _

Separates segmentable morphemes Separates multiple object language elements corresponding to a single metalanguage element, and vice versa. = Signals enclitic or prosodically bound morphemes 1 First person 2 Second person 3 Third person A Subject of transitive verbs ADD Additive BP Bound pronoun CK Central Kurdish COP Copula DEF Definite DEM Demonstrative DIR Direct case DIST Distal DRCT Directional EZ Ezāfe particle F Feminine IMPF Imperfective IMPR Imperative IND Present indicative marker INDF Indefinite ITER Iterative M Masculine MDKD Manchester Database of Kurdish Dialects NEG Negation NK Northern Kurdish O Object of transitive verbs OBL Oblique case PL Plural POSS Possessor PROX Proximal PRS Present PRT Particle PST Past

282 

S. Belelli

PTCP Participle REL Relative marker S Subject of intransitive verbs SBJV Subjunctive SG Singular SK Southern Kurdish

Notes 1. More or less simultaneously with the first drafting of this chapter, Thomas Jügel was compiling his contribution on ‘The perfect in Middle and New Iranian languages’ (Jügel 2020). We did not have the chance to exchange ideas on pre-print versions of our respective works, and generalizations on intersecting topics have been reached independently. 2. These consist of about 60 minutes of unprocessed conversations collected by Parvin Mahmoudveysi in the Laki-Kermanshahi varieties of Sarmaj-e Hosseinkhani and Payravand. 3. Since SK language materials could not be double-checked with native speakers, I take full responsibility for transcribing choices, morphological analyses and interpretation. 4. Actually, ‘the most frequent of the [Old Persian] past verbal forms, and also the normal tense of the narration […] thus corresponding to a certain extent to the perfect of the German and Romance languages’ (Rossi forthcoming, p. 14). 5. According to Bubenik and Ziamajidi (2018, p. 75) the manā kartam-to-­ ergative shift ‘can be portrayed as a consequence of the loss of the ­synthetic morphology expressing the notion of perfectivity’ causing the construction to be ‘moved into the erstwhile domain of the active perfective category (Aorist)’ (ibid., p. 83). 6. Jügel (2014, pp. 134–138) highlights the exception of Hawrami, where both Present and Imperfect forms are based on the imperfective (‘present’) stem (cf. MacKenzie 1966 pp. 28, 58). Such ‘distinct archaism’ (Windfuhr 2009, p. 26) is also found in varieties of Taleshi and Tati, as well as in (Eastern Iranian) Yaghnobi. 7. The CK particle =awa combined with verbal expressions can mark iterativity, change of state or residually backward movement. Often, it simply distinguishes different semantic values or lexical aspects of the same verb:

  A Cross-Dialect Account of Kurdish Past Tense Categories 

283

in this case, xwēndin ‘to study; sing’ vs. xwēndin=awa ‘to read (over); recite’, although the different meanings get mixed to a certain extent in common usage. 8. Ambiguous cases are found in SK dialects of the SK-CK transition area, for example, Khanaqin (MDKD S057): řafīq-agān=im(A/POSS?) dī-Ø(3SG) ‘I saw my friends’; aw žin=a ay ḥalwā pārča pārča=y(A/O?) kird-Ø ‘the woman sliced the cake’. 9. This feature, more than others, also contributes to the identification of SK as a ‘strongly Persianized’ type of Kurdish in the mind of NK and CK native speakers, even if SK varieties resemble those of other Kurdish groups in many other aspects of grammar and lexicon. 10. This is also the case of non-Iranian contact languages such as North-­ Eastern Neo Aramaic (NENA), whose agential qṭil li construction developed under the influence of Iranian languages (cf. Coghill 2016, p. 162ff.). 11. As further discussed below, the bulk of variation concerns isolated occurrences of (Present) Perfects instead of Preterits. Moreover, a striking prevalence of Pluperfect forms can be observed in the CK data from Choman S054, although the reason for this irregularity is not self-evident, and may depend on incidental factors of data collection. Adriano Rossi (p.c.) suggested that ‘the Pluperfect is indeed a verbal form “exhibited” to interviewers’ cross-linguistically. 12. See Fattah (2000, p. 335) on the presumed pronominal nature of this morpheme. 13. A tendency to favour Imperfects for the description of similar situations could be detected in South-eastern NK—that is, Duhok K036, Kobane K037, Sersink K038-39, Zakho K042, Akre K044, Chiay Syan K045, Kanyder K048, Mosul K051, Yüksekova K065, Şemdinli K078. The use of imperfective forms concerns also some CK dialects—for example, Khalifan S042, Piranshahr S031, Sulaymaniyah S033, Qalat Dizah S059—without any evident territorial regularity. 14. «Le prétérit […] désigne une action ponctuelle terminée qui s’est produite dans un passé plus ou moins lointain – c’est-à-dire dans toute la période de temps précédent l’instant présent». My emphasis. 15. This idea seems endorsed by Windfuhr (2009, p. 26). According to Lecoq (1989, p. 258), all ‘dental’ prefixes of Kurdish might ultimately be traced to a common form *hadā- with adverbial value, for which Windfuhr (1995) proposes a temporal/locational semantics ‘same time/place’.

284 

S. Belelli

16. When the imperfective marker a- follows the negative prefix in juxtaposition, a glottal stop is realized between the two, although this is not uniformly noted in the MDKD transcriptions. 17. This inconsistency may also depend on a transcriber bias. Since NK /a/ [æ] tends to be lowered to [a] in some Southern NK dialects, contextually with the backing of /ā/ to [ɑː] (cf. Haig and Öpengin 2018, pp. 205–206), this phoneme could have been mistaken for the /ā/ [aː] of other NK and CK dialects. 18. See Unger (2014, pp. 180, 192ff.) and Haig and Öpengin (2018, pp. 204–205) for a detailed account. 19. The why and the how of such a diverse distribution of imperfective markers in Western Iranian languages still need full explanation. According to Windfuhr (1989, p. 256; 2009, pp. 25–26), all of them may ultimately be related to a single OIr. adverbial complex *hamaaiva(-da) meaning ‘(at the) same time, for all the time/duration’, or parts thereof. 20. As explained in Comrie (1976, p. 41), it is possible to ‘make a distinction between imperfectivity and durativity, where imperfectivity means viewing a situation with regard to its internal structure (duration, phasal sequences), and durativity simply refers to the fact that the given situation lasts for a certain period of time (or at least, is conceived of as lasting for a certain period of time)’. 21. A NK form dixwārā is quoted in Bulut (2000, p. 158), who states, ‘I am not quite sure how to interpret complex forms like dixwara [...] which may of course be a past continuous “was eating”’ (id., p. 177 fn. 3). The SK morpheme might also be compared with the invariable suffix -(y)ēattaching to Past stems to form the Imperfect tense in Zazaki (cf. Paul 2009, p. 560). 22. The SK passive past formant -yā is represented as -rā in CK. On the latter, see Karimi-Doostan and Daneshpazhouh (2019). 23. Possibly relevant here is the dispute on the nature of controversial Old Persian ‘passive aorists in -i’, perhaps to be interpreted as (passive?) ‘imperfects in -(i)ya’ (cf. Cowgill 1968, pp. 260, 264ff.; Rossi forthcoming, pp. 8–9). 24. Continuousness can be defined negatively as ‘imperfectivity that is not occasioned by habituality’ (Comrie 1976, p. 33). 25. Progressiveness can be defined as sub-category of continuousness, that is, as the ‘combination of continuous meaning and nonstativity’ (Comrie 1976, p. 12).

  A Cross-Dialect Account of Kurdish Past Tense Categories 

285

26. The use of Imperfect forms is nonetheless attested in equivalents of (42) and/or (43) in a few (mainly Northern) NK locations, among which İmranlı K023; Karlıova K060; Muş K086; Varto K087; Erzincan K090; Bingöl K091; Sunak Köyü K092. This is also an option in South-eastern NK, for example, Akre K044, although certainly not a common one. 27. The use of a prefixed t- stem of (h)āwirdin ‘to bring’ in the Imperfect tense is attested in some SK dialects of the Kermanshah area (where its use is reportedly decaying, cf. Mokri 2003, p. 386) and in isolated Kalhori and Kordali dialects (cf. Fattah 2000, p. 361 and fn. 30). 28. The absence of specific markers in these dialects applies also to the Present Indicative, constituted by the bare Present stem conjugated for person and number. Non-prefixed Presents are common in SK, especially in Southern dialects, that is, Kalhori-Sanjabi-Zanganeh, IlamiMalekshahi, Kordali, and urban dialects, for example, Kermanshah, Qasr-e Shirin (cf. Fattah 2000, p. 371). However, the correlation between them and the lack of prefixed Imperfects does not seem to be univocal. 29. On the English counterpart, cf. Payne (1997, p. 239). 30. Among which Duhok K036, Yüksekova K065, Sewîdiyê K107, Akre K044, Kanyder K048. 31. Kirkuk S055 and Halabja S073, the latter notably in contact with Kalhori SK. 32. Again, this might depend on accidents of data collection. In an elicitation through translation, speakers are not always careful in encoding aspectual distinctions and the adequate expression of the Tense parameter as Past might be enough for many. 33. Note that CK instances involve a preverb řā potentially obscuring the presence of morphological markers of imperfectivity. 34. The scant attestation of progressive forms in the SK corpus compels us to adhere for the most part to the information provided by Fattah (2000, p. 504ff.) on these structures. 35. After vowel-final stems, vocalic suffixes are converted into corresponding semivowels. In SK, after /ā/ the suffix -ig/-igj loses the vocalic component and -a becomes -ya. A form -w (= CK) is occasionally observed in Khanaqin. After /ī, y/, the forms are reportedly -ā(y) in Laki-Kermanshahi, Kalhori-Sanjabi-Zangane; -āw in Khanaqin; -āg/-āgj in Ilami-Malekshahi, Badre’i, Bijari; -āya in Kordali. After /ī, ü/ the suffix is normally omitted, except for some Malekshahi dialects and Bijari, preserving the consonant component -g/-gj. Cf. Fattah (2000, p. 385ff.).

286 

S. Belelli

36. The NK Copula forms reported in the table are those occurring after vowel, attaching to a vowel-final Past Participle. In the case of CK, the participial morpheme is generally realized as -w after vowel or followed by a glide /w/ before the Copula, which makes the post-consonantal forms the straightforward choice. Otherwise, post-vocalic forms (=m, =y, =ya, =yn, =n, =n) occur. In the CK of Erbil and the dialects of the CK-NK transition area, the Copula forms are identical to NK. 37. See the paradigms in Blau and Barak (1999, p. 72); Thackston (2006, pp. 53–55). 38. Rare instances of number agreement on the Copula have been detected in Mukri (cf. Öpengin 2016, p. 50). 39. The idiosyncratic ordering of the 3SG person marker and the contextual presence of an additional /t/ in the 3SG present Copula is accounted for in Öpengin (2019, pp. 257–258). 40. The /s/ of the Copula is realized in the presence of other clitic elements attaching after the verb. This allows, for instance, to discern a 3SG present Copula from a following directional particle =a introducing a Goal/Recipient. Differently, in NK ‘it is impossible to decide in this context (they cannot both be overtly realized on the same verb)’ (Haig 2018, p. 149 fn. 13). 41. See MacKenzie 1961, §313; Haig 2018, pp. 140, 145; Haig and Öpengin 2018, pp. 199, 203 for further examples. 42. Particularly when they involve a verb of motion followed by a directional particle, for the reasons illustrated in fn. 40. 43. Bulut (2000, p. 155) states that ‘in an unspecified constellation, preterite and perfect can be used alternatively’ in NK. Incidentally, this might also be the case of Zazaki, where in common usage ‘the perfect is no l­onger clearly distinguished from the preterite. Sometimes, both are used in one and the same context, or the perfect is used where a preterite would be expected’ (Paul 2009, p. 561). See also Bubenik and Ziamajidi (2018, p. 84). 44. The data refer to the textual corpus in Belelli (2021) and the recordings named laki_conv_1; laki_conv_2 (Haig et al. n.d.-b). 45. The data refer to the textual corpus in Aliyari Babolghani (2017, pp. 446–457). 46. According to the SK data at hand, this /y/ cannot be analysed as part of the 3SG Present Copula, whose postvocalic form is =s(a) (cf. Fattah 2000, p. 515; Belelli 2021, p. 179). This interpretation would nonetheless be possible if the form =ya exists in Sahneh (as suggested in Fattah id., p. 516).

  A Cross-Dialect Account of Kurdish Past Tense Categories 

287

47. Notably, the Pluperfect is the form selected in all equivalent versions of (67) from the corpus of Fattah (2000). 48. Cf. the conjugated forms ez tarsi-bū-m, tu tarsi-bū-yī, and so on. ‘I had feared, you had feared, etc.’ of the verb tarsīn (PST tarsī-) ‘to fear’ in Thackston (2006, p. 55). 49. See Mokri (2003, p. 337) and MacKenzie (1961, §211), respectively. 50. Cf. the conjugated forms hāt-i-būm, hāt-i-būy(t), and so on. ‘I had come, you had come, etc.’ of the verb hāt-in (PST hāt-) ‘to come’ in MacKenzie (1961, §215). 51. Note that the final -ī in the Past stems čī- ‘to go’ and rasī- ‘to reach’ is ousted by the vowel-initial Past clitic Copula. 52. On the -yātā- variant of the -(y)ā- affix forming Past Subjunctives in SK, see Fattah (2000, p. 390). 53. I wish to thank Yaron Matras, Geoffrey Haig, Ergin Öpengin, and Adriano Rossi for commenting on earlier drafts of this chapter. Their insightful observations contributed considerably to its improvement. The usual disclaimers apply.

References Aliyari Babolghani, Salman. 2017/1396. Ganjine-ye guyešhā-ye Irāni: Haft guyeš az hāšie-ye Zāgros [The treasury of Iranian dialects: Seven dialects from the Zagros periphery]. Tehran: Našr-e āsār. Belelli, Sara. 2019. Towards a dialectology of southern Kurdish: Where to begin? In Current issues in Kurdish linguistics. Bamberg studies in Kurdish linguistics (BSKL) 1, ed. Songül Gündoğdu et al., 73–92. Bamberg: University of Bamberg Press. ———. 2020. Una leggenda in Laki da Darb-e Gonbad (Lorestān, Iran). Annali, Sezione orientale 80: 80–109. ———. 2021. The Laki Variety of Harsin. Grammar, texts, lexicon. BSKL 2. Bamberg: University of Bamberg Press. Blau, Joyce. 1989. Le kurde lori. In Études irano-aryennes offertes à Gilbert Lazard, ed. Charles-Henri de Fouchécour and Philippe Gignoux, vol. 7, 37–58. Cahier de Studia Iranica. Blau, Joyce, and Veysi Barak. 1999. Manuel de Kurde: Kurmancî. Paris: L’Harmattan.

288 

S. Belelli

Bubenik, Vit. 1997. Development of modern Iranian tense aspect system. In Tense and aspect in Indo-European languages. Theory, typology, diachrony, ed. John Hewson and Vit Bubenik, 304–313. Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins. Bubenik, Vit, and Leila Ziamajidi. 2018. Restructuring of the Iranian tense/ aspect/mood system. Lingua Posnaniensis LX 2: 73–98. Bulut, Christiane. 2000. Indirectivity in Kurmanji. In Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian and neighbouring languages, ed. Lars Johanson and Bo Utas, 147–184. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. Christensen, Arthur, and Kaj Barr. 1939. Iranische Dialektaufzeichnungen aus dem Nachlass von F. C. Andreas. Berlin: Weidmannsche Verlagsbuchhandlung. Coghill, Eleanor. 2016. The rise and fall of ergativity in Aramaic. Cycles of alignment change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 1985. Tense. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cowgill, Warren. 1968. The aorists and perfects of Old Persian. Zeitschrift für vergleichende Sprachforschung 82: 259–268. Dahl, Östen. 1985. Tense and aspect systems. Oxford: Blackwell. Dorleijn, Margreet. 1996. The decay of ergativity in Kurmanci. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press. Fattah, Ismail K. 2000. Les dialectes kurdes méridionaux: étude linguistique et dialectologique. Acta Iranica 37. Leuven: Peeters. Haig, Geoffrey. 2008. Alignment change in Iranian languages. Mouton de Gruyter: A construction grammar approach. Berlin. Haig, Geoffrey. 2018. Northern Kurdish (Kurmanjî). In The Languages and Linguistics of Western Asia, eds. Geoffrey Haig and Geoffrey Khan, 106–158. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. Haig, Geoffrey, and Ergin Öpengin. 2018. Kurmanji Kurdish in Turkey: Structure, varieties and status. In Linguistic minorities in Turkey and Turkic-­ speaking minorities of the periphery, ed. Christiane Bulut, 157–230. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag. Haig, Geoffrey et al. n.d.-a Laki_conv_1. The language archive. https://hdl. handle.net/1839/00-­0000-­0000-­0018-­03DD-­3@view. Retrieved Nov 2020. ———. n.d.-b Laki_conv_2. The language archive. https://hdl.handle. net/1839/00-­0000-­0000-­0018-­03DE-­6@view. Retrieved Nov 2020. Jeremiás, Eva M. 1993. On the genesis of the periphrastic progressive in Iranian languages. In Medioiranica. Proceedings of the international colloquium on Middle Iranian studies organized by the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven from the

  A Cross-Dialect Account of Kurdish Past Tense Categories 

289

21st to the 23rd of May 1990, ed. Wojciech Skalmowski and Alois Van Tongerloo, vol. 48, 99–116. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta. Jügel, Thomas. 2014. On the linguistic history of Kurdish. Kurdish Studies 2 (2): 123–142. ———. 2020. The perfect in middle and new Iranian languages. In Perfects in indo-European languages and beyond, ed. Robert Crellin and Thomas Jügel, 280–309. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Karimi-Doostan, Gholamhossein, and Fatemeh Daneshpazhouh. 2019. Kurdish -râ as an Anti-Actor marker. In Current issues in Kurdish linguistics. BSKL 1, ed. Songül Gündoğdu et al., 205–223. Bamberg: University of Bamberg Press. Lazard, Gilbert. 1985. L’inférentiel ou passé distancié en persan. Stud. Iran. 14 (1): 27–42. ———. 2000. Le médiatif: considérations théoriques et application à l’iranien. In Evidentials. Turkic, Iranian and neighbouring languages, ed. Lars Johanson and Bo Utas, 209–228. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter. MacKenzie, David N. 1961. Kurdish Dialect Studies. Vol. 1. London: Oxford University Press. ———. 1966. The dialect of Awroman (Hawrāmān-ī Luhōn). Grammatical sketch, texts, and vocabulary. København: Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab. MacKinnon, Colin. 2002. The dialect of Xorramābād and comparative notes on other Lor dialects. Stud. Iran. 31 (1): 103–138. McCarus, Ernest N. 2009. Kurdish. In The Iranian languages, ed. Gernot Windfuhr, 587–633. London: Routledge. Mahmoudveysi, Parvin, et al. 2012. The Gorani language of Gawraju (Gawrajuyi), a village of west Iran. Texts, grammar, and lexicon. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Matras, Yaron. 1992–1993. Ergativity in Kurmanji (Kurdish): Notes on its use and distribution. Orientalia Suecana 41–42, 139–194. Matras, Yaron et al. 2016. The dialects of Kurdish. University of Manchester. http://kurdish.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/. Retrieved Nov 2020. Mokri, Mohammad. 2003. Grammaire et lexique comparés des dialectes kurdes. Paris: Karthala. Öpengin, Ergin. 2016. The Mukri variety of Central Kurdish. Grammar, texts, and lexicon. Wiesbaden: Reichert. ———. 2019. Combinations of clitic and affix person markers in central Kurdish. In Current issues in Kurdish linguistics. BSKL 1, ed. Songül Gündoğdu et al., 243–261. Bamberg: University of Bamberg Press. Öpengin, Ergin, and Geoffrey Haig. 2014. Regional variation in Kurmanji: A preliminary classification of dialects. Kurdish Studies 2 (2): 143–176.

290 

S. Belelli

Paul, Ludwig. 2009. Zazaki. In The Iranian languages, ed. Gernot Windfuhr, 545–587. London: Routledge. Payne, Thomas E. 1997. Describing morphosyntax. A guide for field linguists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rossi, Adriano V. 1989. L’inferenziale in baluci. In Études irano-aryennes offertes à Gilbert Lazard, ed. Charles-Henri de Fouchécour and Philippe Gignoux, vol. 7, 283–291. Cahier de Studia Iranica. ———. forthcoming. Tense and Aspect in Old Persian. In Proceedings of the conference “Tense and Aspect in Ancient Languages”, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Theologische Fakultät. Skjærvø, Prods Oktor. 2009. Old Iranian. In The Iranian languages, ed. Gernot Windfuhr, 43–195. London: Routledge. Stilo, Donald. 2007. Isfahan xxi. PROVINCIAL DIALECTS. In Encyclopædia Iranica, XIV: 1, 93–112. Online at https://iranicaonline.org/articles/ isfahan-xxi-provincial-dialects Thackston, Wheeler. 2006. Kurmanji Kurdish. A reference grammar with selected readings. Cambridge, MA: University of Harvard. Online at http:// www.fas.harvard.edu/~iranian/Kurmanji/kurmanji_1_grammar.pdf. Retrieved Nov 2020. Unger, Christoph. 2014. Badini Kurdish modal particles dê and da: Procedural semantics and language variation. Kurdish Studies 2 (2): 177–200. Windfuhr, Gernot. 1982. The verbal category of inference in Persian. In Monumentum Georg Morgenstierne II. Acta Iranica 22, 263–287. Brill: Leiden. ———. 1985. A spatial model for tense, aspect and mood. Folia Linguistica 19: 415–461. ———. 1989. New West Iranian. In Compendium Linguarum Iranicarum, ed. Rüdiger Schmitt, 251–262. Wiesbaden: Reichert. ———. 1995. Dialectology. In Encyclopædia Iranica VII: 4, 362–370. Online at https://iranicaonline.org/articles/dialectology. Retrieved Nov 2020. Windfuhr, G. 2009. Dialectology and topics. In The Iranian languages, ed. G. Windfuhr, 5–42. London: Routledge. Windfuhr, G., and John R. Perry. 2009. Persian and Tajik. In The Iranian languages, ed. Gernot Windfuhr. London: Routledge.

Adpositions in Kurdish Maximilian Kinzler

1 Introduction This chapter deals with adpositions in Kurdish, providing an overview of common traits and variation in Kurdish dialects. It presents the inventory of items of this word class (Sect. 2), discusses their distribution (Sects. 3, 4, 5, and 6), and then maps semantic functions typically expressed using adpositions in Kurdish onto the items of this class (Sect. 7). A common trait of definitions of adpositions in linguistic typology, as discussed, for example, by Dryer (2005, p.  346) and Hagège (2010, pp.  1, 8), is their characterization as words that relate one element to another element. The element which is related in this manner—I will use

I would like to thank the editors for extensive remarks and discussions in the review process and Ludwig Paul for commenting on different versions of this chapter.

M. Kinzler (*) University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 Y. Matras et al. (eds.), Structural and Typological Variation in the Dialects of Kurdish, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78837-7_7

291

292 

M. Kinzler

the traditional term complement (Hagège 2010, p. 1)—is typically a noun phrase (cf. Hagège 2010, p. 58 for its different forms), but other cases, for example, clauses, adpositional phrases, and possessive markers, exist (Hagège 2010, p. 581). The element to which this element is being related by the adposition can be ‘the verb of the clause’ or a noun (Dryer 2005, p. 346) or, adding a further class, ‘a verb, a noun, or an adjective’ (Hagège 2010, p. 8). Based on the discussion in Haig and Öpengin (2014, p. 110; visualized by the map in ibid., p. 111), this survey divides the Kurdish dialects into the groups Northern, Central and Southern Kurdish (abbreviated NK, CK, and SK, respectively; excluding Gorani and Zazaki). For NK, Haig (2018a, p.  134) mentions ‘a northwest-tosoutheast dialect continuum’ and remarks that ‘[p]robably the most divergent dialect is SEK [south-eastern (Northern) Kurdish], which includes Behdinī of North Iraq’. The divergence of south-eastern NK can also be observed in the data of this survey and frequently leads to a further subdivision of NK into south-eastern NK (SE-NK in the tables; especially Badînî) and the rest of the NK dialects. Differences between northern and southern dialects are also frequent in CK (N-CK and S-CK, respectively, in the tables). The Manchester Database of Kurdish Dialects (abbreviated as MDKD) forms the data base for this survey, especially concerning dialectal variation. In this database, mainly NK (samples starting with K) and CK (samples starting with S, except for S-013 and S-057) varieties are present. For SK, which is not represented well in MDKD (samples F-001, F-002, G-001, S-013, and S-057), the data has been supplemented by Fattah’s descriptions (2000), which includes a definition of SK as opposed to similar and adjacent language varieties. Furthermore, descriptions taken from MacKenzie (1961) have been used extensively for south-­eastern NK, and CK. There are few works that deal specifically with adpositions in Kurdish. General grammatical descriptions (for example, McCarus 1958, MacKenzie 1961, Blau 1980, Bedir Khan and Lescot 1970, Blau and Barak 1999, Fattah 2000, Pisowicz et al. 2012, Öpengin 2016) offer the most comprehensive account, with additional information in works with

  Adpositions in Kurdish 

293

different points of focus (for example Friend 1985, Haig and Öpengin 2014, Haig 2018a, 2018b). More specialized studies (for example Edmonds 1955, Jügel 2009, Öpengin 2012) concern themselves mostly with the so-called absolute adpositions (cf. Sects. 2.2 and 6) and especially the interplay of elements that are related by them and (other) arguments in CK, and discuss other adpositions only in passing. Exceptions are the overviews given in Samvelian (2007) and Tawfeeq Saeed (2017), which have a more comprehensive discussion of different aspects of adpositions in CK, including compound adpositions. In Kurdish, three types of adpositions can be differentiated by examining the position relative to the complement: adpositions preceding the complement (ex. 1a, li), adpositions following the complement (ex. 1b, da), and adpositions surrounding the complement (ex. 1c, le…da).2 Following Hagège (2010, pp. 8, 114–115), these adpositions will be called preposition, postposition, and circumposition, respectively. All MDKD examples are from the questionnaire part unless marked ‘FSS’ for free speech samples. (1) a. Nusaybin (NK; MDKD, K-030) li gund kêm mal he=ne in village.OBL.M few house existing=COP.3PL ‘there are few houses in the village’ b. Karlıova (NK; MDKD, K-060) gund da xanî hindik in village.OBL.M in house few COP.3PL ‘there are few houses (the houses are few) in the village’ c. Khalakan (CK; MDKD, S-075) xanû-y zor kem he=ye le gund-eke da house-EZ very few existing=COP.3SG in village-DEF in ‘there are very few houses in the village’

According to the definition above, the complement of the adposition is typically a noun phrase. The form of its head depends on the variety: in NK, which has case distinction (direct vs. oblique case), the head of the noun phrase is in the oblique case (ex. 3, 9, 10, 12a–c, 15a,d, 16a,b,e, 24b, 27; not shown overtly in ex. 1a,b, 12d,e, 13a–c,e, 15c,f, 16c,d, 26). Except for northern CK (for example bazarrê in ex. 2), CK and SK do not mark (morphological) case (ex. 1c, 11, 12f, 13d, 14a, 15b,e).

294 

M. Kinzler

(2) Sardasht (CK; MDKD, S-039) ew xełk-e-y le bazarr-ê dît=man feqîr bû-n that people-DEM-EZ in market-OBL see.PST=1PL poor be.PST-3PL ‘The people we met at the market were poor’

However, in contrast to nearly all of NK (with the exception of the Sûrçî dialect of NK, cf. MacKenzie 1961, pp.  171–172), they possess enclitic personal pronouns. Especially in CK, such pronouns, as complements of adpositions, can cause less straightforward constructions (cf. Sect. 6.2).

2 Inventory of Adpositions 2.1 Core Adpositions In this survey, the term core adpositions will be used for adpositions that can be characterized as follows: • • • •

they have a phonetically reduced form and are likely clitics (cf. below), they are used to build compound adpositions (cf. Sect. 2.4), they combine to circumpositions (cf. Sect. 5), and they have a so-called absolute form (cf. Sects. 2.2 and 6; prepositions and circumpositions only).

For the NK prepositions ji, bi and li, Haig (2018a, p. 122) points out that ‘[e]ach covers a broad and fairly abstract semantic space, with a spatial core: ji “from”, bi “by, through”, li “at”.’ This tendency can be added as a further defining aspect of core adpositions (with possible exceptions regarding the ‘spatial core’ of some postpositions). The clitic nature of adpositions has been noted by Bedir Khan and Lescot (1970, p. 9), Blau (1975, p. 34) and Haig (2018a, p. 122) for NK and Tawfeeq Saeed (2017, pp.  21–24) for CK.  Each of the additional features listed above will be discussed in following sections. Three items of the core adpositions appear only as prepositions (cf. Table 1). In this and the next table, and in the following discussion, short

295

  Adpositions in Kurdish  Table 1  Core adpositions I C-

Position

Meaning

NK

CK

SK

BJL-

preprepre-

with (instrument) from in, at(; to)

bi(,b,p) ji(,j,ş) li(,l)

be(,we) – le

we(,ve) (je,ej) (le)

labels for the various adpositions considered to be cognates in the different dialects will be used (column C-; B-, J-, and L- in this table). In these tables, only few typical forms (as attested in MDKD and, for SK, Fattah 2000) and meanings are presented. Information in parentheses applies only to more or less minor parts of the dialectal group. The forms of B- are related to Parthian and Middle Persian pad ‘with, by; in, at’ and Early New Persian ba with similar and additional meanings (< Proto-Iranian *pati, cf. Cabolov 2001, pp. 170–171). J- derives from Proto-Iranian *hačā, like Parthian až and Middle and New Persian az, which all mean ‘from’ (Rastorgueva and Èdel’man 2007, p.  301). The etymology of L- is very uncertain. Cabolov (2001, pp. 589–590) traces it back to word forms from Proto-Iranian *arda- ‘side’ (cf. NK alî, CK la with the same meaning) and compares it to Gorani la with prepositional functions. Jaba (1879, p. 375), on the other hand, classifies it as a loan from Arabic (li ‘to’). Three further items appear as postpositions and, in some varieties, as prepositions (cf. Table 2; for CK rre and we cf. discussion below). These items might be related to three of the verbal particles (NK/CK da, rra, NK ve and CK [aspectual morpheme] -ewe).3 The pre- and postpositional forms of D- can be reasonably traced back to Proto-Iranian *antar, like Parthian, Middle and New Persian andar ‘in(side)’ (Rastorgueva and Èdel’man 2000, pp. 160–161). Table 2  Core adpositions II NK C-

Position

Meaning

post-

DR-

post-, prepost-(, pre-)

in from; to; through

…de,…da …rre, …rra(,…r)

V-

post-(, pre-)

from; to; with

…ve

CK pre-

pre-

post-

pre-

di(,d) …da,…a (de) – (…rra) (rre)

(…a?) –

(de) –

…ew,…a

–

(v,f)

post-

SK

…ewe

(we)

296 

M. Kinzler

Tracing the origin of the post- and rare preposition R- is considerably more difficult. Semantic differences of the postposition between south-­ east NK and northern CK on the one hand and the rest of NK on the other, and the different functions it has in the latter could point to multiple origins (cf. Sects. 4 and 5). Candidates are cognates of Old Persian rādiy ‘for (the sake of )’ (Smirnova and Èjjubi 1999, p. 117) and possibly also words related to Parthian frāž ‘forward’. The latter etymology would necessitate a development Proto-Iranian *fr- > Kurdish rr-. Paul (2008) lists *fr- as preserved in Kurdish (but note the remarks on divergent developments in related languages), while Asatrian and Livshits (1994, p. 83 with fn. 8) favour the outcome rr-.4 The rare prepositional form of R- (northern CK rre only) could be based on a cognate with the postposition R- (cf. Smirnova and Èjjubi 1999, pp. 117, 121; in MacKenzie 1961, p. 121: a dialectal variant (?) of le; there (ibid., p. 122) also the postposition rra is presented as a dialectal variant (?) of da). Form and meaning of the postpositional and the rare prepositional forms of V- make them likely to be cognates of New Persian bāz ‘back, again; open’ and, perhaps, bā ‘with’ (cf. for Proto-Iranian and cognates Smirnova and Èjjubi 1999, p. 117). A prepositional form of V- seems to occur only in northern CK (we ‘to’, cf. Öpengin 2016, p. 101; MacKenzie 1961, p.  121: a dialectal variant (?) of be like in Warmawa) and south-­ eastern NK (as v ‘to’ besides p, cf. MacKenzie 1961, p. 197). Because of semantic considerations, we in SK (cf. Table 4), and parts of southern CK, especially Warmawa (cf. MacKenzie 1961, p. 121), is more likely to belong (also) to B-. However, there is some formal and semantic proximity, and it is often difficult to differentiate between them (cf. also SK ew in Sect. 2.3). A handful of problematic cases remain: The form -e is listed as one of the ‘simple prepositions’ in MacKenzie (1961, pp. 121, 197), likewise in Friend (1985, p. 56), based in part on MacKenzie (1961), and already ‘prépos.’ in Jaba (1879, p.  1). For CK he explains (MacKenzie 1961, p. 123): ‘a only occurs in conjunction with a verb and is realized as an enclitic[…]’ (and similarly for the south-eastern dialects of NK investigated in his study, cf. MacKenzie 1961, p. 198; more specific in Haig 2018b, p. 280: ‘realized as a clitic to the verb’). Accordingly, this enclitic element is realized in combination with verbal forms almost exclusively (-e in ex. 3; further examples in MacKenzie 1961, pp. 121, 123, 197–198). This would be quite unusual for a preposition.

  Adpositions in Kurdish 

297

(3) Kurtalan (NK; MDKD, K-062) min xwest ez her-im-e Batman-ê 1SG.OBL want.PST.3SG 1SG go.PRS-1SG-DRCT Batman-OBL.F ‘I wanted to go to Batman’

Consequently, -e is typically not classified as a preposition anymore. Pisowicz et al. (2012, p. 145) call -e an ‘unstressed prepositional enclitic’,5 Öpengin (2016, p.  102) calls it ‘a special verbal clitic -e (glossed as DRCT)’ and Haig (2018a, pp. 129–130) a ‘directional particle’. In this survey, the term directional particle will be used. However, there are rare instances of -e in which it is not attached to a verb (cf. ex. 4). MacKenzie (1961, p. 123) characterizes the instances that are not ‘in conjunction with a verb’, that is, ex. 4b, as follows: ‘Only on the rare occasions when the preposition is repeated, but not the verb, does it stand independently[…]’. (4) a. Sulaymaniyah (CK; MacKenzie 1961, p. 123) Şa Ismaʕîl-e [?] dwa-y xo=y xist Shah Ismail-DRCT [?] back-EZ REFL=3SG put.PST ‘she put Shah Ismail behind her’ b. Warmawa (CK; MacKenzie 1961, p. 123) geyşt-e qerax-î şar û e [?] dem derwaze-ke reach.PST.3SG-DRCT edge-EZ town and DRCT [?] before gate-DEF ‘reached the edge of the town and (came) before the gate […]’

Smirnova and Èjjubi (1999, p. 118) cite such examples, including the examples in ex. 4, from the texts in MacKenzie (1962, all of them also in MacKenzie 1961, p. 123). However, they analyse -e as a reduced form of the preposition we and/or the postposition ewe. In southern CK dialects (the examples cited in MacKenzie 1961, p. 123 are from the southern CK dialects of Sulaymaniyah and Warmawa), a connection to we, that is, probably B- (cf. remark on we in these dialects above), is conceivable. A synchronic interpretation to view we and -e as allomorphs in parts of SK is even more plausible. The loss of initial consonants of prepositions in SK in some instances (Fattah 2000, pp. 587, 594–595) and the distribution of we and -e (allative) in SK (Fattah 2000, pp. 586–588) provide evidence in favour of this. In SK, we is very clearly cognate (also) with NK bi and CK be (B-, cf. above).

298 

M. Kinzler

Other than generally being enclitic to verbal forms and not independent or proclitic like other prepositions (cf. also enclitic forms of core prepositions in south-eastern NK dialects, for example -il in ez-il malê bîm ‘I was at home’, MDKD, Mosul, K-021; cf. also Haig 2018a, p. 143), -e conforms to the defining traits of core adpositions: reduced phonetic form, taking part in compound adpositions and circumpositions, and having a so-called absolute form. Moreover, the additional characterization of abstract meanings applies. Like prepositions, -e is located directly in front of a ‘complement’, it indicates functions regularly marked by adpositions (cf. Sect. 7.4), and it co-occurs with oblique case in varieties with case distinction. These features might be the outcome of a prepositional origin. The directional particle might be related to the Middle Persian preposition ō, which marks ‘direction’ (cf. Lazard 2009, p. 169, 173). The similarities with core adpositions are why remarks on -e are included in this survey where appropriate. In CK, bo ‘for; to’ is used to build compound adpositions (for example bo naw ‘into’ and many more in Friend 1985, pp. 61–62), in circumpositions (cf. bo…ewe ‘towards’ in Sect. 5), as an absolute form without undergoing phonetic changes (cf. ex. 5a, including the similar ex. 5b from south-­eastern NK; that is, different from core adpositions, cf. Sect. 2.2), and has fairly abstract meanings (cf. Sect. 7.4). (5) a. Mawat (CK; MDKD FSS, S-076, 41) Îtir ke bo=m der-kewt […] then that for=1SG PRV-fall.PST.3SG ‘Then I realized (“for me came out”) that […]’ b. Zakho (NK; MDKD FSS, K-042, 28) xelat-ek-ê bo di-b-in gift-INDF-OBL.F for.ABS IND-bring.PRS-3PL ‘They bring a gift for them’

In southern CK the form is generally bo. The forms in NK (ji bona, ji boyî, ji bo, bo, and so on) and, less clearly, northern CK (le bo, lo, but also bo) indicate that bo very likely derives from a noun (cf. Sect. 2.4). Bedir Khan and Lescot (1970, p. 249) suggest a contraction of ji bûyîna … ‘de l’existence de …’. In the German translation (Bedir Khan and Lescot 1986, p. 212) a different, perhaps even more likely etymology is offered:

  Adpositions in Kurdish 

299

bon, originally in the meaning of ‘cause’ for the NK forms (cf. also Mardūḫ Kurdistānī 1957, p. 206 for the CK forms bon and bone both meaning ‘pretext; reason’).6 Syntactic properties inherited from an original nominal element contained in both etymologies might explain its formally unchanged use as an absolute adposition. Similar cases are CK legeł (northern CK also degeł) and south-eastern NK ligel, digel, gel ‘with (comitative)’. A comparison of these forms and of the forms in SK (wegerd, wel, and so on; in part still with a so-called ezafe particle, for example, wegerdi, cf. Sect. 2.4, especially ex. 12f-h) indicates a compound of a core preposition and the element geł, and so on. Unlike bo, legeł and cognates are not used in compound adpositions nor, probably, in circumpositions. The construction legeł…(d)a in southern parts of CK is not likely to have appeared after legeł became more grammaticalized (cf. also the form legeła < preposition le + geł + postposition a in ex. 6). Like bo, it is used as an absolute form without formal change (cf. ex. 6). (6) Baneh (CK; MDKD FSS, S-048, 35) be noʕ-êk-î tir rreftar=it legeła e-ka in way-INDF-EZ other behaviour=2SG with IND-do.PRS.3SG ‘[…] she/he will treat you (“do behaviour with you”) differently’

These characteristics might be reasons why bo and legeł are often considered simple adpositions. The description in Samvelian (2007, p. 238) is an example of this view: ‘The preposition bo “for, to, towards” and lagal “with”, which are generally considered as simple prepositions, can nevertheless combine with a clitic complement without displaying phonological variation’ (cf. also Öpengin 2016, p. 102).

2.2 Absolute Adpositions The core prepositions and a pronominal element referring to a third person have developed into special forms (Öpengin 2016, pp. 102–103), for example, NK pê ‘with it’ (cf. ex. 7a and, CK, ex. 7b), jê ‘from it’, lê ‘at it’, tê ‘in it’ (all meanings also ‘… him/her’). Etymologically, they can be analysed as preposition + pronominal element ê (Smirnova and Èjjubi 1999, p. 119).

300 

M. Kinzler

(7) a. Şemdinli (NK; MDKD FSS, K-078, 7) yanî em zor pê keywxoş di-bî-n that is 1PL very by.ABS pleased IND-become.PST-1PL ‘[…] that is we would become very pleased by it’ b.

Oshnaviyeh (CK; MDKD FSS, S-047, 73) ewe=t pê bi-łê-m that=2SG to.ABS SBJV-say.PRS-1SG ‘[…] let me tell you this […]’

Distribution and type of complements of these forms, however, vary in the varieties of Kurdish (cf. Sect. 6). This presents terminological difficulties, as well. MacKenzie (1961, p.  123) calls them the ‘ “absolute” forms’ of the prepositions. Friend (1985, p.  78) suggests ‘independent adposition’. Öpengin (2016, p.  103) points out problems with the term ‘absolute adpositions’, at least for CK, where the ‘absolute’ usage, that is, without an explicit complement, generally is not possible (cf. Sect. 6.2). In the absence of a more fitting term that covers the uses in all Kurdish dialects, I will use absolute adpositions in this survey. MacKenzie (1961, pp.  123–124, 199) presents -ê as the absolute form of the directional particle -e (this survey follows his interpretation). He attributes (MacKenzie 1961, p. 123 fn. 2) this interpretation to Edmonds (1955, p. 496). In this form, it is likewise attached to the verb (cf. ex. 8). Haig (2018a, p. 130) describes it as ‘the reduced form of a third person singular addressee or recipient’ for NK, but also as the absolute form of -e in Haig (2018b, p. 283) for CK, and likewise for CK Öpengin (2016, pp. 102–103). (8) Zakho (NK; MDKD FSS, K-042, 7) Hekû bi-d-in-ê dirist e if SBJV-give.PRS-3PL-DRCT.ABS completed COP.3SG ‘If they give [her] to him, it’s all fine’

In NK and CK, absolute prepositions are also used with postpositions (MacKenzie 1961, pp. 124, 199; for example CK pêwe ‘together’). Southern CK has special forms with (d)a: pya, tya. The a is repeated when used with enclitic pronouns, for example, tya-y-a ‘in(side) it’ (MacKenzie 1961, p. 124).

  Adpositions in Kurdish 

301

Other kinds of ‘absolute’ forms ‘[c]orresponding to the groups “preposition + cardinal yak”’ (MacKenzie 1961, p. 124) instead of preposition + pronominal element can only be attested in NK and CK (cf. ex. 9, pêk ‘together’ as a preverbal particle in pêk-înan ‘to bring together, compose’). In SK, comparable, yet non-contracted forms exist in le (de, je) yekew bün ‘they have separated’ (Fattah 2000, p. 294). (9) Akre (NK; MDKD FSS, K-044, 5) Bajar-ê Akrê bi sê gerrek-a hat-bû pêk-înan city-EZ.M Akre by three neighbourhood-OBL.PL come.PST-be.PST.3SG PRV-bring.INF ‘The city of Akre was composed of three neighbourhoods’.

While a regular absolute preposition of (northern) CK rre cannot be attested, it does seem to exist as this type, at least in the compound rrêk-­ û-­pêk ‘regular, tidy’ (MacKenzie 1961, p. 140).

2.3 Other Adpositions There are few other inherited simple adpositions that do not include lexical items used in compounds (cf. Sect. 2.4, excluding the third type) and that do not have the features mentioned for core adpositions. Two widespread items (cf. Table 5) are bê ‘without’ (cognate with Parthian, Middle Persian abē ‘without’, cf. Rastorgueva and Èdel’man 2000, p. 183) and ta ‘until’ (cf. New Persian tā ‘until’). In many SK dialects, the preposition ew (and so on) exists, and, rarely and only in the south of SK, there is the preposition eł (Fattah 2000, pp. 588–590, 597). The latter preposition is more frequently used for ‘on’ and more rarely (locative) ‘in’ (Fattah 2000, p. 597; cf. its probable cognates, the preverbal particles NK hil-, CK heł- and Middle Persian ul ‘up’, cf. Cabolov 1978, p.  73, Cabolov 2001, p.  440 and Skjærvø 2012, p. 214). The former, ew, is characterized as a ‘synthèse’ of we and -e by Fattah (2000, p.  588). Form and meaning, however, might also point towards a relation to V- (cf. Sect. 2.1). Other adpositions in Kurdish are generally either compound adpositions or nominal prepositions (Sect. 2.4), or loans (Sect. 2.5).

302 

M. Kinzler

2.4 Compound Adpositions and Nominal Prepositions A large portion of the inventory of adpositions in Kurdish consists of compounds. Many other items derive from lexemes shared with compounds that are used in other varieties. These latter items often seem to be grammaticalized forms of compounds. Often, it is unclear which path of grammaticalization a specific item has undertaken. Here, they are presented together to allow for a comparison between items in different dialects. Following Hagège (2010, pp. 128–132), the compound items will be called compound adpositions in this survey (cf. ex. 10, li ser ‘on’ < preposition li ‘at, in’ + noun ser ‘head’). Bo and legeł with their variants could have been included in this section, provided the etymologies outlined above are correct. However, because of their similarities with core adpositions in some dialects, they were already discussed in Sect. 2.1. (10) Pertek (NK; MDKD, K-028) k’it’ab li ser masê ye book on table.OBL.F COP.3SG ‘The book is on the table’

Mainly the core prepositions and postpositions and the directional particle -e are used in compound adpositions (Hagège 2010, p.  129: ‘Simple Adps are often constitutive members of Compound Adps’). In addition, CK uses the preposition bo (cf. Sect. 2.1 and also Friend 1985, p. 58 and Pisowicz et al. 2012, pp. 138–139, 141–145), and SK uses ew and eł (Fattah 2000, pp. 589, 597). Constructions involving the directional particle -e or the same post-­ verbal position without -e are included (for example -e nik ‘to (a person)’ in ez çûm-e nik diktor-î ‘I went to the doctor’, Sersink, NK, MDKD, K-038) because of functional similarities to adpositions (cf. Sect. 2.1). The element that contributes (spatial) meaning is often a local noun, as mentioned by MacKenzie (1961, p.  125): ‘nouns, particularly of place’, Öpengin (2016, p. 103): ‘local noun’, and Haig (2018a, p. 123): ‘locational nouns’; a fact that becomes apparent from lists of compound adpositions given in descriptions of CK such as MacKenzie (1961, p. 125), Öpengin (2016, pp.  103 and also 55–56), Friend (1985, pp.  60–64, 74–77) and

  Adpositions in Kurdish 

303

Pisowicz et al. (2012, pp. 138–139, 141–145), and the description of SK by Fattah (2000, pp. 592, 596). The following local nouns are several items attested in MDKD (questionnaire part) as part of compound adpositions (excluding body parts; cf. also Öpengin 2016, pp.  55–56 for additional information on the Mukrî dialect of CK): • NK: ber ‘front, face’ (→body parts?), bin ‘bottom’ (cf. BOTTOM > DOWN in Kuteva et al. 2019, p. 81), paşî ‘end’, rex ‘side’, and ba, cem, nik (for example in conjunction with the preposition li ‘in, at’ as li ba) ‘at (somebody’s place)’ • CK: bin ‘bottom’, kin (formerly) ‘side’, la ‘side’ Kuteva et al. (2019, p. 66) give a more general account of the subgroup of body parts. Following items are examples of body part nouns that are involved in compound adpositions in MDKD (questionnaire part): • ‘head’ (cf. HEAD > UP in Kuteva et  al. 2019, pp.  224–226): NK ser(î), CK ser • ‘back’ (cf. BACK (body part) > BEHIND in Kuteva et  al. 2019, pp. 64–66): NK and CK pişt • ‘navel’ (partly not used as noun): NK nav, CK naw/nêw (cf. Cabolov 2010, pp. 32–33 and Öpengin 2016, p. 56) Further items in MDKD (questionnaire part) are NK paş ‘after; behind’, and CK jêr ‘under’ and dwa (< ‘tail’? Cf. Cabolov 2001, p. 333 and body parts above; dwa-y ‘after’). The first and by far most common type of compound adpositions stems from adpositional phrases in different stages of grammaticalization, involving some element that supplies most of their meaning, for example, le piştî…da ‘behind’ < circumposition le…da ‘in’ + noun pişt ‘back’ + ezafe particle -î in ex. 11. (11) Marivan (CK; MDKD, S-049) drext-eke le pişt-î mał-eke da ye tree-DEF behind-EZ house-DEF behind COP.3SG ‘The tree is behind the house’

304 

M. Kinzler

The so-called ezafe particle in ex. 11 is used in Kurdish (with some restrictions in SK, cf. Fattah 2000, pp. 264–265), to combine head and modifier in noun phrases (cf. also Haig 2018a, pp. 118–121 and Haig 2018b, p. 275). Various combinations of presence or absence of the core adposition and the ezafe particle, respectively, are attested in MDKD, for example, CK le piştî, le pişt ‘behind’ and NK di binê…da, di bin…de, binê…da, bin…de ‘beneath’. Adpositions like bin…de (or forms of the second type below, like ber …ve ‘to(wards)’ in ex. 13c) might not be a combination of a preposition bin and the postpositions de. A comparison with other forms, for example, di binê…da, suggests that it is possibly part of an original compound form. In the course of grammaticalization, these adpositions have oftentimes been subject to phonetic reduction (cf. the different forms of ‘on’ in ex. 12a,b, ‘behind’ in ex. 12c–e, and ‘with (comitative)’ in ex. 12f-h, cf. also CK legeł). (12) a. Nusaybin (NK; MDKD, K-030) k’îtab li ser masê ye book on table.OBL.F COP.3SG ‘The book is on the table’. b. Sewîdiyê (NK; MDKD, K-107) kitêb li se tawlê ye book on table.OBL.F COP.3SG ‘The book is on the table’. c.

Kulp (NK; MDKD, K-059) dar li pişt-a mal-ê ye tree behind-EZ.F house-OBL.F COP.3SG ‘The tree is behind the house’.

d.

Kurtalan (NK; MDKD, K-062) dar li pişt xanî ye tree behind house.OBL.M COP.3SG ‘The tree is behind the house’.

e.

Doda (NK; MDKD, K-095) dar li piş xanî yi tree behind house.OBL.M COP.3SG ‘The tree is behind the house’.

  Adpositions in Kurdish  f.

Kermanshah (SK; Fattah 2000, p. 623) (we)gerd-i bira-ge=m kar kird-in with-EZ brother-DEF=1SG work do.PST-3PL ‘they worked (together) with my brother’

g.

Kermanshah (SK; Fattah 2000, p. 623) wegerd=(i)m kar kird-in with=1SG work do.PST-3PL ‘they worked (together) with me’

h.

Mendilî (SK; Fattah 2000, p. 622) wel-i kî hat with-EZ who come.PST.3SG ‘With whom did he come?’

305

The origin of a second type of compound adpositions lies in a lexical element, for example, NK ber ‘front, face’, tev ‘together’ (< di hev, cf. Cabolov 2010, p.  386) and CK nizîk ‘near’, and a dependent adpositional phrase, for example, NK ber bi, with circumposition ber bi…ve, and with postposition ber …ve ‘to(wards)’ (cf. ex. 13a–c), NK tev li ‘together with’ (ex. 13e), and CK nizîk le ‘near’ (ex. 13d). (13) a. Elbistan (NK; MDKD, K-022) keçik-a çüki ber bi dak-a xe de-bez-i girl-EZ.F little towards mother-EZ.F REFL IND-run.PRS-3SG ‘The little girl is running to her mother’ b. Nusaybin (NK; MDKD, K-030) keçik-a piçûk ber bi dî-ya xwe ve baz di-d-ê girl-EZ.F little towards mother-EZ.F REFL towards run IND-give.PRS-3SG ‘The little girl is running to her mother’ c.

Çukurca (NK; MDKD, K-025) kiçik-a biçük ber dayîk-a xwe ve di-bez-ît girl-EZ.F little towards mother-EZ.F REFL towards IND-run.PRS-­3SG ‘The little girl is running to her mother’

d. Sulaymaniyah (CK; MDKD, S-005) nizîk le Kerkuk near from [?] Kerkuk ‘close to Kerkuk’ e. Tunceli (NK; MDKD, K-010) tev li bira-yê min together with brother-EZ.M 1SG.OBL ‘with my brother’

306 

M. Kinzler

Further examples of this type are CK ber le ‘before’, ser be ‘pertaining to’, ser le ‘beginning from’ (cf. Pisowicz et al. 2012, pp. 141, 145), and, attested in MDKD, sebaret be ‘about, concerning’. Further historical possibilities include CK berew ‘towards’ (< ber ‘front’ + preposition *ew? Cf. SK werew and its preposition ew, and compounds with ew in MacKenzie 1961, p. 141 with a note on berew; however, cf. Fattah 2000, pp. 627–628 for a different analysis of SK werew). A third type of compound adpositions, consisting of a combination of adpositions, can be observed in the form CK be bê ‘without’ (cf. ex. 14a). In some dialects, this compound form is used more frequently (cf. MacKenzie 1961, p. 121 for CK). The simple bê is also used as a derivational prefix with the meaning of ‘-less’ (cf. ex. 14b and Öpengin 2016, p.  86 (Mukrî dialect of CK) for this usage of bê and also be with the opposite meaning). (14) a. Altun Kupri (CK; MDKD FSS, S-056, 6) ḥewt roj û ḥewt şew îtir şayî=yan kird-­ûw-­e be bê westan seven day and seven night again dance=3PL do.PST-PRF-3SG without getting tired ‘seven days and seven nights they danced without a break […]’ b. Marivan (CK; MDKD FSS, S-049, 17) E-łê, be xwa bêeqł in. IND-say.PRS.3SG by God stupid COP.2PL ‘He says, “by God, you are stupid (bê-eqł ‘mind-less’)”’.

In a survey of prepositions in CK, Samvelian (2007, pp.  239–240) distinguishes between ‘compound prepositions’ and ‘nominal prepositions’. These ‘compound prepositions’ are comparable to prepositional forms of the first type of compound adpositions discussed above. In this survey, the second term, nominal prepositions, is adopted, in a similar way to Samvelian 2007, for secondary prepositions that consist of a noun (for example NK pişt-a with ezafe particle, pişt without ezafe particle, both meaning ‘behind’), adverb (for example NK tev-î,7 tev ‘with (comitative)’) or adjective (for example NK nêzîk-ê, nêzîk, CK nizik-î, nizîk ‘near to, close to’) with or without an ezafe particle (cf. ex. 15).

  Adpositions in Kurdish 

307

(15) a. Kars (NK; MDKD, K-003) nêzîk-ê Kerkûk-ê near-EZ Kerkuk-OBL.F ‘close to Kerkuk’ b. Mahabad (CK; MDKD, S-029) nizik-î Kerkûk near-EZ Kerkuk ‘close to Kerkuk’ c. Digor (NK; MDKD, K-070) tev-î bira-yê min together-EZ brother-EZ.M 1SG.OBL ‘with my brother’ d. Çukurca (NK; MDKD, K-025) nêzîk K’erk’ük-ê near Kerkuk-OBL.F ‘close to Kerkuk’ e. Sulaymaniyah (CK; MDKD, S-022) nizîk Kerkûk near Kerkuk ‘close to Kerkuk’ f.

Bingöl (NK; MDKD, K-091) tev bira-yê min together brother-EZ.M 1SG.OBL ‘with my brother’

Many of the nouns, adverbs, and adjectives involved in nominal prepositions are also part of compound adpositions in varieties of Kurdish. As mentioned at the beginning of this section, it is difficult to assess whether such nominal prepositions are the outcome of the grammaticalization of compound adpositions or not (cf. ex. 15d–f and ex. 16). These items have often been subject to phonetic reduction, as well (cf. the different forms of ‘on’ in ex. 16a,b and ‘behind’ in ex. 16c–e). (16) a. Tatvan (NK; MDKD, K-024) k’itab ser masê ye book on table.OBL.F COP.3SG ‘The book is on the table’. b. Sewîdiyê (NK; MDKD, K-107) min av se erd-ê rijand 1SG.OBL water on floor-OBL.F spill.PST.3SG ‘I spilled the water on the floor’

308 

M. Kinzler c. Dolunay (NK; MDKD, K-031) dar p’işt-a xanî ye tree behind-EZ.F house.OBL.M COP.3SG ‘The tree is behind the house’. d. Rimêlan (NK; MDKD, K-055) dar pişt xanî ye tree behind house.OBL.M COP.3SG ‘The tree is behind the house’. e. Kağızman (NK; MDKD, K-067) dar piş xênî ye tree behind house.OBL.M COP.3SG ‘The tree is behind the house’.

However, there are some items of this type that seem to appear only as such, especially in NK. Examples from MDKD (questionnaire part) are NK behsa ‘about, regarding’, sewa ‘for’, şibê ‘like’, all containing a loan from Arabic (cf. Sect. 2.5) and probably an ezafe particle. McCarus (1958, p. 76) offers the CK example bay ‘for the price of ’.

2.5 Loans The third source for adpositions in Kurdish, besides inherited items (Sects. 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3) and secondary items discussed in Sect. 2.4, are loans. These can be further divided into the loan of an adposition and the loan of elements of compound adpositions or nominal prepositions. Examples for the former are SK werce ‘before’ (Fattah 2000, pp. 625–626) probably from the Gorani (compound) preposition wer ce (cf. Gewrecûyî in Mahmoudveysi et al. 2012, p. 53, and also the parallel construction of CK ber le with the same meaning) and widespread derbarey8 ‘about, concerning’ from the New Persian (compound) preposition dar bāra-i ‘about, concerning’. Examples of loans of elements of compound adpositions are CK le mawridî (one of the forms in MDKD) ‘about, concerning’ from Arabic mawrid ‘way(/place of entrance)’ (presumably as a calque of New Persian dar mawrid-i ‘about, concerning’), and the NK preposition (li) gorî ‘according to’ (MDKD FSS) from the Turkish postposition göre ‘according to’ (cf. Chyet 2003, p. 220).

  Adpositions in Kurdish 

309

Additional examples from MDKD (questionnaire part) involving Arabic for the former type are NK heya, NK/CK heta ‘until’ (from Arabic ḥattā ‘until’; cf. the inherited form ta in some dialects) and, for the latter type, sewa ‘for’ (from Arabic sabab ‘(also:) cause, reason’, cf. Chyet 2003, p. 532, 543), cem (from Arabic ǧanb ‘side’, cf. Chyet 2003, p. 87),9 for example, in li cem ‘at (somebody’s place)’, and şibê ‘like’ (cf. Arabic šibh ‘something similar’).10 The amount of loans of adpositions seems to be relatively high in SK. Fattah (2000, pp. 624–628) gives bîqeyrez (from Persian bi-ġ ayr az), bėcoz (from Persian bi-ǧuz), all with the meaning ‘apart from, except’, qeblez (from Persian qabl az), pîş (from Persian pīš) all meaning ‘before’, dürce (dür ‘far’, cf. werce above) ‘far from’, mẹl (from Arabic mayl ‘desire, inclination’? Then a nominal preposition) ‘towards, in the direction of ’ as further examples.

3 Prepositions The core prepositions (without R- and V-, cf. below) have the following distribution in the NK and CK dialects (cf. Table 3, only one frequent form given; for additional forms refer to Tables 1 and 2). SK core prepositions show even greater variation and a number of one to three different prepositions. Table 4 gives an overview. This table is a condensed presentation of the discussion of prepositions in Fattah (2000, pp. 583–586) with some changes in the division. The regions mentioned in tables regarding SK in this survey are only rough indications of the main area of a feature (for example not including Bîcar in the north-east and further ‘outliers’, cf. map ‘Les dialectes kurdes méridionaux’ in Fattah 2000). Table 3  Core prepositions—Northern and Central Kurdish C-

Non-SE-NK

SE-NK

BLDJ-

bi ‘with (instr.)’ li ‘in, at’ li ‘in, at; from’ di[…de] ‘in’ di[…da] ‘in’ ji ‘from’ (ji ‘from’)

N-CK

S-CK

be ‘with (instr.); to’ le ‘in, at; from’ (de ‘in; from’)

310 

M. Kinzler

Table 4  Core prepositions—Southern Kurdish C-

North-east

North-west

South I

South II

B-

we ‘with; to; in, at; from’

we ‘with; to’ le ‘in, at; from’

we ‘with; to’

we ‘with; to’

de ‘in, at; from’

de ‘in, at’ je,ej ‘from’

LDJ-

A form of B- is common to all Kurdish dialects. L- is attested in NK and CK, but only in the ‘north-western’ dialects of SK. The prepositional form of D- is frequent in NK in circumpositions (cf. Sect. 5); more rarely it is used alone (cf. tev ‘together’ < di hev, cf. Cabolov 2010, p. 386). The northern CK preposition de, on its own and as part of the circumposition de…da, is semantically close to some uses of le in all of CK (cf. Sect. 7.3). MacKenzie (1961, p. 121) groups de and rre with le (as dialectal variants? Cf. the discussion of L- and R- in Sect. 2.1). Öpengin (2016, p. 104) stresses the semantic similarities of de and le in the northern CK dialect Mukrî (ibid., p. 101: ‘de “at, in, from”’ like le); however, there are differences in the usage in circumpositions (cf. Sect. 5). Therefore, they are presented separately in this survey. J- has been lost in some stage of CK and the non-southern (II) parts of SK and is used less in parts of south-eastern NK (cf. Sect. 7.3 for the consequences this has for mapping semantic functions onto adpositions and note the additional sense of li in (parts of ) south-eastern NK). The usage of the rare prepositional forms of R- (northern CK rre only) and of V- (northern CK we, south-eastern NK v) remains mostly unclear. The directional particle -e is attested in NK, CK and SK (cf. Sect. 2.1). The discussion of semantics in Sect. 7.4 shows that in Kurdish, -e often seems to mark semantic functions of allative, recipient and, partly,

311

  Adpositions in Kurdish 

addressee. Like a preposition, it is located directly in front of the ‘complement’ (cf. Sect. 2.1). However, it is not always used when there is a post-­ verbal element with such functions. In MDKD (questionnaire part), its use displays some areal peculiarities (exemplified by its use for allative; however, there are differences depending on the specific function): Generally, CK uses -e with post-verbal elements of this kind if bo (cf. Sect. 7.4) is not used. In some rare instances they are even used together (ex. 17a; as a compound adposition of the third type or something else?) and in other, more frequent ones, bo is in post-verbal (or preverbal) position without -e (ex. 17b). (17) a. Piranshahr (CK; MDKD, S-031) emin de=m-hewîst bi-ç-im-e bo Batman 1SG IND=1SG-want.PST.3SG SBJV-go.PRS-1SG-DRCT to Batman ‘I wanted to go to Batman’ b. Kirkuk (CK; MDKD, S-055) wîst=im bi-rro-m bo Batman want.PST.3SG=1SG SBJV-go.PRS-1SG to Batman ‘I wanted to go to Batman’

SK, though not represented well in MDKD, and (south-)eastern NK (partly also north and west) show the same tendency of using -e if no adposition is used. The rest of NK often prefers using the same post-­ verbal position without -e. Table 5  Frequent non-core prepositions Item bê heta, ta bo, erra

Non-­SE-­NK

SE-NK (Badînî)

bê heya, heta, ta (ji) bona, bo (ji) boy(î), ji bo

geł

–

wek

wek(î/e/a), wego

N-CK

S-CK

(be) bê heta, ta bo, le bo, lo bo

SK bė, bî ta erra, war

Meaning

‘without’ ‘until’ NK ‘for’, CK/SK ‘for; to(wards)’ ligel, digel, gel degeł, legeł legeł wegerd, werd, ‘with wel (comitative)’ wek(î/û) wek(î/û) wek(û) – ‘like’

312 

M. Kinzler

Non-core prepositions are less uniform in the dialects. Some rather similar items, most of them cognates, are presented in Table 5 (SK forms from Fattah 2000, pp.  615–624, 627, and CK and NK forms from MDKD and MacKenzie 1961, pp. 121, 197). Various types of compound adpositions and nominal prepositions are attested (cf. Sect. 2.4). The distribution of these items will not be discussed in detail here; however, some of them are included in Sect. 7. The prevalence of postpositions and absence of adpositions in some uses in some NK dialects (cf. Sects. 4, 7.2, 7.3, and 7.4) amount to less use of prepositional items in these varieties.

4 Postpositions For certain dialects of Kurdish, it might be possible to argue that the elements labelled as postpositions in this survey do not deserve this term. They are, for example, not used without an accompanying preposition in these dialects (cf. for CK Tawfeeq Saeed 2017, pp. 22–24). In this survey of different Kurdish dialects, some of which do have postpositions used without accompanying preposition, however, the term still seems suitable. The discussion of the inventory in Sect. 2, specifically 2.1, shows that there is only a small set of postpositions in all Kurdish dialects (cf. Table 6; MDKD with some south-eastern NK and CK forms from MacKenzie 1961, pp. 122, 197, SK forms from Fattah 2000, pp. 628–637). NK dialects and parts of northern CK have the greatest number of items in the category (NK ve, de, rre with variants), with fewer in (southern) CK and SK. Some dialects of SK, especially of some cities and in the extreme south, hardly use any postpositions (Fattah 2000, pp. 628–629). SK (Fattah 2000, pp. 628–632) shows a variety of forms for a postposition (seemingly V-, that is cognate with NK ve and CK ewe), which Table 6 Postpositions C-

Non-SE-NK

SE-NK

N-CK

S-CK

SK

VDR-

ve(,va) de,da rre,re,rra,ra(,r)

ve(,ewe) da(,de) (rra)

ewe(,we) da (rra)

ewe(,o) da,a

ew,a (a?)

  Adpositions in Kurdish 

313

might appear to be the only one used in this dialect group (but cf. Sect. 5), comprising ew, ewe, we, a, and other forms. Postpositional forms of R- are rarer in parts of the south-east of NK than in the rest of NK, and more frequent in parts of the north of CK than in the rest of CK for reasons discussed in Sect. 5. Postpositions that are not part of a circumposition (cf. following section) are relatively rare in most Kurdish dialects, except for some areas of NK, especially the north, north-east and east. In some of these areas, however, they are common to such an extent that the school grammar from Soviet Armenia by K’urdo (1956) calls them ‘cases’ (‘hal’) alongside direct case, vocative, and oblique case: ‘Zimanê k’urdîda şeş form û şeş halê nava hene’ (K’urdo 1956, p. 34) ‘In Kurdish [with postposition …da ‘in’], nouns have six forms and six cases’. Based on the presentation of compound adpositions in Sect. 2.4, I conclude that compound adpositions by and large have not been a source of new postpositional items in Kurdish. The main reason for this is the order of head and modifier in Kurdish noun phrases (head, ezafe particle, modifier; cf. also Hagège 2010, p. 162), which is the starting point of compound adpositions of the first type and nominal prepositions (head as (part of ) the later preposition, with the place of the modifier taken by the complement). Bedir Khan and Lescot (1970, p. 253) give at least two ‘counterexamples’: ji…pê ve ‘apart from’ and ji…û vir de ‘since’, which could possibly develop into postpositions (seemingly not attested in MDKD). Table 7  Circumpositions in Northern Kurdish post-

D-

R-

V-

B-

on, through

with (com.), belonging to, adjacent to

J-

(beginning) from

with (comitative), through, following (movement) to, for

LD-

[MDKD: li…de ‘in’] in (locative, temporal), and so on

pre-

– through

since, from, according to, (manner) – in(to), through

314 

M. Kinzler

5 Circumpositions Various circumpositions are attested in NK (cf. Table 7; based on Bedir Khan and Lescot 1970, p. 246–254 if not indicated otherwise). In most of its dialects (cf. remarks on south-eastern NK below), only the preposition li and the directional particle -e seem to be less used in such constructions. In MDKD (questionnaire part), the combination li…de ‘in’ (instead of di…de) is attested in some of its dialects. In CK, circumpositions are used frequently to differentiate between le…(d)a ‘in’ and le…ewe ‘from’. Other forms exist as well, for example, be…ewe ‘to(wards); with (instrument)’, be…da ‘through’, -e…ewe ‘(in) to’, bo…ewe ‘to(wards)’ (MacKenzie 1961, pp. 122–123, Friend 1985, pp. 74–77, and Öpengin 2016, p. 104). Northern dialects of CK have the additional circumpositions le…rra ‘from’, de…da ‘in(side)’, de…ewe ‘into’, and de…rra ‘through’ (cf. Öpengin 2016, p. 104 and de and rra in Sect. 2.1). The latter is comparable in form and meaning to NK di…re. As mentioned in Sect. 4, postpositional R- is less frequently used in south-eastern NK, especially parts of Badînî, than in other NK dialects. A reason for this is that, instead of the frequent circumpositions ji…re ‘for’ and bi…re ‘with (comitative)’ (or the postposition alone) in other NK dialects (cf. Table 7), it uses the prepositions bo ‘for’ and (li/de)gel ‘with (comitative)’, respectively. Haig (2018a, p. 142–143) describes this and notes that di…rra ‘through’ is the only circumposition with R- in south-eastern NK. Northern CK, in contrast to southern CK, also exhibits the circumpositions le…rra ‘from’ and de…rra ‘through’ mentioned above (cf. the similar south-eastern NK form). In SK dialects with a postposition in use, the postposition can be found in forms such as -e…ew ‘to’, we…ew ‘with (instrument); to’, le…ew ‘from’, erra…ew ‘to(wards)’, wel…ew/a ‘with (comitative)’ with various forms of pre- and postposition (Fattah 2000, pp.  636–643), which resembles CK usage (cf. above) of the postposition V- with the exception of wel…ew/a. The postposition used in some CK dialects in the case of legeł is (d)a. This raises the question whether a cognate with the CK postposition (d)a existed earlier in SK and later (partially) merged with ew. This notion is corroborated by the fact that in some SK dialects, a second

  Adpositions in Kurdish 

315

form of the postposition, that is, a, appears with wel, and so on, which in these dialects is not normally used with the other prepositions (Fattah 2000, pp. 629–630, 638–639, 642). Various types of compound circumpositions are attested (cf. Sect. 2.4). The distribution of these items will not be discussed here in detail (but cf. Sect. 7). Nonetheless important is the fact that only some areas of NK have compound adpositions of the first type (cf. Sect. 2.4) with an independent postposition (cf. Sect. 4), for example, NK binê…da, bin…de ‘beneath’. Likewise, in the second type of compound adpositions, an independent postposition is present in some NK dialects, for example, ber …ve ‘to(wards)’ in ex. 13c.

6 Absolute Adpositions 6.1 Distribution of Absolute Adpositions Distribution and complements of absolute adpositions differ greatly between varieties. ‘Absolute’ forms of adpositions (cf. Sect. 2.2) exist in NK, CK, but only parts of SK. Even synchronically, they contain a pronominal element in NK, but have developed into an allomorph of the core adpositions in CK and have lost adpositional features where they exist in SK. Furthermore, they are used as preverbal particles (cf. Sect. 6.2). In the present section, the differences in distribution will be discussed, starting with the most divergent and least homogeneous SK. SK can be divided into three groups based on their absolute prepositions (based on the discussion of ‘prépositions construites’ in Fattah 2000, pp. 599–615, order of groups changed): 1. absolute prepositions of similar form as in CK and NK (north-west and parts of north-east of SK, for example, (l)e lė- in ex. 19), 2. absolute prepositions similar to Laki (parts of north-east; for example, -e bin in ex. 18), 3. no absolute prepositions distinguishable from simple prepositions (south, for example de in ex. 21).

316 

M. Kinzler

(18) Payrewend (SK; Fattah 2000, p. 609) fire kar da-n-e bin=ė much work give.PST-3PL-DRCT to.ABS=3SG ‘they gave him a lot of work’

Table 8  Absolute prepositions C-

NK

CK

SK

BLDJV-

pê lê tê jê vê (SE-NK?)

pê lê tê

pî-,pė-,plî-,lė-,ltî-,tė-

wê (N-CK?)

Table 8 gives an overview of the absolute prepositions in the Kurdish dialects (without the forms (CK) bo, legeł and -ê discussed above; forms from MacKenzie 1961, pp.  123, 199 for CK, south-eastern NK and especially vê, Öpengin 2016, p.  102 for northern CK, and also Haig 2018a, p. 122 for NK). The SK forms are from the first group.11 A comparison of NK forms in this table with the forms in Tables 1 and 2 on the basis of the ‘C-’ columns shows that NK dialects have simple, non-absolute items corresponding to most of the absolute ones: the core prepositions bi, li, di, ji and (south-eastern NK) v. Corresponding to the absolute form -ê (cf. Sect. 2.2) not listed in Table 8, there is the directional particle -e (cf. Sects. 2.1 and 3). Not all of these corresponding simple forms are used to the same extent in some parts of Badînî in south-­ eastern NK where jê exists (with exceptions, cf. jê kirin in the dialect of Akre below), but ji is not as widely used, and similarly in some parts of northern CK in the case of tê and the simple counterpart de. Southern CK tê has no simple counterpart (cf. Table  3). This also applies to SK tî-, tė- since there are no (separate) absolute forms where a preposition de exists (cf. list above and Table 4). This is also true for the absolute form of L- in parts of north-eastern dialects of SK (cf. Table 4). These absolute forms seem to be relics of earlier pairs of simple and absolute prepositions. An absolute form of northern CK rre does not seem to be attested in MDKD and is not listed in MacKenzie (1961, pp.  123, 199) and

  Adpositions in Kurdish 

317

Öpengin (2016, p. 102), but cf. rrêk in Sect. 2.2. Likewise, an absolute form of the SK directional particle -e is not mentioned in the description of absolute prepositions in Fattah (2000, pp. 599–615). In at least one instance, the absolute form of a former pair of simple and absolute prepositions is attested only as a preverbal particle (cf. Sect. 6.2), namely jê in jê kirin ‘to pluck (fruit)’ in the south-eastern NK dialect of Akre (MacKenzie 1961, p. 199 fn. 1). The first SK group (cf. list above) has further restrictions in the use of its absolute prepositions: they usually appear only in combination with a simple preposition (cf. Fattah 2000, pp. 600–603, with exceptions mentioned there, and ex. 19: (l)e lė=m ‘from me’). This means that they have mostly lost their ability to be head of an adpositional phrase and have become even less ‘absolute’. (19) Kełhor (SK; Fattah 2000, p. 602) pül (l)e lė=m bird money from from.ABS=1SG take away.PST.3SG ‘He took money from me’

In SK, a further difference between absolute prepositions and simple prepositions (we and le or only we) is the semantic scope (cf. Table  9 based on Fattah 2000, pp. 599–609; all meanings of the absolute prepositions also ‘… him/her’). The more numerous absolute forms seem to have preserved some semantic differentiation, while the simple forms have lost some differentiation due to the merger of prepositions. The absolute form of D-, without etymologically related simple counterpart in the relevant dialects, can be used with different simple adpositions in different senses (Fattah 2000, p. 603). Table 9  Meanings of absolute adpositions in Southern Kurdish CBLD-

Absolute prepositions (pî, lî, tî)

North-west (we, le)

North-east (parts) (we)

‘with; to it’ ‘from it’ ‘in(side), in(to), (from) inside it’

‘with; to’ ‘from; in’

‘with; to; from; in’

318 

M. Kinzler

6.2 Complements of Absolute Adpositions The original state (cf. Sect. 2.2) of absolute adpositions is still present in NK, where these forms contain a reference to a third person and do not appear with an (external) complement (cf. ex. 7a, for south-eastern NK cf. MacKenzie 1961, p. 199). In some NK dialects, pê is reanalysed as a simple preposition, for example, pê dara ‘out of wood (“with trees”)’ (NK; MDKD FSS, Şemdinli, K-078, 17; cf. also Haig 2018a, p. 122). In CK and those SK varieties which have distinct absolute forms similar to CK, however, the ‘absolute’ forms may be regarded as allomorphs of the core adpositions (similarly Samvelian 2007, p. 237) that are only used and, in fact, have to be used when the clitic form cannot be used, that is, when a clitic element, an enclitic pronoun of any person and number is the complement (similarly the clitic -ê, the ‘absolute’ form of the directional particle). Note that in most varieties of CK, the clitic pronoun complement is often realized on a host distinct from the preposition itself, but in such cases, the absolute form of the preposition is still obligatory (cf. Öpengin 2016, pp.  102–103 for CK (Mukrî); enclitic pronouns do not exist in NK with the exception of the Sûrçî dialect, cf. MacKenzie 1961, p. 171). Even for the third-person singular the enclitic pronoun has to be used (cf. ex. 20, pê=y). (20) Mawat (CK; MDKD FSS, S-076, 25) pê=y e-łê-n Berberd to.ABS=3SG IND-say.PRS-3PL Berberd ‘[…] they call it Barbard’

Conversely, complements of simple adpositions can never be pronominal clitics in these varieties. In the SK varieties without separate absolute preposition, however, this is possible (cf. ex. 21). In SK in general, if the complement of a preposition is an enclitic pronoun, the complement is always realized on the preposition rather than non-locally. The preposition may be either in its absolute form, or its simple form, depending on the dialect (Fattah 2000, pp.  289–291, 599; cf. ex. 19 from a dialect with absolute prepositions, ex. 21 from a dialect without absolute prepositions).

  Adpositions in Kurdish 

319

(21) Ilam and so on (SK; Fattah 2000, p. 604) guşt de=yan nîye meat in=3PL NEG.COP.3SG ‘There is no meat in them’

In CK, however, the position of these pronominal clitics is determined by more complex rules. While some (absolute) adpositions tend to host pronominal clitics, other types (ex. 7b) frequently result in a non-local placement at the ‘first stress-bearing constituent of the VP’ (Haig 2018b, p. 282), which can be blocked by a pronominal clitic with other functions. In this case, the complement may be regularly expressed by suffixes at the verb (ex. 22, =yan ‘they’: agent of transitive past tense verb, bo …-î(t) ‘for you’; cf. MacKenzie 1961, pp. 106–117 and Haig 2018b, pp. 282–284 for an overview; for northern CK (Mukrî), refer to Öpengin 2016, pp.  75–76, 91–94, 102–103, 116–118, and for the dialect of Sulaymaniyah Friend 1985, pp. 78–93). (22) Sulaymaniyah (CK; Friend 1985, p. 89) derga=yan bo kird-ît-ewe door=3PL for.ABS make.PST-2SG-ASP ‘They opened the door for you’

One possible exception to the rule that absolute adpositions in CK and SK are accompanied by a complement exists in at least one (south-­ eastern) dialect of CK (Sanandaj) and all of SK with such forms, in which the third-person singular seems not to appear with an (overt) complement (ex. 23; cf. Smirnova and Èjjubi 1999, p.  115 and Fattah 2000, p.  599). The apparent lack of a pronoun can be analysed either as an archaism of these dialects or as the result of a merger of the final segment of the preposition and the enclitic pronoun. (23) a. Sanandaj (CK; Smirnova and Èjjubi 1999, p. 115) min e-ken-im pê 1SG IND-laugh.PRS-1SG at.ABS ‘I laugh at him/her’ b. Kełhor and so on (SK; Fattah 2000, p. 601) pül da-n-e pė money give.PST-3PL-DRCT to.ABS ‘they gave money to him’

320 

M. Kinzler

The absence of an overt complement is normal for CK if the (transitive) verb of the clause is in a past tense and the complement is expressed by the Ø suffix of the third-person singular on the verbal form (Haig 2018b, p. 284). Absolute adpositions are also used as preverbal particles with some verbs. In NK, they usually become simple adpositions when the complement is not a third-person pronoun. In CK, some of these verbs keep the preverbal particle and add the simple preposition (cf. ex. 24: CK/NK pê-kenîn ‘to laugh’, which keeps the preverbal particle and adds be in CK). Other than absolute prepositions, forms like pêwe and pêk (cf. Sect. 2.2) can also be used as preverbal particles, but seem to always be inseparable, also in NK (MacKenzie 1961, pp. 124–125, 199–200, and also Öpengin 2016, pp. 67–68). (24) a. Sulaymaniyah (CK; MDKD, S-033) jin-eke daîme pê-e-ken-ê be minał-ek-an woman-DEF always PRV-IND-laugh.PRS-3SG at child-DEF-PL ‘The woman always laughs at the children’ b. Doda (NK; MDKD, K-095) jinik tim bi zarok-a di-ken-i woman always at child-OBL.PL IND-laugh.PRS-3SG ‘The woman always laughs at the children’

If no etymologically related simple counterpart exists (cf. Sect. 6.1), a semantically related, but not always predictable simple preposition is used (MacKenzie 1961, p. 123; cf. tê with enclitic third singular pronoun =y vs. le with the independent pronoun ew in ex. 25). (25) a. Sulaymaniyah (CK; MacKenzie 1961, p. 123) tê=y heł-de-n in.ABS=3SG PRV-give.PRS-IMP.PL ‘thrash him’ b. Sulaymaniyah (CK; MacKenzie 1961, p. 123) […]=yan lew heł-da […]=3PL in.3SG PRV-give.PST ‘they thrashed him’

  Adpositions in Kurdish 

321

7 Semantic Functions of Adpositions in Kurdish 7.1 Semantic Categorization There is much variation regarding how semantic functions are expressed with adpositions, even in one and the same group of dialects. For example, in MDKD (questionnaire part) data, comitative ‘with’ (cf. Sect. 7.2) is expressed in different varieties of NK with bi…re (rather not south-­eastern NK), …re (north-eastern NK and occasionally elsewhere), ligel, and so on (south-eastern NK), and other adpositions such as those involving tev. Similarly, a benefactive ‘for’ can be expressed in NK, for example, by means of various prepositional forms involving bo or sewa, the circumposition ji…re or the postposition …re (cf. Sect. 7.4). One adposition can have several semantic functions, as well (cf. ‘Adps and polysemy’ in Hagège 2010, pp. 277–282), for example, bo ‘for (benefactive); to (allative)’ or le ser ‘on (locative); about’ in CK. The following sections give an overview on how specific semantic functions are expressed in Kurdish. These sections will focus on semantic functions that are mainly used in combination with adpositions and are better attested in the material available here, especially in the questionnaire part of MDKD, but also in its free speech samples, MacKenzie (1961), and Fattah (2000). The labels used for semantic functions are mostly by Kuteva et  al. (2019, pp. 23–33). They are ablative, locative, allative, addressee of verbs of speech (subsumed under the function of the recipient in Kuteva et al. 2019, but cf. Sect. 7.4 and Luraghi 2016, p. 346), recipient of ‘to give’, benefactive, comitative, and instrument. Statements on frequency of use and distribution (exemplified by typical forms of a specific item) are based on MDKD (questionnaire part) and, for SK, Fattah 2000 if not stated otherwise.

322 

M. Kinzler

7.2 Instrument and Comitative Forms of preposition B- (NK bi, CK be, SK we, ve) are most widely attested for instrument, along with rarer NK bi…ve, …ve, pê, and the absence of an adposition, CK be…ewe and SK we…ew (and so on). An adposition that usually is present in other more or less closely related varieties, sometimes even in the same variety, is absent in some NK dialects and some functions. One of these cases is the function of instrument (ex. 26; cf. also MacKenzie’s more general description (1961, pp. 156 §260.d, 198 §301.d for south-eastern NK)). The noun is in the oblique case (not overtly in ex. 26). (26) Çukurca (NK; MDKD, K-025) wî lîmûn dest-ê xwe givaşt 3SG.OBL.M lemon hand-EZ.M REFL squeeze.PST.3SG ‘He squeezed the lemon with his hand’

For comitative, NK is split into dialects with digel, ligel, gel (south-­ eastern NK) and others with bi…re or …re (most of the rest). bi…ve and …ve and other adpositions like the preposition tev, tevî, tev li are less frequent. In CK, the preposition legeł, which occurs in southern CK also as circumposition legeł…(d)a, is used nearly exclusively in various forms, likewise in most of SK with its cognates wel(i), wegerd(i) and so on (with and without the postposition). One of the exceptions in CK is tek in Sanandaj (< têk ‘together’? Cf. Sect. 2.2 for têk and Sect. 2.4 for similar NK forms with tev).

7.3 Ablative and Locative In MDKD (FSS) most dialects of NK use a form of J- for ablative, with the marked exception of some, especially south-eastern, dialects of south-­ eastern NK, which have, at least additionally, forms of L- (cf. also Haig 2018a, p. 142). This resembles CK (le and le…ewe, northern CK additionally le…rra).

  Adpositions in Kurdish 

323

Locative (‘in, at’) is expressed in a more similar way in NK and CK (in MDKD, questionnaire part). Most of NK has li ‘in, at’ and di…de ‘in, at’, while eastern, especially north-eastern and partly the rest of northern NK and, more rarely, central NK have a tendency to use no adposition altogether or the postposition …da. CK has mostly le and le…da, as well as le naw, and north-eastern CK utilizes additionally de…da. In SK, more fundamental dialectal differences exist. At least four subtypes can be identified (cf. Table 10 and Sect. 3; only simple prepositions considered). This means that most dialects of NK use different prepositions (or prepositional parts of circumpositions) to express locative (‘in, at’) and ablative. In some NK varieties adjacent to CK, that is, parts of south-­ eastern NK, however, we see a greater similarity with CK in this respect (cf. also MacKenzie 1961, p. 197). In CK and most of SK, except for the southernmost dialects (‘south II’ in Table 10), there is one preposition used for both locative and ablative (CK le), sometimes as part of a circumposition that specifies the meaning (in CK, locative le…(d)a vs. ablative le…ewe, northern CK also le…rra). In CK, only northern CK has preserved the preposition de and the circumposition de…da (cf. NK di and di…de). On the one end of the SK speech area, in the south (‘south II’ in Table 10), ablative is expressed by je, ej, a cognate with NK ji, and locative is expressed by means of de, cognate with NK di, northern CK de. On the other end, in the north-east, the form of the ablative-locative preposition is identical in form with the preposition B-, which is used in all varieties for instrument (cf. Sects. 3 and 7.2). Table 10  Ablative and locative in Southern Kurdish Location north-east north-west south I south II

Ablative

Locative we le de

je,ej

de

324 

M. Kinzler

Such a formal overlap for the expression of ablative and locative is not unusual in this area. Gorani dialects show a very similar specific trait of overlapping means (preposition) for expressing ablative and locative. There the forms of this preposition can be reasonably traced back to Proto-Iranian *hačā ‘from’, for example, Hawrami ce ‘in’, ce…ewe ‘from, to’ (MacKenzie 1966, p.  55). Some other West Iranian languages are similar in this respect, for example, dialects of Luri. For example, the northern Luri dialect Gīōnī described in Amanolahi and Thackston (1986, pp.  222, 247) exhibits da alongside its allomorphs dar- and z’ meaning ‘in, at; from’, which probably are related to (Early) New Persian dar ‘in’ and az or zi ‘from’. Once again (cf. Sect. 7.2) in some NK dialects, an adposition that usually is present in a function, in this case locative, in other more or less closely related varieties is absent (ex. 27a, Mûsilê vs. ex. 27b li Mûsilê). The noun is in the oblique case. (27) a. Sunak Köyü (NK; MDKD, K-092) ez Mûsil-ê ma-m 1SG Mosul-OBL.F stay.PST-1SG ‘I stayed in Mosul’ b. İmranlı (NK; MDKD, K-023) ez li Mûsil-ê ma-m 1SG in Mosul-OBL.F stay.PST-1SG ‘I stayed in Mosul’

Other, less basic spatial adpositions (cf. Table 11, selected forms, NK and CK only) better attested in MDKD can be translated with the English prepositions on, under and behind.

Table 11  Further spatial adpositions Meaning on under behind

NK

CK

(li) ser le ser (li) bin(ê), (di) bin(ê)…da le jêrî, le jêr…(da), jêr; le bin…(da) (li) pişt(a); li paş, paş(î); li paşiya le pişt(î)

325

  Adpositions in Kurdish 

7.4 Allative, Addressee, Recipient, and Benefactive The adpositions used to express the semantic functions of allative, addressee, recipient,12 and benefactive partly overlap in the Kurdish varieties. In NK without south-eastern NK (cf. Table 12, without less frequent forms), for allative and recipient, the directional particle -e is frequently attached to the verb or the same position of the ‘complement’ without this particle is used (cf. Sect. 3; in areas close to south-eastern NK also attested for addressee, cf. below).13 Benefactive has often (ji) bo, (ji) bona, (ji) boyî and, especially in the west, different forms of sewa besides further items. Most of NK uses forms of ji…re (north-eastern NK and some other areas also …ra) for addressee (in the (south-)west also bi…rra) and benefactive. It is also attested for recipient. In south-eastern NK (cf. Table 13, without less frequent forms), allative and recipient regularly share -e with addressee. Benefactive is marked nearly exclusively by bo (cf. also Haig 2018a, pp. 142–143), which is also attested for addressee and, rarely, recipient. This latter function has in some areas (post-verbal) v (cf. Sect. 3 on this preposition). Similarly to south-eastern NK, CK (cf. Table 14, without less frequent forms) also expresses allative (1 in the table) and recipient using -e. In CK as a whole, the latter function is most frequently attested with the Table 12  Northern Kurdish without south-east Item

Benefactive

-e bo/sewa ji…re

+ +

Allative

Recipient

+

+

Addressee

+

Table 13  South-eastern Northern Kurdish Item -e bo

Benefactive +

Allative

Recipient

Addressee

+

+

+

326 

M. Kinzler

Table 14  Central Kurdish Item -e bo be

Benefactive

Allative

Recipient (+)

+

+¹ +²

+

Addressee

Instrument

+

+

‘absolute’ form of -e. Some dialects prefer bo and its variants for allative (2 in the table), sharing this preposition with benefactive. It is also attested for recipient and addressee. -e and bo combine both with each other (-e bo ‘to’) and with naw (-e/bo naw ‘(in)to’). In MDKD (questionnaire part), only northern CK regularly uses -e for allative with çûn ‘to go’ (cf. south-­eastern NK); southern CK mostly uses bo, although often in the same post-verbal position. However, with geyştin (and so on) ‘to arrive’ nearly all of CK uses -e. The preposition be (cf. Sect. 7.2 for its use for instrument) is used regularly for addressee and recipient. SK (Fattah 2000) uses one preposition, a form of erra, for benefactive and allative (rarely also erra…ew), comparable to bo in parts of CK, especially southern CK (cf. Table 14). For allative, -e (with rare exceptions in southern SK, post-verbal; also -e…ew), the prepositions ew (in preverbal position), we (also we…ew; shared with instrument) and, restricted to some dialects, eł (originally ‘on’) are used, as well.

8 Conclusion This survey has shown that the inventory of adpositions in most of the Kurdish dialects has several defining elements in common (with exceptions in SK): • a small set of core adpositions and a larger set of non-core adpositions, • pre- and postpositions, which combine to circumpositions, • most of the non-core adpositions are analysable as either compound adpositions, nominal prepositions or loans, and • (relics of ) absolute forms of adpositions.

  Adpositions in Kurdish 

327

Other than the small group of core adpositions, which by and large seem to be inherited adpositions or derive from adverbs, there are only few simple adpositions that are not secondary adpositions or loans. These two latter strategies account for the bulk of adpositional items. Mapping semantic functions onto items of the inventory reveals some similarities between the dialects, both in the specific items used (for example for locative, allative, recipient, benefactive, instrument, and, discussed in Sects. 2.3 and 3 with Table 5, ‘without’, ‘until’) and in polysemies of these items. However, these similarities are accompanied by extensive variation in the Kurdish dialects. A part of the dialects has a tendency to use prepositions (SK, especially the southernmost dialects), another part prefers postpositions or, in specific cases, not to use adpositions (eastern and northern dialects of NK), and the rest (CK and most of NK) is somewhere in between, with more or less extensive use of circumpositions. In combination with the general OV order, this amounts to a typological scale from typologically more frequent (north-east) to less frequent (south) types within the Kurdish dialects (cf. Dryer 2013; see Gündoğdu, this volume, and Haig, this volume, for further discussion). The distribution of specific items makes for a clear difference in inventory size of core adpositions: Some core prepositions (mainly J- and D-) and postpositions (R-, perhaps also D-) exist only in parts of the Kurdish dialects. There is also a difference in the extent to which loans of adpositions entered this class. Especially SK seems to have a relatively high number of loans. NK and CK prefer using compound adpositions or nominal prepositions, which sometimes, however, involve loaned elements. The so-called absolute forms are used as adpositions containing a pronominal element without external complements (NK), reanalysed as allomorphs of the core adpositions with explicit (clitic) complements (CK and parts of SK) or they are absent (south of SK). In CK and SK the number of items in this category is lower than in NK. In some instances they are relics of earlier simple-absolute pairs. Further morphosyntactic variation can be observed in the form of the complements of adpositions (co-occurrence with oblique case, enclitic personal pronouns).

328 

M. Kinzler

The expression of semantic functions using adpositions diverges in the items used (for example for comitative, ablative, and partially for benefactive, allative, recipient, and addressee) and in polysemies of these items. An areal feature is probably the convergence of ‘from’ and ‘in’ in one (element of an) adposition in parts of south-eastern NK, all of CK and most of SK. The area comprising this part of NK and the northern dialects of CK has more commonalities, for example, the preposition (CK) legeł ‘with (comitative)’ and specific (lack of ) use of the postposition R-. Moreover, in this area the expressions for benefactive and (compared to southern CK) allative show similarities. Several problems of the description of adpositions in Kurdish remain unresolved. Some of them are terminological problems, such as in the case of the term absolute adpositions. Others are questions of categorization, such as the status of the directional particle -e, the prepositions (CK) bo and legeł, especially in southern CK, and the categorization of compound adpositions in various stages of grammaticalization.

Abbreviations ABS Absolute form ASP Aspect B- (cf. Sect. 2.1; Table 1) C- (cf. Sect. 2.1; Tables 1 and 2) CK Central Kurdish COP Copula D- (cf. Sect. 2.1; Table 2) DEF Definite DEM Demonstrative DRCT Directional particle EZ Ezafe particle F Feminine FSS Free speech samples IMP Imperative IND Indicative INDF Indefinite INF Infinitive

  Adpositions in Kurdish 

329

J- (cf. Sect. 2.1; Table 1) L- (cf. Sect. 2.1; Table 1) M Masculine MDKD Manchester Database of Kurdish Dialects N-CK Northern Central Kurdish NEG Negation NK Northern Kurdish OBL Oblique case PL Plural PRF Perfect PRS Present PRV Preverbal particle PST Past R- (cf. Sect. 2.1; Table 2) REFL Reflexive SBJV Subjunctive S-CK Southern Central Kurdish SE-NK South-eastern Northern Kurdish SG Singular SK Southern Kurdish V- (cf. Sect. 2.1; Table 2)

Notes 1. Cf. also the critical remarks on terminology and categorization in the review by Reed Libert 2012, p. 210. 2. All Kurdish examples of this survey are represented in a Latin transcription as used in MDKD. The orthography of the examples from MDKD was retained (other than hyphens, and so on, in glossing); examples from other sources were adapted to this transcription (e and ė in Fattah 2000 are transcribed as ẹ and ė, respectively). Persian and Arabic are transcribed according to the rules of the Deutsche Morgenländische Gesellschaft (using a pre-modern vocalization for Persian). 3. Although the form of these items (adposition and verbal particle/aspectual morpheme) is close to identical in the specific varieties, their respective etymology is not clear. Cabolov (1978, p. 76) states that the preverbal particle da has no (known) etymology (that is it is not considered to be

330 

M. Kinzler

a cognate with D- by him). For rra cf. discussion on R-. Regarding ve/ewe, Cabolov (1978, p. 75) sees a relationship to New Persian bāz- (cf. discussion on V-). 4. Cabolov (1978, p. 84) is in favour of accepting this development, since he traces postpositional R- back to Proto-Iranian *radi (> Old Persian rādiy) and at the same time suggests possible contamination with the preverbal particle rra, for which he gives the etymology < Proto-Iranian *frā.̆ 5. ‘nieakcentowana enklityka przyimkowa’. 6. The suggestion by Cabolov (2001, p. 204): bo < preposition bi + pronoun ew ‘that’, seems less likely. 7. Bedir Khan and Lescot (1970, p. 254) analyse this form as a contraction of tev li (that is second type, cf. ex. 13e). 8. In CK, however, the -y in derbarey is analysed as the Kurdish ezafe particle. Accordingly, it is dropped when an enclitic pronoun is attached to it (cf. Sect. 2.4, especially ex. 12f–h; cf. also CK le bare(y)). 9. Already Jaba (1879, p. 117) gives Arabic ǧanb as the origin of this word. By contrast, Cabolov (2001, p. 486) traces it back to Arabic ǧamʿ ‘joining’ (NK cem). Jaba’s etymology seems more likely for semantic reasons (cf. also other compound adpositions in NK and CK with elements of similar meanings, for example with NK rex or CK la, both ‘side’). 10. Jaba (1879, p. 254) seems to derive it from ar. šabīh ‘similar’. Cf. Chyet 2003, p. 585, for the form şitî (also attested in MDKD) with the same meaning and a similar origin. 11. This is a slightly simplified overview of SK.  A small part of this first group in SK also has pî or we/le naw instead of tî-/tė- (Fattah 2000, p. 604). The use of a compound form with a cognate of naw instead of the absolute (group 2) or simple (group 3) preposition is also present for small portions of these two groups (Fattah 2000, pp. 608–609). Group 3 furthermore uses (w)e pė- ‘with (instrument); to’ in some areas (Fattah 2000, pp. 604–605). 12. The following cases in MDKD (questionnaire part) were examined: allative (non-human arguments other than ‘house, home’ only) with the verbs translatable as ‘to go’, ‘to come’, ‘to arrive’, addressee with the verbs ‘to say’ and ‘to tell’, and recipient with the verb ‘to give’. All of the arguments of addressee and recipient are pronominal. 13. Such constructions can be followed by a particle de (and similar forms, cf. Haig 2018a, p. 123, last paragraph).

  Adpositions in Kurdish 

331

References Amanolahi, Sekandar, and Wheeler M.  Thackston. 1986. Tales from Luristan (Matalyâ Lurissu̶). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Asatrian, Garnik, and Vladimir Livshits. 1994. Origine du système consonantique de la langue kurde. Acta Kurdica 1: 81–108. Bedir Khan, Djeladet, and Roger Lescot. 1970. Grammaire kurde. Dialecte kurmandji. Paris: Librairie d’Amérique et d’Orient. ———. 1986. Kurdische Grammatik: Kurmancî-Dialekt, tr. Helga Shahidi. Bonn: Verlag für Kultur und Wissenschaft. Blau, Joyce. 1975. Le kurde de ʿAmādiya et de Djabal Sindjār. Analyse linguistique, textes folkloriques, glossaires. Paris: Klincksieck. ———. 1980. Manuel de kurde. Dialecte sorani. Grammaire, textes de lecture, vocabulaire kurde-français et français-kurde. Paris: Klincksieck. Blau, Joyce, and Veysi Barak. 1999. Manuel de kurde. Kurmanji. Paris: L’Harmattan. Cabolov, Ruslan L. 1978. Očerk istoričeskoj morfologii kurdskogo jazyka. Moscow: Nauka. ———. 2001. Ètimologičeskij slovar’ kurdskogo jazyka. Vol. I.  Moscow: Izd. firma “vostočnaja literatura” RAN. ———. 2010. Ètimologičeskij slovar’ kurdskogo jazyka. Vol. II.  Moscow: Izd. firma “vostočnaja literatura” RAN. Chyet, Michael L. 2003. Kurdish-English dictionary. Ferhenga Kurmancî-­Inglîzî. With selected etymologies by Martin Schwartz. New Haven/London: Yale University Press. Dryer, Matthew S. 2005. Order of adposition and noun phrase. In The world atlas of language structures, ed. Martin Haspelmath and Hans-Jörg Bibiko, 346–349. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 2013. Relationship between the order of object and verb and the order of adposition and noun phrase. In The world atlas of language structures online, ed. Matthew S. Dryer and Martin Haspelmath. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology. (Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/95, accessed on 2019-12-17). Edmonds, Cecil J. 1955. Prepositions and personal affixes in Southern Kurdish. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 17 (3): 490–502. Fattah, Ismaïl K. 2000. Les dialectes kurdes méridionaux. Étude linguistique et dialectologique. Peeters: Leuven.

332 

M. Kinzler

Friend, Robyn Christine. 1985. Some syntactic and morphological features of Suleimaniye Kurdish. PhD dissertation, University of California. Hagège, Claude. 2010. Adpositions. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Haig, Geoffrey. 2018a. Northern Kurdish (Kurmanjî). In The languages and linguistics of Western Asia. An areal perspective, ed. Geoffrey Haig and Geoffrey Khan, 106–158. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ———. 2018b. The Iranian languages of northern Iraq. In The languages and linguistics of Western Asia. An areal perspective, ed. Geoffrey Haig and Geoffrey Khan, 267–304. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Haig, Geoffrey, and Ergin Öpengin. 2014. Kurdish: A critical research overview. Kurdish Studies 2 (2): 99–122. Jaba, Auguste. 1879. Dictionnaire kurde-français, ed. Ferdinand Justi. Saint Petersburg: Académie Impériale des Sciences. Jügel, Thomas. 2009. Ergative remnants in Sorani Kurdish? Orientalia Suecana 58: 142–158. K’urdo, Qanat. 1956. Gramatîka zimanê k’urdî (ser zaravê kurmancî). Bona k’omêd V-VI. Yerevan: Haypetusmankhrat. Kuteva, Tania, Bernd Heine, Bo Hong, Haiping Long, Heiko Narrog, and Seongha Rhee. 2019. World lexicon of grammaticalization. New  York: Cambridge University Press. Lazard, Gilbert. 2009. Qu’est devenue la préposition ō? In Zarathustra entre l’Inde et l’Iran. Études indo-iraniennes et indo-européennes offertes à Jean Kellens à l’occasion de son 65e anniversaire, ed. Éric Pirart and Xavier Tramblay, 169–176. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Luraghi, Silvia. 2016. The mapping of space onto the domain of benefaction and some unpredicted trends in semantic space. Linguistics 54 (2): 339–379. MacKenzie, David N. 1961. Kurdish dialect studies I. London: Oxford University Press. ———. 1962. Kurdish dialect studies II. London: Oxford University Press. ———. 1966. The dialect of Awroman (Hawrāmān-ī Luhōn). Grammatical sketch, texts, and vocabulary. Copenhagen: Munksgaard. Mahmoudveysi, Parvin, Denise Bailey, Ludwig Paul, and Geoffrey Haig. 2012. The Gorani language of Gawraǰū, a village of West Iran. Texts, grammar, and lexicon. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Mardūḫ Kurdistānī, Muh ̣ammad. 1957. Kitāb-i farhang-i Mardūḫ. Tehran: Čāpḫāna-i Artiš. McCarus, Ernest. 1958. A Kurdish grammar. Descriptive analysis of the Kurdish of Sulaimaniya, Iraq. New York: American Council of Learned Societies.

  Adpositions in Kurdish 

333

Öpengin, Ergin. 2012. Adpositions and argument indexing in the Mukri variety of Central Kurdish: Focus on ditransitive constructions. Orientalia Suecana 61: 187–198. ———. 2016. The Mukri variety of Central Kurdish. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Paul, Ludwig. 2008. Kurdish language i. History of the Kurdish language. In Encyclopædia Iranica. Online edition. New York. (Available online at https:// iranicaonline.org/articles/kurdish-language-i, accessed on 2021-03-21). Pisowicz, Andrzej, Andrzej Bartczak, Farhang Muthafar Muhamad. 2012. Gramatyka kurdyjska Sorani. Wariant używany w Erbilu. Kraków: Księgarnia Akademicka. Rastorgueva, Vera S., and Džoj I. Èdel’man. 2000. Ètimologičeskij slovar’ iranskix jazykov. Vol. 1. Moscow: Izd. firma “vostočnaja literatura” RAN. ———. 2007. Ètimologičeskij slovar’ iranskix jazykov. Vol. 3. Moscow: Izd. firma “vostočnaja literatura” RAN. Reed Libert, Alan. 2012. Review of Hagège 2010. Studies in Language 36 (1): 208–214. Samvelian, Pollet. 2007. A lexical account of Sorani Kurdish prepositions. In Proceedings of the 14th international conference on head-driven phrase structure grammar, Stanford department of linguistics and CSLI’s LinGO Lab, ed. Stefan Müller, 235–249. Stanford: CSLI Publications. Skjærvø, Prods Oktor. 2012. Middle West Iranian. In The Iranian languages, ed. Gernot Windfuhr, 196–278. London: Routledge. Smirnova, Iraida A., and Kerim R. Èjjubi. 1999. Istoriko-dialektologičeskaja grammatika kurdskogo jazyka. Saint Petersburg: Nauka. Tawfeeq Saeed, Sameerah. 2017. The Kurdish adpositional system: New perspectives. Cognitive Semantics 3 (1): 1–35.

Post-Predicate Constituents in Kurdish Geoffrey Haig

1 Introduction In Kurdish, as in all other attested Iranian languages, a direct object that is a lexical noun phrase (as opposed to a pronoun) will generally precede its governing verb; I will abbreviate this configuration as ‘OV’ henceforth. Although Kurdish is regularly characterized as an ‘OV’ language, several types of constituent regularly occur in post-predicate position. This chapter examines the nature of post-predicate constituents in Kurdish, maps their areal distribution, and engages with theoretical explanations for the unusual word-order properties of Kurdish, from a typological and from a diachronic perspective. Post-predicate placement of certain non-direct-object constituents is actually characteristic of much of West Iranian (see e.g. Frommer 1981 on spoken Persian, and Haig 2014, Haig 2017b, Stilo 2018). The evidence to date, however, suggests that Kurdish is among the languages G. Haig (*) Department of General Linguistics, University of Bamberg, Bamberg, Germany e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 Y. Matras et al. (eds.), Structural and Typological Variation in the Dialects of Kurdish, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78837-7_8

335

336 

G. Haig

with the strongest propensity for post-predicate arguments. Furthermore, in Kurdish, post-predicate position is syntactically fixed, and cannot be accounted for in terms of pragmatically driven scrambling or stylistic variation (factors that are regularly invoked to account for post-predicate elements in Persian). Word order in Kurdish is thus qualitatively different from just OV. Rather, we are dealing with a typologically unusual OVX type of word order, whereby the nature of the post-verbal ‘X’ varies across different varieties of Kurdish, as we shall see. This chapter exploits the potential made available through the Manchester Database of Kurdish Dialects (Matras et al. 2016, henceforth MDKD) in mapping the areal distribution of post-predicate elements, but draws on additional material where appropriate. In Sect. 2, the syntactic nature of post-predicate syntax in Kurdish is illustrated, based on an analysis of the Behdinî variety of Northern Kurdish, as spoken in the Iraqi Kurdistan township of Duhok. In Sect. 3, I present data from the MDKD, contrasting the syntactic position of Goals of motion and caused motion with other kinds of constituent. The evidence suggests that post-­ predicate syntax is associated with the semantics of ‘endpoints’, typically Goals, but also Recipients and Addressees.1 Section 4 contains a finer-­ grained investigation of the syntax of Addressees, considering both position and flagging. Section 5 considers the two lines of explanation in contemporary syntax, Hawkins’ (2007, 2008) processing-based account, and the Minimalist-inspired Final-over-Final-Constraint (Biberauer 2017), and assesses the viability of the diachronic explanation of Nikitina (2011). Section 6 presents some proposals of how OVX order in Kurdish developed, while Sect. 7 summarizes the main findings.

2 Post-Predicate Elements in the Duhok Variety of Northern Kurdish This section addresses the question of whether post-predicate constituents are syntactically derived, that is, whether we need to identify a specific post-predicate position for Kurdish syntax, or whether we can account for post-predicate position in terms of post-syntactic pragmatically determined movement of some kind. The question is relevant

  Post-Predicate Constituents in Kurdish 

337

because for Persian, the only other West Iranian language that has been systematically investigated in this respect, it is claimed that post-­predicate position is pragmatically driven, and primarily a matter of spoken informal registers (Lazard 2006, pp. 183, 194–196; Roberts 2009, 146). On this account, Persian is basically verb final, with some rightward leakage under certain pragmatic conditions. This conclusion fails to account for the high frequencies of certain post-predicate constituents in spoken Persian (near categorical, for example, with the caused-motion verb gozâštan ‘put’; see Frommer 1981, 133; Haig 2017a, b), which militate against an explanation in terms of pragmatic markedness. Nevertheless, it remains true that in Persian, for most of the relevant constituents a prepredicate position is at least available as a possible option. In other words, post-predicate position is not grammatically obligatory in Persian, but usage data suggest that it is so frequently associated with certain predicate types that an explanation solely in terms of information structure seems very unlikely. In Kurdish, however, post-predicate position of certain constituents appears to be grammatically obligatory. We illustrate this with data from the Northern Kurdish spoken in the Iraqi Kurdistan township of Duhok. This variety belongs to the Behdinî group of south-eastern Kurmanjî (Öpengin and Haig 2014); the data are based on the speech of an educated female native speaker, whose first language is Kurmanjî, but who also has acquired Arabic in an educational setting (see Haig and Mustafa [2019] on the language situation in Duhok). I refer to this dialect as Duhok Kurmanjî. In addition, I have surveyed data in the free speech samples from those varieties in MDKD that are close to Duhok: K-036 (Duhok); K-038 (Sersink); K-042 (Zakho). Certain word-order features of Duhok Kurmanjî differ from other varieties of Kurmanjî, and the differences will be given due consideration below. I nevertheless take this variety as initial illustration of the main issues, and as a benchmark, against which we examine the phenomena in other varieties. In Duhok Kurmanjî, the following constituent types regularly occur in post-predicate position:

338 

G. Haig

1. Goals and directions of verbs of motion 2. Goals and directions of verbs of caused motion 3. Recipients of the verb dan ‘give’ 4. Addressees of gotin ‘say, tell’ 5. Final states of predicates of change of state, e.g. ‘become, turn into’ 6. Some LVCs (Light Verb Complements) of the light verb kirin ‘do’. The following sections illustrate these six types, with the relevant constituents in bold type. All examples are elicited from a native speaker of Duhok Kurmanjî, unless otherwise stated.

2.1 Goals of Verbs of Motion The normal order for rendering the clause ‘Yesterday I went to Duhok’ is shown in (1). The Goal argument, Duhok, is in the feminine oblique, with no adposition, and occurs immediately after the predicate. The predicate2 takes the directional clitic =e [æ], historically a reflex of a preposition that originally preceded the post-predicate argument, but has leftwards-cliticized to the predicate (still visible as a preposition (w)a in dialects of Gorani, Mahmoudveysi et  al. 2012, pp.  52–57, or be/ba in Central Kurdish, illustrated in (17) below). (1) Dihî ez čû-bû-m=e Duhok-ê Yesterday 1SG go.PST-PLPRF-1SG=DRCT Duhok-F.OBL

The Goal argument cannot be separated from the verb by the adverb (2): (2) *Ez čû-bû-m=e dihî Duhok-ê 1SG go.PST-PLPRF-1SG=DRCT yesterday Duhok-F.OBL

The placement of other arguments is relatively flexible (3a, 3b), but they cannot intervene between Goal and verb (3c): (3a) ez čû-bû-m=e Duhok-ê [digel deyk-a xwe] I go.PST-PLPRF-1SG=DRCT Duhok-F.OBL with mother-F.EZ REFL ‘I went to Duhok [with my mother]’

  Post-Predicate Constituents in Kurdish 

339

(3b) ez [digel deyk-a xwe] čû-bû-m=e Duhok-ê I with mother-F.EZ REFL go.PST-PLPRF-1SG=DRCT Duhok-F.OBL (3c) *ez čûbûme [digel deyka xwe] Duhokê

Nor can the Goal argument be moved in front of the verb (4): (4) *Dihî ez Duhok-ê čû-bû-m-e Yesterday I Duhok-F.OBL go.PST-PLPRF-1SG=DRCT

The post-predicate position is also normal for Goals that are in focus: (5) In response to the question: What are you doing (Tu či di-ke-y?): Em dê č-în=e Duhok-ê 1PL FUT go.PRS-1PL-DRCT Duhok-F.OBL ‘We are going to Duhok’

Furthermore, the position of the Goal argument remains unchanged if the clause is embedded under a matrix verb like ‘say’ or ‘believe’, or is in a relative clause. The only exception to the post-predicate position appears to be when the Goal argument is questioned. It seems that the corresponding interrogative pronoun can be fronted (though this is optional)3 with verbs of motion. For the other predicate types discussed in Sects. 2.2, 2.3. 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6, WH-forms generally remain in situ after the predicate, though I have not checked the grammaticality of all the possibilities. (6) tu kîve di-č-î / tu di-č-î kîve? 2SG where IND-go.PRS-2SG ‘Where are you going?’

In sum, Goals of verbs of motion occur rigidly rightward of the predicate, and cannot be separated from it by other constituents (there may be clitics that interrupt the sequence; this remains to be investigated).

340 

G. Haig

2.2 Goals with Verbs of Caused Motion This class involves transitive predicates such as ‘put’ and ‘lay’, which require two non-subject arguments, a Theme and a Goal. Kurmanjî always assigns the Theme to the direct object role; hence, it takes the Oblique case, at least when the verb is based on the present stem. With verbs based on the past-stem, case-marking shifts to ergative alignment and the object receives the Direct case (Haig 2017a, b, pp. 475–481 for an overview). A direct object is thus always non-adpositional, but may be Direct or Oblique case depending on the alignment. However, with respect to word order, the alignment appears to be irrelevant, and for ease of exposition I continue to refer to direct objects in the Oblique case. The Goal may be either also in the Oblique case, with no adposition, or be an adpositional phrase. The possibilities for post-predicate adpositional phrases are quite restricted in other varieties of Kurmanjî, though in Duhok and neighbouring varieties, a fair number of possibilities are available. A Goal in the Oblique case is invariably post-predicate, but a Goal flagged by an adposition has greater word-order freedom, though post-predicate position is undoubtedly preferred. The following examples illustrate adpositionally flagged Goals, starting with an example of WH-constituent in (7), a focussed constituent in (8), while (9) illustrates the ungrammatical orderings: (7) Te nan kir=e di kîve da? 2SG.OBL bread do.PST=DRCT ADP where ADP ‘Where did you put the bread?’ (8) min nan kir=e di firin-ê da 1SG.OBL bread do.PST=DRCT ADP oven-F.OBL ADP ‘I put the bread into the oven’ (9) *min kire nan di firinê da / *min nan di firinê da kir

Example (10) illustrates a caused-motion Goal without an adposition, but in the Oblique case (gumrikê).

  Post-Predicate Constituents in Kurdish 

341

K-036 Duhok, free speech sentence 30 (10) hindek=êd he-yn rast di-be-n=e gumrik-ê some=EZ.PL exist-PL straight IND-take.PRS-PL-DRCT customs-F.OBL di-froș-in        hindek  jî    di-ke-n=e           miwîj. IND-sell.PRS-PL  some   ADD IND-do.PRS-PL-DRCT  dry ‘There is some they take straight to the customs and sell, and some they dry’ (lit. ‘make dry’)

Example (11) illustrates the less-common pattern of an adpositional Goal, but in pre-predicate position: K-042 Zakho, free speech sentence 28 (11) para ber zava-yî ve di-k-in money front bridegroom-M.OBL POSTP IND-do.PRS-PL ‘[...] they stick money on the bridegroom’s chest’

Again, what was stated above regarding the position of the Goal under embedding or in a relative clause also holds for the Goal of verbs of caused motion: post-predicate position remains unaffected.

2.3 Recipients of dan ‘Give’ This verb likewise involves two non-subject arguments; the Theme is invariably in the Oblique case with present-tense verbs, while the Recipient is always in the Oblique case, without an adposition. Positionally, however, essentially the same set of principles described above for spatial goals also apply to Recipients of ‘give’. Note that in Duhok Kurmanjî, the directional clitic on the verb dan has a unique form, =ev,4 and the Theme pare ‘money’ in (12) and (13) is treated as plural with regard to agreement. (12) Te pare da-n=ev kê? 2SG.OBL money(PL) give.PST-PL=DRCT who.OBL ‘Who did you give the money to?’

342 

G. Haig

(13) Min pare da-n=ev Majid-î 1SG.OBL money(PL) give.PST-PL=DRCT Majid-M.OBL ‘I gave the money to Majid’

2.4 Addressees of ‘say’ gotin The addressee of gotin is treated essentially analogously to the recipient of dan ‘give’, except that a preposition bo ‘to, for’ may also be used with the addressee, which is not generally possible with dan: (14) Min got=e Majid-î / bo Majid-î 1SG.OBL say.PST=DRCT Majid=M.OBL ADP Majid=M.OBL ‘I said to Majid’

2.5 Final State Complements of Inchoative ‘become’ (bûn) The copular verb bûn has two senses: equative and attributive ‘be’, and inchoative ‘become’. The two senses are formally distinguished, both morphologically and syntactically. Morphologically, inchoative bûn is a full verb, with both a past and present stem (bû, -b- e.g. bûm, di-b-im ‘I became, become’, while copular bûn is defective in the present indicative, where it lacks any segmental expression of the stem and is reduced to a clitic version of the respective person suffix (kurd=im ‘I am Kurdish, a Kurd’). The morphological distinction between inchoative and copular bûn is neutralized outside of the present indicative. Syntactically, however, a distinction is maintained. The complement of inchoative bûn is obligatorily in post-verbal position, and the verb takes the directional clitic. The difference between inchoative (15) and copular form (16) is illustrated below. (15) Ez li 2010ê bû-m=e mamosta 1SG in 2010.F.OBL become.PST-1SG=DRCT teacher ‘In 2010 I became a teacher’ (e.g. I graduated, began working as a teacher)

  Post-Predicate Constituents in Kurdish 

343

(16) Ez li 2010ê mamosta bû-m 1SG in 2010.F.OBL teacher be.PST-1SG ‘In 2010 I was a teacher’ (e.g. I was working at that time as a teacher)

With regard to the position of the inchoative complement in (15), the same restrictions apply as above to Goals: it is rigidly rightward of the predicate, and cannot be separated from it. Note that final state complements of ‘become’ are likewise found in Sorani, where they involve a preposition be/ba, presumably the origin of the Kurmanjî directional particle: CK, Suleimaniye dialect (MacKenzie 1962, 62), original transcription, glosses added (17) bard bū ba qatra=y āw stone become.PST.3SG ADP drop=EZ water ‘The stone turned to a drop of water’

Generally, the post-predicate placement of final states appears to be widespread across the entirety of Kurdish, though apparently lacking in the Tunceli variety of Kurmanjî (Haig 2006, 291). Note that items expressing the result or final state are typically post-predicate with other types of verb as well, including expressions with causative semantics, as in the clause dikene miwîj ‘they made it dry, they dried it’ in (10) above. Notice that here too, the verb carries the directional suffix. In some varieties of Kurdish, post-predicate position of final state expressions is restricted to nominal expressions, while adjectives remain pre-predicate, but the details of this distribution remain to be elucidated.

2.6 Light Verb Complements Duhok Kurmanjî requires post-predicate position of a small number of light verb complements, in combination with the verb kirin ‘do, put’. In this construction, the light verb carries the directional clitic. Examples (18 a–c) are illustrative (note the south-eastern Kurmanjî progressive form, using an ezafe particle; see Haig 2018 for discussion and references):

344 

G. Haig

(18) a. Ez yê di-ke-m=e xar 1SG EZ.M IND-do.PRS-1SG=DRCT running ‘I am running’ b. Ez yê di-ke-m=e kenî  ‘I am laughing’ c. Ez yê di-ke-m=e girî    ‘I am crying’

In the Sersink variety (K-038), a similar phenomenon can be observed with the complex predicate gazî kirin ‘call (someone)’. In most of Kurmanjî, the Addressee (the person called) is pre-predicate, placed either between gazî and the light verb kirin, or before gazî. In Sersink, however, the Addressee is positioned after the light verb, which then carries a directional particle: K-038 Sersink, free speech sentence 8 (19) Du sê car-a da gas ke-t=e min two three time-PL AUX calling do.PRS.SUBJ-3SG-DRCT 1SG.OBL ‘[...] two or three times he would call me’

2.7 Summary of Post-Predicate Elements in Duhok Kurmanjî Two main facts emerge from the preceding data. First, the post-predicate position must be considered a structural position in Kurmanjî, fully incorporated into the clause and associated with distinct morphology (e.g. oblique case, the directional clitic on the verb) rather than the secondary result of some kind of pragmatically driven movement. While this does not pose a major problem for the intransitive verbs of motion illustrated in 2.1, it raises intriguing issues for the transitive verbs of caused motion and transfer of possession in 2.2 and 2.3. For these, we are obliged to assume that the VP (or whichever governing node is considered relevant) has opposing branching directionality for its two complements (Theme and Recipient or Goal). Second, the elements that enter this position cannot be readily accounted for by any of the conventional categories assumed in derivational syntax models (Mainstream Generative Grammar, or LFG, for example). They cannot be associated with a particular Grammatical Function (e.g. ‘indirect object’), because the

  Post-Predicate Constituents in Kurdish 

345

construction cuts across the transitive/intransitive divide. There is nevertheless an obvious semantic generalization that can be drawn regarding post-­predicate elements: they are all associated with the semantic concept of ‘endpoint of a change of location, or state’ (though the purely semantic approach is too strong; we need to exclude from it the direct objects of transitive verbs, and it is also not entirely clear how it covers the Light Verb Complements of Sect. 2.6). But for the immediate descriptive purposes, the identification of post-predicate position with endpoints (or intended endpoints) of changes of state or location is sufficient. We address the theoretical issues in Sect. 5.

3 The Areal Distribution of Post-Predicate Constituents in Kurdish Section 2 has established a connection between constituents expressing endpoints (but excluding direct objects), and the post-predicate position. In this section we consider the areal distribution of post-predicate constituents across Kurdish. Three questions are at stake: (i) Is post-predicate position restricted to endpoint-constituents in other varieties of Kurdish, or does it extend to other kinds of constituent? (ii) Do the varieties of Kurdish exhibit variation in the range of endpoint-constituents that are placed in post-predicate position? (iii) What other structural features correlate with the linear position of the relevant constituents? In Sect. 3.1 we take a look at two types of constituents that do not involve endpoint semantics. First, expressions of static location, with no implication of movement (‘in, at, beside’, etc.), henceforth abbreviated PLACE. Second, non-local constituents such as Instrument, Comitative etc., henceforth abbreviated OBLIQUE.  In Sect. 3.2 we then contrast these findings with those from endpoint-constituents: Goals, Recipients, and Addressees. Representative data for change-of-state predicates are not available in the MDKD, so I will not consider them here.

346 

G. Haig

3.1 PLACE and OBLIQUE Constituents in the MDKD The MDKD includes seven clauses containing PLACE constituents, provided in (20), with PLACE constituents in bold type (copular clauses with PLACE are discussed in Sect. 3.1): (20) Sentences containing PLACE constituents in the MDKD Azad wanted to sing at the wedding. Every year hundreds of civilians are killed in Iraq. I live in this village. I stayed in Mosul. I studied in Kerkuk. That book that he had bought in Diyarbakir … The people that we met at the market …

Plotting the position of PLACE constituents with respect to the predicate yields Fig. 1. In creating the map, and all subsequent ones in this chapter, the following principles were adopted. First of all, we need to address the fact that data coverage is not even across all locations in the MDKD, that is, not all of the test sentences given in (20) have a corresponding

Fig. 1  Post-predicate PLACE constituents in the MDKD (Matras et al. 2016), based on the test sentences in (20)

  Post-Predicate Constituents in Kurdish 

347

translation at all locations (in some cases, the sentence is simply missing for that location, in others it is not analyzable for various reasons). The policy for the maps has been to include only those locations that have at least 50% of the relevant sentences. This means that some locations from the MDKD are excluded from some maps, because they lack 50% coverage of the relevant sentences. For example, with regard to the seven PLACE sentences in (20), any location that only has three or fewer of these sentences is excluded from the map. This ensures that only those locations are included that have a reasonably representative data spread in the relevant category. The assignment of colour coding is then based on the actual number of sentences available at a given data point, and distinguishes just three levels: black signifies more than 50% post-predicate position among the attested sentences at that point, grey indicates even numbers of post- and pre-predicate positions, while white indicates less than 50% post-­ predicate position. Taking the PLACE sentences above once again as an example: if a given location is represented by six test sentences, and four are in post-predicate position, then it will receive a black point. If a given test point is represented by five test sentences, and two are in post-­ predicate position, it will be coded as white. Obviously this level of granularity is exceedingly coarse, but sufficient for identifying major trends. Given the uneven level of data coverage, and the small number of sample sentences relevant for each constituent type, this appears to be justified (the raw data are available on request). It is apparent that for the majority of locations, PLACE arguments occur pre-predicatively. Nevertheless, some locations in the southern periphery of the Kurdish speech zone in Iraq permit post-predicate place arguments to varying degrees; these are discussed below. Second, I investigate the position of non-local OBLIQUEs. There are only four test clauses with such constituents, all of which involved some kind of Comitative. They are provided in (21): (21) Sentences with OBLIQUE constituents in the MDKD I played with my nephew. I play with my nephew every day. I work with my uncle. The woman always laughs at the children.

348 

G. Haig

Fig. 2  Post-predicate non-local OBLIQUE constituents in the MDKD (Matras et al. 2016), based on the test sentences in (21)

The results are shown in Fig.  2, constructed on the same principles as outlined above for Fig. 1. The results from Fig.  1 and Fig.  2 for PLACE, and for non-local OBLIQUE respectively, are very similar. Pre-predicate placement is the dominant option, with the exception of a small number of data points in Iraq. As was the case with the PLACE, these post-verbal OBLIQUEs all occur in varieties of Central Kurdish. For illustrative purposes I have selected two locations, both of which are well-represented in the data (i.e. have few gaps): Halabja [S-056], and Altun Kopru [S-073] in order to illustrate the post-predicate position of PLACE and OBLIQUE constituents (glosses simplified). Post-predicate PLACE: S-056 Halabja (22) min êjim lem gunde 1SG live.PRS.1SG in.this village.DEM ‘I live in this village’

  Post-Predicate Constituents in Kurdish 

349

S-073 Altun Kopru (23) [...] ke goranî bełê lew h.eflê [...] that song sing.SUBJ.3SG at.that wedding ‘[Azad wants] to sing at the wedding’

Post-predicate OBLIQUE: S-056 Halabja (24) min yarî ekim le_geł [...] brazakanim 1SG playing do.PRS.1SG with my.nephew ‘I play with my nephew’ S-073Altun Kopru (25) kar ekem ligeł mamim work do.PRS.1SG with my.uncle ‘I work with my uncle’

In these two varieties, post-predicate placement of PLACE and OBLIQUE constituents is fairly consistent in the test sentences. One might wish to conclude that these varieties have extended the post-predicate placement from Goals, for example, to include other kinds of constituent. However, the post-predicate placement of PLACE, for example, is not a categorical rule in either variety, as shown by examples such as the following, from the respective free speech samples. (26) shows a pre-­predicate PLACE, while (27) illustrates a pre-predicate OBLIQUE: S-056 Halabja, free speech sentence 9 (26) Bo_nimûne ême nemantuwanî le mecmûʕe danîșîn For.example 1PL not.1PL.can.PST in.this village.DEM stay.PRS.SUBJ.1PL ‘For example we could not stay in the community’ S-073 Altun Kopru, free speech sentence 42 (27) Be tayrî seyare=w șitane yarî=man ekird with tyres.of car=and things playing=1PL do.PST.IMPF ‘We played with car tyres and things like that’

Furthermore, in copular clauses, PLACE constituents are consistently prepredicate, and this appears to hold for all varieties of Kurdish (ignoring the innovated copula construction in Behdinî, Haig 2011). Thus in Halabja:

350 

G. Haig

S-056 Halabja (28) Kitabekê le_ser myêzeke ye book.DEF on table.DEF COP.PRS.3SG ‘The book is on the table’

To summarize, for both PLACE and OBLIQUE, all varieties allow prepredicate position, and in the vast majority of varieties sampled, this is the overwhelmingly preferred option. A small group of Central Kurdish varieties apparently also allow, or even prefer, post-predicate PLACE and OBLIQUEs (cf. (22)–(25) above). However, even these varieties evidently permit pre-predicate positioning, so that we cannot assume that post-predicate position has been generalized beyond the endpoint arguments outlined in Sect. 2. In general, we can assume that PLACE and OBLIQUE arguments are less tightly bound to the verb’s argument structure, and may therefore have more freedom vis-à-vis position relative to the predicate. Nevertheless, the overall preference evident in the MDKD data supports the assumption of pre-predicate position as the unmarked option for non-endpoint constituents.

3.2 Goals of Verbs of (Caused) Motion in the MDKD The results for GOALs of verbs of motion and caused motion are quite different to those of PLACE and OBLIQUE. The sample sentences of the MDKD include a number of motion and caused-motion GOALs, which are listed under (29) and (30) respectively. Only sentences involving non-human GOALs were considered: (29) Sentences with Goal constituents of verbs of motion in the MDKD If I had known that you would not come to the wedding, I would not have gone there either. If it hadn’t rained yesterday, we would go to the park He went to Arbil The bus arrived in Van I wanted to go to Batman I didn’t go to the town

  Post-Predicate Constituents in Kurdish 

351

Fig. 3  Post-predicate Goals of verbs of motion in the MDKD (Matras et al. 2016), based on the test sentences in (29) (30) Sentences with Goal constituents of verbs of caused motion in the MDKD He always spills the water on the floor I brought the food to the room The woman moved a box into the house. The woman pushed the cart into the house.

Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the findings for Goals of motion (29) and caused motion (30) respectively.

Discussion For both simple and caused motion, the overall picture is very similar: Goals are overwhelmingly post-predicate. The sole exceptions to this generalization are localized in a couple of data points in Iran, the two most conspicuous being S-031 Piranšahr, and S-037 Bukan. The following illustrate test sentences from these locations:

352 

G. Haig

Fig. 4  Post-predicate Goals of verbs of caused motion in the MDKD (Matras et al. 2016), based on the test sentences in (30) S-031 Piranšahr (31) ew bo erbîl çû he to Arbil go.PST.3SG ‘He went to Arbil’ S-037 Bukan (32) ew bo Hewlêr çû he to Arbil go.PST.3SG ‘He went to Arbil’ S-031 Piranšahr (33) emin çeşt=im bo wetax· bird I food=1SG to room bring.PST.3SG ‘I brought the food to the room’ S-037 Bukan (34) min çêşt-eke=im bo jûr-eke-y xom bird I food-DEF=1SG to room-DEF-of SELF.1SG bring.PST.3SG ‘I brought the food to the (here: ‘my’) room’

  Post-Predicate Constituents in Kurdish 

353

Although the test sentences suggest that for Bukan, pre-predicate position is the norm, examples with post-predicate GOALs are found in the free speech from this location: S-037 Bukan, free speech sentence 22 (35) min çû-m-e layî mał-î / małî bawkî I go.PST-1SG-DRCT to house-of / house-of father-POSS.3SG ‘I went to the house of, the house of her father’

The free speech sample for Piranšahr does not contain any unambiguous examples of Goals, so we cannot judge how representative examples (32) and (34) really are. It is possible that the prevalence of pre-predicate Goals in these locations is an artefact of using standard Persian as the language of elicitation, which may have triggered pre-predicate position, but this remains speculative. For Bukan at least, the free speech sample suffices to confirm that the pre-predicate position illustrated in the translation-­task sentences of (32) and (34) is not the only option. Why the speaker should have produced consistent pre-predicate Goals in response to the MDKD translation task remains a puzzle.

3.3 Recipients of ‘Give’ The final type of constituent to consider are Recipients of verbs of ‘give’, which in Kurdish is expressed through cognates of a verb dan ‘give’. The pool of sample sentences in the MDKD only contains two relevant examples, both of which involve pronominal recipients: (36) Sentences with Recipients of ‘give’ in the MDKD He didn’t give it to me. I didn’t give it to him.

Due to the complexities in the placement rules for clitic pronouns in Central Kurdish (see Öpengin & Mohammadirad, this volume), this type of clause is not suitable for establishing the word order of Recipients; thus, the survey was restricted to Northern Kurdish only. The results are quite monotonous, and need not be mapped: all varieties place the Recipient argument after the predicate.5

354 

G. Haig

3.4 Preliminary Conclusion With the exception of two locations in Iran, post-predicate position of Goals is the norm throughout Kurdish. Even allowing for some degree of flexibility, it is evident that Goals behave syntactically significantly differently to other types of non-direct object constituents such as PLACE and OBLIQUE, and this tendency is by and large consistent across the entirety of Kurdish (contrast for example Figs. 1 and 2 with Figs. 3 and 4). We can conclude that the ‘X’ position in OVX order of Kurdish is not associated with just any kind of non-direct object argument, but is specifically linked to some notion of endpoint (destination or movement, but also recipient in a transfer of possession), and this appears to characterize the entirety of Kurdish.

4 Addressees of ‘Say/Tell’ 4.1 Word Order of Addressees in Northern Kurdish Previous work (Haig 2014, 2017a, b) indicates that one of the structural isoglosses within Kurdish concerns the treatment of the Addressee of ‘say, tell’. Across all of Kurdish this is expressed through a cognate verb (though with varying suppletive present-stems). Thus in Northern Kurdish we have a past stem got-, in Central Kurdish gut-/kut- (Mukri, Öpengin 2016, 288), or wut-, and so on. I will refer to these forms collectively with ‘say/tell’. In the MDKD, the only sample sentences involving this verb have pronominal Addressees, so in Central and Southern Kurdish similar issues arise with regard to clitic pronoun placement that were discussed above for ‘give’. For this reason, in this section I only consider the placement possibilities for Northern Kurdish based on the MDKD, but I discuss Central Kurdish below, based on other sources. The test sentences used are provided in (37), and Fig. 5 illustrates the position of these Addressees vis-á-vis the predicate.

  Post-Predicate Constituents in Kurdish 

355

Fig. 5  Post-predicate Addressee arguments in the MDKD (Matras et  al. 2016), based on the sentences in (37), Northern Kurdish only (37) Sentences with Addressees of ‘say/tell’ in the MDKD I told it to you She told me I said to him Yesterday I did not buy any of the books you told me about

Figure 5 reveals that there is an areal clustering of post-predicate Addressees in the south-east of Northern Kurdish, while most of the dialects of Turkey and Syria prefer pre-predicate position. Thus Addressees of ‘say/tell’ pattern differently to Goals of verbs of motion, or Recipients of ‘give’, which are consistently post-predicate (Sects. 3.2 and 3.3). Northern Kurdish is thus basically split into two regions, one approximately corresponding to Öpengin & Haig’s (2014) ‘Southeastern Kurmanjî’, versus the rest.

4.2 The Interaction of Word Order and Flagging with Addressees With Addressees of ‘say/tell’, it is not only linear position that varies, but also flagging of the Addressee argument. The four most important means for flagging Addressees are provided in (38), and illustrated in examples (39)–(42).

356 

G. Haig

(38)  Flagging of Addressees in Northern Kurdish:    Bare (no adposition, but generally with directional particle on the verb), cf. (39)       Preposition, cf. (40)        Circumposition, cf. (41)        Postposition, cf. (42) K-078, Şemzînan (39) ewê got=e min 3SG.OBL.F tell.PST.3SG=DRCT 1SG.OBL ‘She said to me’ K-019, Shekhan (40) min got bo wî 1SG.OBL tell.PST.3SG to 3SG.OBL.M ‘I said to him’ K-091, Bingöl (41) min ji wî=ra go 1SG.OBL ADP 3SG.OBL.M= ADP tell.PST.3SG ‘I said to him’ K-022, Elbistan (42) mi wî=rra go 1SG.OBL 3SG.OBL= ADP tell.PST.3SG ‘I said to her’

There are reasons to simplify the four-way classification given in (38). First, if we assume that the ‘bare’ type historically arises from a prepositional phrase, with the preposition now reduced to the directional particle on the predicate, then we could collapse ‘bare’ and prepositional to a single type, Prepositional. This move is also motivated by the fact that the directional particle is in complementary distribution with an overt preposition, thus is absent in (40). Second, the difference between circumposition and postpositional hinges on whether the preverbal particle ji is phonetically realized or not. In rapid speech, it may assimilate to the initial segment of the noun, thus making the distinction difficult to draw. It seems evident that the postpositional variant must have arisen in this

  Post-Predicate Constituents in Kurdish 

357

Table 1  The correlation of flagging type and position, Addressees of ‘say/tell’ in Northern Kurdish Position Flagging type

Pre-predicate

Post-predicate

Prepositional Postpositional

– ✓

✓ –

manner from the circumpositional variant, so the two can be considered variants of a single type. Thus we arrive at two types, a prepositional type (38) and (39), and postpositional type (40) and (41). When we consider the position of these two types relative to the predicate, it is evident that the postpositional type correlates with pre-­predicate syntax, while the prepositional type correlates with post-predicate syntax, as shown in Table 1. The association of postpositional flagging and pre-predicate position appears to be categorical; no variety has been identified that uses post- or circumpositions to flag the Addressee, and places it consistently in post-­ predicate position. Thus we can formulate an initial constraint regarding the correlation of flagging with position as follows: (43) Addressees of ‘say/tell’ which are circumpositional, or postpositional, do not occur in post-predicate position.

It would be tempting to extend (43) to cover circum- and postpositional arguments generally, but we have already encountered post-­predicate circumpositional arguments, for example in Duhok Kurmanjî example (8), repeated here for convenience: (=8) min nan kir=e di firin-ê da 1SG.OBL bread do.PST=DRCT ADP oven-F.OBL ADP ‘I put the bread into the oven’

Thus for local Goals at least, post-predicate circumpositional arguments are possible, so we must restrict the domain of (43) to Addressees for the time being.

358 

G. Haig

The reverse generalization, namely that prepositional Addressees cannot occur pre-predicatively, is however not valid. The combination ‘prepositional Addressee, in pre-predicate position’, which is strongly dispreferred in Northern Kurdish, is in fact regularly attested in Central Kurdish, for example in the Mukri texts of Öpengin (2016) and the Suleimaniye texts of MacKenzie (1962). In these texts, ‘say/tell’ is a highly frequent verb, but it generally introduces direct speech, with no overt expression of the Addressee (which must be inferred from the context). In the few examples with an overt Addressee, it is generally pre-predicate, and prepositional (44–46). Post-positional placement is also attested, but a cursory inspection of these texts indicates that it is not the normal option. The preposition used is uniformly ba/be (the apparent vowel differences reflect the respective transcription practices, and are not relevant). CK, Mukri dialect (Öpengin 2016, 256; čn.166) (44) šā Ɂebās=īš be wezīr-eke=y kut King Abbas=ADD to Vizier-DEF=3SG say.PST.3SG ‘King Abbas too told his vizier’ CK, Suleimaniye dialect (MacKenzie 1962, 18; par. 42) (45) la řēgā birā gawra=yān ba birā pičūk=ī wut on_the_way eldest_brother=3PL to youngest_brother=3SG say.PST.3SG ‘On the way their eldest brother said to the youngest’ CK, Suleimaniye dialect (MacKenzie 1962, 32; par. 76) (46) ba pāšā bi-ɫē-n to King say.IMP.PL ‘Tell the King!’

Thus the possibility of prepositional Addressees in pre-predicate position, though apparently very rare in Northern Kurdish, is evidently the norm for at least some varieties of Central Kurdish. We cannot therefore formulate a general constraint ruling out pre-predicate prepositional Addressees, in analogy to the general constraint against post-predicate, postpositional Addressees (43). In Sect. 5 below we consider possible reasons for this asymmetry.

  Post-Predicate Constituents in Kurdish 

359

4.3 Summary of Addressees of ‘Say/Tell’ To conclude the findings for Addressees, Fig. 5 reveals an areal clustering of post-predicate position in the south-eastern varieties of Northern Kurdish, while pre-predicate position is the norm in most of Turkey and Syria. Essentially, south-easterly varieties of Northern Kurdish treat Addressees in the same manner as Goals and Recipients, while the rest of Northern Kurdish treats them like PLACE and other OBLIQUEs. We also observe that the position of the argument correlates with the type of flagging, with prepositional flagging associated with post-predicate position, and postpositional flagging with pre-predicate position. When we extend the investigation to Central Kurdish, however, an additional type becomes apparent, namely prepositional Addressee in pre-predicate position (44)–(46). Before closing this section, an important point must be addressed. The syntax associated with ‘say/tell’ (gotin and cognates) is verb specific. Addressees of other verbs of speech pattern rather differently. In this sense, then, the term ‘Addressee’ is somewhat misleading. Compare the Addressees of the translational equivalent of English ‘speak’, with those of ‘say/tell’ in Zakho (47–48), and in Şırnak (49–50): K-020 Zakho (47) min gel wî ne-axift to with 3SG.OBL.M NEG-speak.PST.3SG ‘I didn’t speak with him’ K-020 Zakho (48) min got=e wî to say.PST.3SG=DRCT 3SG.OBL.M ‘I said to him’ K-009 Şırnak (49) bi wî re ne-şitexlî-m ADP 3SG.OBL.M ADP NEG-speak.PST-1SG ‘I didn’t speak with him’

360 

G. Haig

K-009 Şırnak (50) min got=e wî to say.PST.3SG=DRCT 3SG.OBL.M ‘I said to him’

In both dialects, the Addressee of ‘speak’ is in pre-predicate position, while that of ‘say/tell’ is post-predicate. Furthermore, in Zakho we find a prepositional complement, while Şırnak has a circumpositional complement. I believe these differences are ultimately rooted in the Aktionsart of the verbs concerned: whereas ‘speak’ and similar predicates involve an unbounded and non-directed activity, ‘say/tell’ involves a directed, telic event that implies an endpoint: the completed delivery of some verbal content. If that is the case, then ‘say/tell’ will tend to pattern like other endpoint-predicates such as ‘give’, or verbs of motion and caused motion, hence will favour post-predicate position. The question then arises as to why in many dialects of Northern Kurdish and in some varieties of Central Kurdish not all Addressees of ‘say/tell’ are post-predicate. There is no obvious answer to this except an appeal to the weaker connection between ‘say/tell’ and the semantics of endpoints. While for Goals of verbs of motion, and recipients of ‘give’, the conceptual proximity to spatial endpoints is fairly transparent, it is perhaps less salient for Addressees of ‘say/tell’. Hence we find the placement of Addressees of ‘say/tell’ varies from dialect to dialect, with some treating it like other obliques (e.g. PLACE), while other dialects treat the Addressee of ‘say/tell’ like the Recipient of ‘give’.

5 Explanations 5.1 Synchronic Approaches The position of non-direct objects vis-à-vis the verb has received comparatively little attention in the typological literature. One of the exceptions is Hawkins (2008), who points to an asymmetry between OV and VO languages: Generally, VO languages retain the post-predicate position for other arguments. In other words, various kinds of obliques

  Post-Predicate Constituents in Kurdish 

361

follow the predicate, just as the direct object does, yielding a VOX order as the vastly preferred option (based on the data in WALS). For OV languages, on the other hand, all three logically possible orderings are widely attested: XOV occurs in 43% of the sample, OXV in 22% and OVX in 35% (Hawkins 2008, pp. 169–170). Hawkins advances an explanation in terms of processing ease associated with different kinds of word order. It is nevertheless important to note that Hawkins (2008) is exclusively concerned with non-direct objects (‘X’) in transitive clauses (i.e. clauses that also contain an O). He has nothing to say on word order in intransitive clauses, such as verbs of motion. Thus his processing-based line of explanation is only directly relevant for transitive clauses with additional post-predicate arguments, that is, with verbs of caused motion (e.g. (33) or (34) above), but are irrelevant for intransitive verbs of motion. As mentioned above, around 35% of OV languages in the WALS sample exhibit an OVX word order when additional arguments occur together with an object. Hawkins notes that the OVX languages are generally those OV languages that exhibit a number of head-initial characteristics. For example, they have more frequently prepositions rather than postpositions, N-Adj rather than Adj-N, N-Gen rather than Gen-N, and have postposed CPs headed by initial complementizers. Furthermore, they are exclusively N-Rel as opposed to Rel-N. Finally, Hawkins points to another characteristic of OVX languages, namely the frequent clauseinitial position of an auxiliary verb (Hawkins 2008, 185). Although Kurdish was not one of the languages of Hawkins’ sample, all these characteristics carry over to Kurdish, which thus confirms the global tendency for OVX languages to be “more head-initial and have head ordering correlations more like those of VO” (Hawkins 2008, 183). Turning now to the relationship of flagging type with position of the constituent relative to the predicate, we noted above an interesting constraint with Addressees of ‘say/tell’: prepositional, circumpositional and postpositional flagging are all attested for these constituents, and both pre-predicate and post-predicate position are likewise attested. However, no variety permits post- or circumpositional Addressee phrases to occur in post-predicate position, cf. (43). The available options for Kurdish can be schematically illustrated as follows:

362 

G. Haig

(51) Flagging type and position for Addressees of ‘say/tell’ a. [[Prep NP]PP V]VP b. [V [Prep NP]PP]VP c. [[NP Postp]PP V]VP d. *[V [NP Postp]PP]VP

Hawkins’ (2007) processing-based account predicts that both (51a) and (51d) would be dispreferred, because in both, the head of the embedded adpositional phrase is not directly adjacent to the governing V.  These configurations are, according to Hawkins (2007, 124), cross-­linguistically vastly less frequent than (51b) and (51c), a fact that he relates to the differences in relative processing efficiency. Looking at the Addressee data across Kurdish, however, we note that it is only (51d) which is unattested, while (51a) is attested in Central Kurdish (cf. 44–46), though it is probably the least common of the available possibilities. But Hawkins’ processing-­ based account offers no explanation for the fact that in Kurdish, (51a) is attested, while (51d) is not. Recently, an alternative approach to word order has been developed, which is particularly concerned with to the relationship of h ­ ead/dependent ordering within nested phrases. This line of research has focussed on what is known as the Final-over-Final Constraint (FOFC). The FOFC has been developed in a number of papers since the early 2000s; see Sheehan (2013) and Biberauer (2017) for discussion and references. The basic observation can be summed up as follows (Sheehan 2013): (52)   The Final-over-Final Constraint (FOFC) If α is a head-initial phrase and β is a phrase immediately dominating α, then β must be head-initial. If α is a head-final phrase, and β is a phrase immediately dominating α, then β can be head-initial or head-final.

The idea behind the FOFC is summed up in Biberauer, Newton, and Sheehan (2009, 702) as follows: ‘While a head-final phrase can be dominated by either a head-final or head-initial phrase, a head-initial phrase cannot be dominated by a head-final phrase’. In other words, head-initial phrases are more constrained with regard to the type of phrase they may be embedded under, while head-final phrases tolerate different kinds of dominating phrase.

  Post-Predicate Constituents in Kurdish 

363

Not all phrase types display FOFC effects to the same extent. Perhaps the clearest examples involve auxiliary placement: the order V-O-Aux, where a head-initial VP is embedded in a head-final AuxP, is virtually unattested in the languages of the world.6 However, adpositional order does not strictly comply with the FOFC, and has often been left outside the purview of FOFC-related studies. Very recently Biberauer (2017) considers the apparent violations of FOFC in the realm of adpositions, for example the widespread presence of prepositional phrases in Persian (OV), and in those members of Germanic which have been analysed as OV. The focus of her paper is thus on pre-predicate prepositional phrases, and how the FOFC can be adapted to account for such structures. The details of her argument go beyond the present purposes, but essentially boil down to the claim that the FOFC only holds for elements that belong to the ‘same Extended Projection’, and certain prepositional phrases under verbal heads do not qualify under the narrow definition of Extended Projection adopted by Biberauer (Biberauer 2017, pp. 186–187). The other aspect of OV languages that is considered by Biberauer is post-verbal position of certain constituents, that is, the OVX order already mentioned above. Biberauer notes that post-verbal constituents are frequently postpositional phrases, as in the following (see also (54) below from Mande). Koyraboro Senni, Biberauer (2017, 195) citing Heath (1999, 139) (53) Ay ga nooru wiri ay baaba ga 1SG IMPF money seek 1SG father POSTP ‘I will seek money from my father.’

Biberauer (2017, 196) takes up Hawkins’ (2008) observation concerning languages with OVX ordering, namely that they are overwhelmingly OV languages that display structural traits typical of VO languages: obligatory PP-extraposition in OV-languages is characteristic of OVX-type OV languages, which are ‘minimally OV’, exhibiting many traits found in VO languages, i.e. there is an independent reason why we see PP-extraposition in the relevant languages, one which is not in force in more fundamentally OV languages.

364 

G. Haig

With reference to Kurdish, we have already noted that postposing of adpositional phrases is common (and indeed obligatory) for many kinds of non-object argument in Kurdish. But the relevant PPs are generally not postpositional phrases, but prepositional phrases. As illustrated above for Addressees of ‘say/tell’ in Kurdish, where circum- or postpositional complements are possible, they are systematically avoided in post-­predicate position (though circumpositional phrases are permitted in post-predicate position for other types of argument, cf. (8) above). This would appear to run counter to the general predictions of the FOFC, which suggest that head-final phrases should be less constrained with regard to their positioning than head-initial phrases. The Kurdish data, however, suggest that it is postpositional phrases (Addressees in particular) which have the more restricted distribution. In general then, the modified version of the FOFC adopted in Biberauer (2017) does not offer a convincing explanation for the general dispreference of post-­verbal postpositional phrases, coupled with the freedom of preverbal prepositional phrases, that can be observed in Kurdish. Nevertheless, Biberauer is certainly correct that the rough classification into pre-, circum- and postpositional phrases is at best a superficial pre-theoretical taxonomy, and closer attention to the internal structure of PP’s in Kurdish would be a promising avenue to further our understanding of the interplay of phrase type and constituent order. We concur with Biberauer (2017, 196) that “OVX systems clearly merit much closer attention than has been the case to date”. We have briefly considered Hawkins’ typological findings on OVX languages, and some of the findings related to the FOFC (Biberauer 2017). Both authors converge on the observation that the attested OVX languages typically exhibit other head-initial structures, and this certainly applies to Kurdish, where most of the syntax is in fact head-initial. While Hawkins’ approach does predict the lack of post-predicate post-positional phrases, the formulation of the FOFC in Biberauer (2017) leads to the expectation of such structures (i.e. [V [NP Postp]PP]VP, as opposed to [[Prep NP]PP V]VP). But in fact we find the latter very widespread throughout Kurdish, and with different kinds of PP, while the former is ruled out except for circumpositional phrases with motion semantics (see (8) above). It is worth noting that neither Hawkins (2008) nor Biberauer (2017) has anything to say on the central issue in Kurdish, namely the semantics

  Post-Predicate Constituents in Kurdish 

365

of post-predicate constituents. I have repeatedly pointed to the fact that post-predicate position is reserved for phrases exhibiting endpoint semantics, or a metaphorical extension thereof. Furthermore, this feature cuts across the transitive/intransitive/ditransitive distinction, and also seems largely impervious to the argument/adjunct dichotomy. In the case of post-predicate constituents in Kurdish, there seems to be a rather direct association of linear position with semantics, which is difficult to model within the tradition of Mainstream Generative Grammar. Constructional approaches to syntax, which assume surface structure to directly encode semantic distinctions, are in a better position to deal with the Kurdish phenomena. In Construction Grammar, a particular syntactic structure directly encodes meaning, “a family of closely related senses” (Goldberg 1995, 31). Thus argument positions are not exclusively projected from the verb’s argument structure (the lexicalist position), via derivational processes such as movement, or Merge, but are directly associated with surface forms. Currently, a theoretically articulated model of Kurdish syntax that would accommodate these issues is not available.

6 The Diachronics of OVX Order in Kurdish From whatever perspective we view them, the word-order facts of Kurdish are undoubtedly unusual. It is reasonable therefore to enquire into the diachronic processes that have given rise to the current configuration. In this section I will first consider the line of explanation that has put forward by Nikitina (2011) to account for OVX word order in the Mande languages. In the second part of this section, I will briefly sketch some proposals for Kurdish.

6.1 OVX Through the Inheritance of Nominal Syntax (Nikitina 2011) In Mande languages, spoken in several countries in West Africa, and arguably assignable to the Niger-Congo phylum languages, direct objects precede the verb, but “all other arguments and adjuncts follow it” (Nikitina 2011, 251). The following example is from Soso (Central Mande):

366 

G. Haig

Soso, Central Mande (Nikitina 2011, 252, citing Creissels 2005) (54) ń nìngéé fíí-mà í má 1SG cow give-FUT 2SG to ‘I will give you a cow’

Essentially, the rule is that all adpositional constituents must follow the verb, regardless of the argument vs. adjunct status. Thus the recipient of ‘give’ in (54) follows the verb, because it is adpositional, while the direct object ‘cow’, which lacks any adposition, must precede the verb. Nikitina argues that the post-verbal adpositional phrases are in fact outside the VP, and are therefore necessarily extraposed. The VP is in a sense defective, in that it can only properly contain a single argument, the non-adpositional direct object. This structural constraint is related to a similar one that obtains for NPs. In Mande, only one kind of nominal complement is possible within the NP, namely prenominal possessors. Adpositional phrases, on the other hand, cannot be accommodated within NPs. Nikitina notes: “The restriction on postpositional modification of nouns parallels, rather suggestively, the restriction on combining postpositional phrases with verbs: neither noun phrases nor verb phrases can accommodate a postpositional phrase” (Nikitina 2011, 256). According to Nikitina (2011), contemporary Mande VP-structure arose through the re-analysis of originally non-finite syntax, involving deverbal nouns. The contemporary VP inherited the constraint against phrase-internal adpositional phrases that was, and still is, characteristic of NP structure. Nikitina (2011) thus relates the OVX structure of the VP to the diachronic origin of verbs as reflexes of ‘deverbal nouns’. In a structure involving an auxiliary, such as (55), the lexical verb is originally a deverbal noun, and the auxiliary derives from a form of ‘come’. Thus originally it must have been something like ‘I come to eating something’. The NP headed by the deverbal noun is ultimately reanalysed as a VP, but preserves the ordering of the original NP. Wan (Nikitina 2011, 257) (55) ŋ̀ zòŋ pɔ̄ lɔ́-ŋ 1SG AUX.PROSP thing eat-PROSP ‘I am going to eat’

  Post-Predicate Constituents in Kurdish 

367

Could such an account be applicable to Kurdish? Superficially, there are certain parallels. One pertains to the position of the auxiliary in Northern Kurdish, where we find an identical surface structure to the Aux-O-V structure illustrated in (55) above:7 Northern Kurdish, Muş dialect (56) Ez dê tişt-ek-î bi-xo-m 1SG AUX.FUT thing-INDF-OBL.M SUBJ-eat.PRS-1SG ‘I am going to eat something’

Despite the superficial parallels, I nevertheless consider that OVX in Kurdish has different origins to that of Mande. First of all, although verb forms based on the past stem in Kurdish, and indeed most of Western Iranian, do indeed go back to nominal forms (participles, Haig 2008), the same is not true of verbs based on the present-stem, which are a reasonably direct continuation of Old Iranian finite verbs. If the OVX word order in Kurdish was related to a nominal origin of the verbs, we would expect distinct word orders in past and present tenses, but this does not seem to be the case, or at least has never been demonstrated. Second, post-predicate vs. pre-predicate position is not just a matter of adpositional versus non-adpositional flagging. As was demonstrated in Sects. 2, 3, and 4 above, many adpositional complements (e.g. PLACE phrases) do occur preverbally. It is only endpoint-related arguments that do not. Furthermore, in the northerly dialect of Northern Kurdish, post-­predicate arguments often have no trace of any adposition. Thus, although Nikitina’s explanation of OVX order appears to be convincing for Mande, it is doubtful whether it can be applied to Kurdish.

6.2 The Diachrony of OVX Word Order in Kurdish Because Kurdish lacks historical attestation beyond about the sixteenth century, we are obliged to extrapolate from available evidence from attested Middle and Old Iranian languages in order to reconstruct a plausible pathway towards OVX syntax for endpoint constituents in Kurdish. Examples of endpoint-constituents from Middle Iranian are provided in (57) (Goal of caused motion) and (58) (Addressee of ‘say/tell’, and Goal of self-directed motion):

368 

G. Haig

Middle Persian, šabuhr I at Hajiabad, (Skjærvø 2009, 267) (57) ud tigr ō ān čīdāg ēw wīhēd and arrow to that cairn EXH let.shoot.3SG ‘may he shoot that arrow at that cairn’ Middle Persian, Turfan (Durkin-Meisterernst 2014, 409) (58) ō man guft to me say.PST.3SG čē     rāy  ne     hē        šud  ō  xwēš  šahr what for   NEG  AUX.2SG go    to self   country ‘He said to me: Why have you not gone to your country?’

All the endpoint constituents in these examples are flagged through prepositions, two are pre-predicate and the last is post-predicate. While a systematic survey for Middle Iranian is not available, my impression is that (i) prepositional flagging is the norm, and (ii) pre-predicate position is the preferred option. The very provisional nature of these observations notwithstanding, I would tentatively conclude the following: the source construction in Old and Middle Iranian for constituents expressing endpoints involved pre-predicate position, and prepositional flagging, but extra-position behind the predicate was an option. The frequency of such extraposition, and any regularities that it could be associated with, have never been investigated. If we assume that this was the point of departure, the first stage in the development towards the current state must have involved increasing extraposition of endpoint arguments. We know something about the relative frequencies of different endpoint arguments in post-predicate position in contemporary West Iranian languages (Haig 2014, 2017a, b, Stilo 2018), and working on this basis, the following assumption seems reasonable: extraposition of endpoint arguments would have initially affected Recipients of verbs of giving, and Goals of verbs of (caused) motion; these are the two types most widely attested across West Iranian, and universally found across Kurdish. In Old Iranian, Recipients were not adpositionally flagged but case-marked (Dative or Genitive/Dative), while Goals could be case-marked, or prepositionally flagged. Posposing these kinds of arguments would then yield non-adpositionally flagged post-verbal Recipients, and post-verbal Goals with or without adpositions. Interestingly, this is

  Post-Predicate Constituents in Kurdish 

369

the pattern still observable in Northern Kurdish, where post-verbal Recipients are case-marked, and lack an adposition, while Goals vary. A development that is observable within Kurdish itself is the attenuation of the prepositional flagging of some post-verbal arguments, leaving a trace in the form of ‘directional particle’, cliticized to the verb, in some varieties of Northern Kurdish. While all of Kurdish has fairly consistent post-predicate placement of Goals and Recipients, there is variation in the extent that this pattern has spread to other kinds of argument associated with endpoint-semantics (see Sects. 3 and 4). The Addressee of ‘say/tell’ also underwent changes in some, but not all, varieties of Kurdish. I assume that Addressee arguments were originally prepositionally marked, and pre-predicate; this is the construction shown in the first part of the Middle Iranian example (58), and still found in the Mukri dialect of Central Kurdish, e.g. in (44). In other varieties of Kurdish, two distinct and mutually exclusive changes occurred. The first is that the pre-predicate, and prepositionally flagged Addressees were increasingly postposed, yielding the pattern widely found in the south-­ eastern varieties of Northern Kurdish. This change is completely analogous to that which affected Goals and Recipients outlined above. A different change occurred in the dialects further north. Here the Addressee remained in pre-predicate position, but its flagging shifted to circumpositional, or post-positional. Thus these dialects distinguish syntactically between Addressees of ‘say/tell’, and Recipients of ‘give’. A similar split is noted for Vafsi, where Stilo (2010) contrasts the position of Recipients of ‘give’ with the Addressee of ‘say/tell’. The results are provided in Table 2, which takes only the figures for Vafs-Dialect, Folk Tales, into account. Absolute figures are not provided. Because post-predicate placement of Addressees is not universal in Kurdish, and likewise not in other contemporary Iranian languages, my assumption is that it is a diachronically later development, restricted to Table 2  Percentages of pre- and post-predicate placement of recipients and addressees in Vafsi (Stilo 2010) Give Say/tell

X-V 6% 100%

V-X 94% 0%

370 

G. Haig

certain varieties. Extra-posing of Goals and Recipients, on the other hand, appears to be a universal tendency, though with differing degrees of obligatoriness. We noted in Sect. 2 two other types of post-predicate arguments in Behdinî: Final states of inchoatives (‘become, turn into’), and the light verb complements of certain types of complex predicates. The latter appears to be a rare development, which I have not encountered outside of Behdinî. What triggered the word-order shifts in Kurdish is a matter of speculation. Haig (2014, 2017a) suggests Aramaic influence in the formative periods of Kurdish. We know, for example, that Turkic languages under contact influence with Iranian languages likewise exhibit post-predicate Goals and Recipients (Bulut 2007, 2018, Reetz 2014), so contact influence in this respect is not implausible. Two other factors are worth considering. One is an effect of iconicity: all other things being equal, semantic endpoints may be the preferred clausal endpoints (it is noteworthy that in other OV languages, most of the post-posing of arguments also includes Goals, see Haig (2014) for discussion). The second possible factor in the postposing of endpoint-arguments could have been a FOFCcompliance effect (see preceding section): across the world’s languages, prepositional verbal arguments are preferably post-predicate. The observations for Kurdish are summed up in (59) in the form of a hierarchy of post-posability (for a similar account of West Iranian generally, see Haig and Khan 2018). (59) Hierarchy of constituent types in post-predicate position MOST LIKELY POST-PREDICATE Goal of verbs of motion and caused motion/recipient of dan ‘give’ Addressee of gotin Other obliques (Direct objects, copular complements) LEAST LIKELY POST-PREDICATE

Note that this hierarchy is similar (though not identical) to Stilo’s (2018) overview from different language families in the Iran-Araxes linguistic area, and also Frommer’s (1981) hierarchy of post-positional elements in spoken colloquial Persian. In Persian, however, post-predicate position is a statistical tendency rather than a grammatical rule. It can nevertheless

  Post-Predicate Constituents in Kurdish 

371

hardly be coincidence that the frequency patterns observed in colloquial spoken Persian match very closely the grammaticalized nature of postpredicate syntax in Kurdish. Note that throughout we find that the items most resistant to post-predicate position are direct objects, and copular complements. My informal observation of colloquial Behdinî does in fact show sporadic post-posing of direct objects, which may be suggestive of a more far-reaching shift in the syntax of these (strongly Arabicinfluenced) varieties, but this remains to be investigated.

7 Conclusions This contribution has combined data from the MDKD with data from other sources on Kurdish and West Iranian languages, and considered them in the light of language typology and diachronic syntax. Throughout, the focus has been on lexical noun phrases, rather than pronominal constituents; the syntax of the latter may vary considerably from that of lexical noun phrases, and would merit an investigation in its own right; see Öpengin and Mohammadirad, this volume, for some discussion. The main conclusions are the following: • Post-predicate position of certain types of constituent is determined by syntactic rule, not by optional, pragmatic considerations. The Kurdish verb phrase actually splits into a pre- and a post-verbal domain, informally captured by the OVX formula. • The nature of the arguments that occur post-predicatively appears to be linked to the semantics of endpoints. It cannot be circumscribed through reference to a particular grammatical relation (e.g. ‘indirect object’), nor with reference to a particular transitivity class. In this respect, Kurdish word order appears to reflect semantics in a fairly direct way. • Within Kurdish, post-predicate placement of endpoint arguments is consistent across the vast majority of dialects (Figs.  3 and 4), with minor exceptions on the south-eastern peripheries, while non-­endpoint arguments (e.g. PLACE) are overwhelmingly preferred in the pre-­ predicate position (cf. Figures 1 and 2).

372 

G. Haig

• Within Northern Kurdish, the treatment of Addressees of ‘say/tell’ constitutes the major areal isogloss. Broadly speaking, a post-verbal, prepositional (or bare NP) type characterizes Southeastern Kurmanjî (Haig and Öpengin 2018), while the rest of Kurmanjî has a preverbal post- or circumpositional type (Fig.  5). However, a third type with pre-predicate, prepositional Addressees can also be observed in Central Kurdish (44–46). • Two accounts of OVX word order were examined: the processing approach of Hawkins (2008) and the Final-over-Final-Constraint (Biberauer 2017). Both converge on the conclusion that OVX languages are typically those with a large number of head-initial phrase types, an observation that is readily applicable to Kurdish, but neither approach predicts the constraint on post-predicate, post-positional phrases that appears to be operative in Kurdish. • Diachronically, I suggest that post-predicate constituents in Kurdish must have originated through an increase in frequency of an already available option for post-posing case-marked and prepositionally marked endpoint arguments. In Kurdish, high frequency actually translates into the grammaticalization of this position. Factors that contributed to the increase in post-posing may have been (i) effects of iconicity; (ii) avoidance of an FoFC-violation (pre-predicate prepositional phrases); (iii) contact with languages that generally place prepositionally marked endpoint arguments post-predicatively (Aramaic, Arabic). • The findings from Kurdish generally match those for other West Iranian language regarding the nature of post-predicate elements. Goals of (caused) motion, and Recipients of ‘give’ are the ones that recur across West Iranian, and are characteristic of the entirety of Kurdish. Addressees of ‘say/tell’ exhibit variant word orders, a fact that likewise characterizes Kurdish. It is evident that we are dealing with a feature that extends beyond Kurdish to most of West Iranian, suggesting changes of some antiquity. • Areally, there appears to be a hot-spot, roughly in the region of North Iraq/Southeast Turkey, while Iranian languages further north (e.g. the Caspian) and further East (e.g. Turkmen Balochi) have significantly fewer constituents in post-predicate position. This may reflect influence from Aramaic and Arabic, but this remains speculative. Within Northern Kurdish itself, this areal fade-out from the south-east to the

  Post-Predicate Constituents in Kurdish 

373

north-west can be observed, with dialects of the northern periphery having for example pre-predicate Addressees, while the dialect of Duhok has extended post-predicate syntax to some types of light verb complements (Sect. 2.6).

Abbreviations 1 first person 2 second person 3 third person ADD additive ADP adposition AUX auxiliary CK Central Kurdish, aka Sorani DEF definite DEM demonstrative DRCT directional particle EXH exhortative EZ ezafe F feminine FUT future IND indicative mood INDEF indefinite M masculine NEG negation NK Northern Kurdish, aka Kurmanji NP noun phrase OBL oblique case PL plural POSTP postposition PREP preposition PROSP prospective PRS present PST pst SG singular SK Southern Kurdish SUBJ subjunctive mood VP verb phrase

374 

G. Haig

Notes 1. For a recent Minimalist approach to post-verbal constituents in Kurmanji Kurdish, based primarily on the Muş dialect of Kurmanjî and framed in terms of event-structure mappings to syntax, see Gündoğdu (2017, 2018). 2. Note that the simple past tense in Duhok variety is frequently rendered with what appears to be a pluperfect, though it does not have pluperfect sense here. 3. Interestingly, fronting does not cross the subject position to the clause-­ initial position, that is, in generative terms the WH-element does not raise to Spec of CP, as is generally assumed for English and other languages with WH-movement. I leave the implications of this kind of WH-movement for future research. 4. The final [−v] of the directional particle may be devoiced. As noted above, I assume the directional particle is a reflex of a preposition *wa (or similar). Possibly the glide part of this was retained with the verb dan ‘give’, yielding the current [−v], perhaps due to the high frequency of the verb and its almost canonical association with a following recipient argument; this remains speculative. 5. The only exception is K-016, but the sentence supplied (nîša min neda) does not seem to be a correct translation of the stimulus sentence ‘He doesn’t give it to me’, and is thus ignored here. 6. The strength of this constraint depends on the nature of the auxiliary. When it is an uninflected particle, violations may occur. When it is an inflecting verb form, the order V-O-Aux is apparently unattested. 7. The future auxiliary in Kurmanjî is most likely a grammaticalized 3sg present-tense form of vîyan ‘be necessary, be desirous’.

References Biberauer, Theresa. 2017. Probing the nature of the final-over-final condition: The perspectivefrom adpositions. In Order and structure in syntax I: Word order and syntactic structure, ed. Laura Bailey and Michelle Sheehan, 177–216. Berlin: Language Science Press. Biberauer, Theresa, Glenda Newton, and Michelle Sheehan. 2009. Limiting synchronic and diachronic variation and change: The final-over-final constraint. Language and Linguistics 10 (4): 699–741.

  Post-Predicate Constituents in Kurdish 

375

Bulut, Christiane. 2007. Iraqi Turkman. In Languages of Iraq, ancient and modern, ed. John Postgate, 159–187. Cambridge: British School of Archaeology in Iraq. ———. 2018. The Turkic varieties of Iran. In The languages and linguistics of Western Asia. An areal perspective, ed. Geoffrey Haig and Geoffrey Khan, 398–444. Berlin: De Gruyter. Creissels, Denis. 2005. S-O-V-X constituent order and constituent order alternations in West African languages. Berkeley Linguistics Society 31: Special Session on Languages of West Africa, 37–51. Durkin-Meisterernst, Desmond. 2014. Grammatik des Westmitteliranischen (Parthisch und Mittelpersisch). Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaft. Frommer, Paul. 1981. Post-verbal phenomena in colloquial Persian syntax. PhD thesis, University of Southern California. Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions. A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gündoğdu, Songül. 2017. Goal arguments across Kurmanji dialects. Presentation at NACIL 1. New York: Stony Brook University. ———. 2018. Argument-adjunct distinction in Kurmanji Kurdish. PhD thesis, Boğaziçi University. Haig, Geoffrey. 2006. Turkish influence on Kurmanji: Evidence from the Tunceli dialect. In Turkic-Iranian contact areas. Historical and linguistics aspects, ed. Lars Johanson and Christiane Bulut, 283–299. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. ———. 2008. Alignment change in Iranian languages. A construction grammar approach. Berlin: De Gruyter. ———. 2014. Verb-goal (VG) word order in Kurdish and neo-Aramaic: Typological and areal considerations. In Neo-Aramaic and its linguistic context, ed. Geoffrey Khan and Lidia Napiorkowska, 407–425. New York: Gorgias Press. ———. 2017a. Western Asia: East Anatolia as a transition zone. In The Cambridge handbook of areal linguistics, ed. Raymond Hickey, 396–423. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 2017b. Post-predicate arguments in Iranian languages. Keynote lecture, seventh international conference on Iranian languages (ICIL7), Lomonosov Moscow State University, 28-30th august 2017. Haig, Geoffrey. 2011. Linker, relativizer, nominalizer, tense-particle: On the Ezafe in West Iranian. In: Foong Ha Yap, Karen Grunow-Hårsta and Janick

376 

G. Haig

Wrona (eds.). Nominalization in Asian Languages: Diachronic and Typological Perspectives, 363–390, Vol. 1: Sino-Tibetan and Iranian Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Haig, Geoffrey, and Geoffrey Khan. 2018. Introduction. In The languages and linguistics of Western Asia. An areal perspective, ed. Geoffrey Haig and Geoffrey Khan, 1–29. Berlin: De Gruyter. Haig, Geoffrey, and Baydaa Mustafa. 2019. Language choice and patterns of usage among Kurdish speakers of Duhok: An empirical intergenerational study. In Current issues in Kurdish linguistics, ed. Songül Gündoğdu, Ergin Öpengin, Geoffrey Haig, and Erik Anonby, 145–165. Bamberg: Bamberg University Press. Haig, Geoffrey, and Ergin Öpengin. 2018. Kurmanji Kurdish in Turkey: Structure, varieties and status. In Linguistic minorities of Turkey and ­Turkic-­speaking minorities of the periphery, ed. Christiane Bulut, 157–229. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Hawkins, John. 2007. Efficiency and complexity in grammars. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 2008. An asymmetry between VO and OV languages. The ordering of obliques. In Case and grammatical relations: Studies in honor of Bernard Comrie, ed. Greville Corbett and Michael Noonan, 167–190. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Lazard, Gilbert. 2006. Grammaire du persan contemporain. Nouvelle édition, avec la collaboration de Yann Richard, Rokhsareh Hechmati et Pollet Samvelian. Institut Français de recherche en Iran: Tehran. MacKenzie, David. 1962. Kurdish dialect studies. Vol. II.  Oxford: Oxford University Press. Mahmoudveysi, Parvin, Denise Bailey, Ludwig Paul, and Geoffrey Haig. 2012. The Gorani language of Gawraju, a village of West Iran. Texts, grammar and lexicon. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Matras, Yaron et al. 2016. The dialects of Kurdish. Web resource, University of Manchester. http://kurdish.humanities.manchester.ac.uk/ Nikitina, Tatiana. 2011. Categorial reanalysis and the origin of S-O-V-X order in Mande. Journal of African Languages and Linguistics 32: 251–273. Öpengin, Ergin. 2016. The Mukri variety of central Kurdish. Grammar, texts and lexicon. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. Öpengin, Ergin, and Geoffrey Haig. 2014. Regional variation in Kurmanji: A preliminary classification of dialects. Journal of Kurdish Studies 2 (2): 143–176.

  Post-Predicate Constituents in Kurdish 

377

Reetz, Steffen. 2014. Post-predicate goals in spoken East-Anatolian Turkish of Erzincan: A corpus-based analysis. MA-Thesis, Universität Bamberg, Dept. of General Linguistics. Roberts, John. 2009. A study of Persian discourse structure. Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis. Sheehan, Michelle. 2013. Explaining the final-over-final constraint: Formal and functional approaches. In Theoretical approaches to disharmonic word orders, ed. Theresa Biberauer and Michelle Sheehan, 407–468. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Skjærvø, Prods Oktor. 2009. Western middle Iranian. In The Iranian languages, ed. Gernot Windfuhr, 196–278. London: Routledge. Stilo, Donald. 2010. Ditransitives in Vafsi. A corpus-based study. In Studies in ditransitive constructions: A comparative handbook, ed. Andrej Malchukov, Martin Haspelmath, and Bernard Comrie, 243–276. Berlin: De Gruyter. ———. 2012. Intersection zones, overlapping isoglosses, and ‘fade-out/fade-in’ phenomena in Central Iran. In Iranian languages and culture: Essays in honor of Gernot Ludwig Windfuhr, ed. Behrad Aghaei and M.R. Ghanoonparvar, 3–33. Costa Mesa: Mazda Publishers. ———. 2018. Preverbal and post-verbal peripheral arguments in the Araxes-­ Iran linguistic area. Invited lecture at the conference Anatolia-Caucasus-Iran: Ethnic and Linguistic Contacts, Yerevan University, 10–12 May 2018.

The Typology of Connectivity and Complex Constructions in Kurdish Dialects Yaron Matras

1 Introduction The aim of this chapter is to provide an overview of structures involved in connectivity and complex construction formation in the dialects of Kurdish. Connectivity is understood broadly as a device to convey an overarching category that is composed of two or more propositional units. Typical semantic connections between sentences and utterances are addition, contrast, disjunction as well as various devices that mark sequentiality. Complex constructions are understood as the structural integration of two or more propositional units into the framework of the single syntactic unit of a sentence, in such a way that creates a hierarchical asymmetry between them, referred to as subordination (cf. Cristofaro 2003). Subordinated constructions include relative clauses, complement clauses, and adverbial clauses. I take a functional-typological perspective that views connectivity and complex sentences as the grammatical encoding of the relations Y. Matras (*) Aston Institute for Forensic Linguistics, Aston University, Birmingham, UK e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 Y. Matras et al. (eds.), Structural and Typological Variation in the Dialects of Kurdish, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78837-7_9

379

380 

Y. Matras

between states of affairs. Based on the iconicity principle the configuration of structural devices involved in marking the relations between sentences and clauses is expected to reflect conceptualizations of event integration, continuity and accessibility of information, perceived power relations among participants including agency and control, factuality, and expectations of causal chains and degree of presupposition (cf. Givón 1990; Langacker 1991; Hengeveld 1998). Descriptive accounts of individual Kurdish dialects tend to cover the inventory of connectors that conjoin clauses and sentences (e.g. Kurdoev 1957; McCarus 1958; Blau 1980) and in part the interplay of clause type and verb inflection, particularly in connection with complement, purpose, and conditional clauses (e.g. MacKenzie 1961, pp. 131–140, pp. 2003, 213; Bedir Khan and Lescot 1970, pp. 335–339; Thackston 2006a, pp. 72–70; McCarus 2009, pp. 620–626; Öpengin 2016, pp. 129–136; see also Yusupova 2017, pp. 99–104, and Mahmoudveysi et al. 2012, pp. 59–61 for Gorani, and Paul 1998, pp. 138–161, for Zazaki). As yet there has been no attempt to compare the relevant structures across varieties of Kurdish. The questions to be addressed in the present study are: What are the structural characteristics of connectivity and complex constructions and how is subordination expressed? What is the interplay of connectors, verb inflection, and the coding of participants, and how does it relate to semantic-pragmatic hierarchies of event integration and information accessibility and to patterns of morphological alignment and participant tracking? What are the etymological sources of connectors including grammaticalization pathways and contact influences and how are various connectors, connector types, and overall configurations distributed among the varieties and regions? I draw on data from the Manchester Database of Kurdish Dialects (MDKD), relying both on elicited phrases and on the corpus of transcriptions of free speech. The latter consists of extracts of typically up to 6–7 minutes from semi-structured interviews usually comprising around 20–40 minutes each, recorded in conjunction with the questionnaire elicitation fieldwork that populates the comparative database of phrases. Speakers were asked a standardized set of questions eliciting biographical narratives, descriptions of life history episodes and routines such as village life, migration, weddings, and other celebrations, as well as transmitted or traditional stories. The free speech corpus that is available on the online resource

  The Typology of Connectivity and Complex Constructions 

381

documents just a fragment of the recorded data due to limitations on staff resources during the project’s active lifetime. All data are at the time of writing available in transcription, English translation, and audio on the University of Manchester’s Dialects of Kurdish project website, which also hosts the other components of the MDKD. The corpus comprises around 50,000 words from speakers originating from 71 different locations. Of those, 44 represent varieties of Kurmanji-Bahdini or Northern Kurdish (NK), including 25 from Turkey, 10 from Syria, and 9 from Iraq. Sorani or Central Kurdish (CK) varieties are represented by a total of 25 samples, including 14 from Iraq and 11 from Iran. Southern Kurdish (SK) varieties are generally under-represented in MDKD and not all are identified as such in the online resource itself. I follow Belelli (this volume) in identifying as varieties of the SK group the MDKD samples from the locations Baghdad (F001, F002), Khanaqin (S057), Sahne (G001), and Kermanshah (S013). Of those, only two are also represented in the free speech corpus: Khanaqin in Iraq (S057) and Sahne (G001) in Iran. I also draw on a selection of questionnaire elicitation phrases from the MDKD. Due to the project’s research priorities (see editors’ Introduction, this volume) the coverage of complex sentences in the questionnaire-based corpus is not exhaustive, but it can be relied on here for aspects of complementation, relative clause, and conditional clause formation. Throughout this chapter examples are identified by MDKD sample code and location; free speech sources also give the transcription segment number. Sample codes beginning in K- for ‘Kurmanji’ represent NK; those beginning in S- for ‘Sorani’ are generally CK with the exception of the SK samples Khanaqin (S057) and Kermanshah (S013). As stated above, the aim of this chapter is to provide an overview of connectivity and complex constructions. Section 2 surveys coordination and chaining with attention to conjunctive/additive and focused conjunctive constructions, selected issues of alignment and coreferentiality, disjunctive and adversative constructions and sequentiality. Section 3 covers relative clauses. Section 4 discusses complement clauses with attention to phasals, modals, manipulatives, desideratives, and complements of perception, knowledge, propositional attitude, and utterance. Section 5 then surveys adverbial subordination including co-temporal, anterior and posterior, reason, purpose, concessive, and conditional constructions. I conclude with a discussion of broader areal features, general traits of Kurdish, features of NK and CK, and some specific regional developments.

382 

Y. Matras

2 Coordination and Chaining Haspelmath (2007) defines coordination as the combining of two or more units of the same type. This general definition allows to accommodate both structural-typological considerations (where ‘type’ is understood as the composition of sentences), semantic perspectives such as the processing of expectations arising from causal chains (Rudolph 1996), and interactional dimensions around the chaining of information units in the build-up of information transfer from speaker to listener within the context and setting of particular types of discourse (e.g. Ehlich and Rehbein 1986; Redder 1989). For Schiffrin (1987) connectors like ‘and’, ‘but’, and ‘or’ operate simultaneously at three levels: the ideational level of the proposition (content or information), the action level (sequential ordering of the speakers’ actions) and the exchange or turn management level. Thus ‘and’ coordinates idea units, optionally segmenting them into topics, and continues an action by the speaker; ‘but’ contrasts idea units and signals the speaker’s return to a previous action in order to process expectations arising from it, and so it has interactional relevance in showing that a starting point has precedence over other interactional goals; while ‘or’ marks the provision of options for the hearer and is thus more hearer-oriented. For Rudolph (1996), contrast is given when two propositions belong to the same conceptual domain and are both valid but differ in regard to at least two properties. Contrast is linked to causality as it expresses a broken causal chain whereby a presupposed chain of events by which proposition A is expected to lead to proposition B is rejected by the reality that is manifested in proposition B. That mental configuration is often referred to as denial of expectation or negation of the implications associated with the first proposition. Adversatives therefore are said to have the double function of addition (connecting the two propositions) and separation (inviting the hearer to consider the second proposition as being in contrast with the first one). Haspelmath (2007) identifies the particle or affix that is used to conjoin units as the ‘coordinator’ and the various semantic linkers as conjunctive, disjunctive, and adversative. The conjunctive (additive) category is said to display the greatest structural diversity, ranging from elliptic

  The Typology of Connectivity and Complex Constructions 

383

structures or non-constituent coordination, where a second explicitly conjoined constituent is absent, to comitative marking with ‘also, too’, while adversative (contrastive) coordination is always binary. These semantic distinctions are not always clear-cut, however. Thus emphatic coordination such as ‘both … and’ and emphatic negative coordination with ‘neither … nor’ can be said to have a contrastive element since the hearer expects just a single unit. Rudolph (1996) points out that languages tend to have a primary contrastive expression or ‘main adversative connective’ but some also have semantically specialized ones. Concessive expressions, for example, are less frequent and usually more complex, as the concessive relation marks background causality and the rejection of an imaginable conclusion. Concession can therefore be said to combine contrast with the de-ranking of a proposition (Cristofaro 2003; see also Crevels 2000). In terms of the types of coordination listed by Haspelmath (2007) Kurdish shows asyndetic coordination, where no coordinator is present; bisyndetic coordination, reserved for emphasis (both A and B); and monosyndetic coordination, which is the predominant form. Kurdish thus patterns in a way that is similar to most European languages (Haspelmath 2007, p. 17) as well as neighbouring languages such as Persian and Arabic. The monosyndetic coordination types found in the corpus are both the prepositive A co-B (where co- stands for coordinator) and the postpositive type A B-co, the latter appearing primarily in CK. Coordinators are generally independent particles, though the CK postpositive construction relies on the enclitic particle -îş. In his discussion of the CK Mukri dialect, Öpengin (2016, pp. 129–133) notes a preference for juxtaposition in the conjoining of clauses (asyndetic coordination) when two verbs express parallel events. Juxtaposition or asyndetic paratactic ordering is also flagged by Yusupova (2017, pp. 99–104) for literary Gorani and by Bedir Khan and Lescot (1970, pp. 335–339) for formal Kurmanji. Descriptive accounts of individual Kurdish varieties otherwise tend to list a similar inventory of conjunctions. Drawing on Öpengin (2016, pp. 129–133) as an example, we can expect û and we ‘and’ for conjunctives, yān ‘or’ for disjunctive (other sources list ya or an, or ga … ga for Gorani), hem … hem ‘both … and’

384 

Y. Matras

for positive contrastive conjunctive and its negative counterpart ne … ne ‘neither … nor’ (or çi … çi as listed for Sorani by Blau 1980, pp. 149–156, nam .. nam for Gorani by Yusupova 2017, pp. 99–104). According to Öpengin (2016, p. 133), the additive clitic -īš is used in Mukri for contrastive coordination to topicalize an argument that differs among two coordinated clauses that are otherwise parallel (cf. Yusupova 2017, pp. 99–104 on Gorani -îç). Attested adversatives include eman, bełam, and welī for CK (Öpengin 2016, p. 132). Fattah (2000, p. 692ff.) presents a similar inventory and distribution for SK dialects. The postpositive construction is not described for NK (Kurmanji) dialects but is attested in the corpus for some NK varieties of northern Iraq. Descriptive accounts of NK otherwise tend to give little attention to clause combining.

2.1 Conjunctive/Additive Asyndetic conjunctive coordination is frequently found where two predications convey overlapping events rather than temporal succession and are presented as a single integrated state of affairs: (1) K-030 Nusaybin, Turkey: 20 ez wê dr-ê di-rûnişt-im mi ji I.NOM that.OBL place-OBL PRG-sat-1SG I.OBL from xwe re k’ît’ab di-xwend-in REFL to book PRG-read-PL ‘I would sit there and read books’.

The conjunctive coordinator û (also we/−w in CK) organizes predications as separate information units or demarcated states of affairs: (2) K-033 Qamishli, Syria: 28 mi derisand k’îmya sal-a ç’ara, û mi I.OBL studied chemistry year-F fourth and I.OBL derisand k’ullîy-a rîyaḍ a sal-a didûwa studied faculty-F maths year-F second ‘I taught chemistry in the fourth year, and I taught at the mathematics department during the second year’.

  The Typology of Connectivity and Complex Constructions 

385

In NK, û appears in the serialization of predications in an event sequence, often opening with background actions leading to the main event in the story (in the following case a major change in the narrator’s life): (3) K-021 Mosul, Iraq, 11: Û     ez      çû-m/     yeʕnî      min      hindek  tişt and I.NOM went-1SG that.is I.OBL some    thing ji     xwe     re   kirî-n      û     ev, from  REFL to bought-PL and this û        ş/  xelek        kir-n-e     dest-ê      mi    de and    bracelet did-PL-PRF hand-M I.OBL in hingî, then û       paş      şuẋ l-ê      xwe   me        k’emil      kir and after work-M REFL we.OBL continue did û      ez          ç’û-m-e/         ez        ç’û-m-e        ʕemman,  Urdun. and I.NOM went-1SG-PRF I.NOM   went-1SG-PRF Amman  Jordan ‘And I went/ that is I bought some things for myself and so on, and then they put bracelets on my wrist, and then we arranged our things and I went/ I went to Amman, Jordan’.

Note that the temporal sequencing is highlighted by combining the coordinator with a temporal deixis: û paş ‘and then’. I return to sequential devices below. A further use of the coordinator û is to signal continuation of the speaker’s turn, for example where the speaker provides an afterthought or clarification for a preceding proposition: (4) K-030 Nusaybin, Turkey, 31–32: k’es-ê         go    li  bajêr         bû-n person-EZ.PL  REL in town.OBL was-PL ê    di  nav     bajêr         bi       xwe   de, PL in among town.OBL with REFL in nava      Nisêbîn-ê       de,  bajar-î       bû-n. among Nusaybin-OBL in   town-OBL was-PL Û    Nisêbîn        bajar-ek-î      gelekî  piçûçik  bû, and Nusaybin town-INDEF-EZ very   small    was ‘Those who were in the city, inside the city itself, inside Nusaybin, they were city-dwellers. And Nusaybin was a very small city’.

386 

Y. Matras

In the CK samples, û/−w appears primarily as a linker of nominal entities including infinitive forms. However, it can also link finite predications when the speaker is drawing a generic inventory of actions, as in the following two descriptions of celebrations: (5) S-027 Erbil, Iraq, 9: Ḥ efleye     xwardin  de-xur-ê        û     şîrinatî wedding food     PRG-eaten-3SG and sweet de-xur-êtin PROG-eaten-PL û        kurr-eke-ş      ew  şite-y      ke  le and boy-DEF-too he   thing-EZ REL in bo   afret-­eke-­y     kirdî-ye       weku  zêrr,  altûn, for woman-DEF-EZ bought-PRF like    gold gold ew  şit-an-ey        pêwe  de-kr-êtin. this thing-PL-EZ out   PRG-done-PL ‘At the wedding, food is eaten and sweets are eaten, and the things that the man has bought for the woman, such as gold, those things are displayed’. (6) S-034 Sulaymaniyah, Iraq. 38: Duwayî  Newroz-­ewe  hemûy  e-ç-ê after     Newroz-­INT  all      PRG-go-3SG bo    seyran,  bo  deșt û der, for picnic   for outdoors agir  kird-in-­ewe-w     barbekî-w  yaprax fire   make-INF-­INT-and BBQ-and    vine leaves û,      le geł  biryanî-w      ça-w    goșt and with   biryani-­and tea-and meat û    em    hemû  e-kirr-êt and these all     PRG-bought-­3SG û    em       hemû  e-bir-êt. and these all     PRG-­brought-­ 3SG ‘After Newroz they all go to have a picnic in the countryside, building fires and barbecues and stuffed vine leaves with biryani, and tea and meat and all these are bought and are all brought along’.

Conjunctive linking also appears in CK samples where elaboration is required through a conjoined state of affairs in order to complete an information category that would otherwise not be understood. The conjunctive particle û and the postpositive conjunctive clitic -îş both perform this function:

  The Typology of Connectivity and Complex Constructions 

387

(7) S-037 Bukan, Iran, 27: Îtir,    ew      kate    ême  mendał  bûy-n well that when we    child    was-PL û    ew     șit-ane-man     ne-de-zanî. and that thing-PL-1PL NEG-PRG-knew ‘Well, at that time we were kids and we didn’t know about these things’. (8) S-076 Mawat, Iraq, 30: min  zor   minał  bû-m, I    much child  was-1SG zor-îş      e-tirsa-m        be  şew much-too PRG-feared-1SG at    night ke      e-rroyşt-me    derewe COMP PRG-went-1SG outside ‘I was a little child and I was very scared when we went outside in the night’.

As a conjunctive device for chaining events, CK samples tend to rely on a combination of the particle û/−w and the clitic -îş: (9) S-037 Bukan, Iran, 13: Duway  ew-ekan-ê, after   that-DEF.PL-OBL kitse  zor    zor    zor    de-tirsa girl  very very very PRG-feared W-emin-îș/  emin  diłxoș-îm      de-da-w and-I-too   I       happy-1SG PRG-gave-and m-kut:  “le  çî       de-tirs-î?” I-said    on     what  PRG-fear-2SG ‘After that the girl was very afraid. And I/ I would console her saying: “what are you afraid of?” ’ (10) S-051 Saqqez, Iran, 29–30: Le  ber  dirg-aka-y       e-westa-n at  on          gate-DEF-OBL  PRG-stood-PL û        musafir-ekan-îş        be  sef and passenger-DEF.PL-too at   line da-ne  da-ne  e-rroşt-in. piece    piece   PRG-went-PL ‘They stood at the gate and the passengers began leaving in a queue one by one’.

388 

Y. Matras

2.2 Focused Conjunctive In NK, the postpositive particle jî expresses conjunctive focus that contrasts referents and states of affairs, indicating that continuity or a resulting state of affairs is unexpected or otherwise particularly noteworthy, often as it gives rise to an event that is regarded as precarious: (11) K-027 Muradiye, Turkey, 2–3: me       ç’end  ḥ eb    deprem      dîti-bû-n we.OBL some piece earthquake saw-PLU-PL ema  hindik  ne   zêde  di-hejîya-n. but   litte    not very  PRG-shaken-PL Me      jî        go    ev     jî   ʕeynî   ye. we.OBL too said this too same is ‘We had experienced a few earthquakes, but small, they didn’t shake much. And so we thought that this would be the same’. (12) K-027 Muradiye, Turkey, 13: Gund-ê       me       jî     gelek  sar      e. village-M we.OBL too very    cold is Em        jî    usa  gund    da  ma-n. we.NOM too thus village in     stayed-PL ‘And our village is very cold. And so we just stayed in the village like that’.

In CK, the postpositive clitic can be used for conjunctive focus: (13) S-042 Khalifan, Iraq, 18–19: Ewca  rrism-eç-î      dî      wahanê  le  me      girt. then   picture-IDF-EZ other nice       in we.OBL took Dûy     hincî-ş,    ewca  ewe-ş    xelaz    bû. after then-too then     that-too finish was ‘Then he took such a nice of picture of us. So then, then that too was over’

Both NK and CK samples use hem … hem ‘both … and’ for emphatic conjunctive effect, expressing an unexpected addition that is needed in order to complete an information category. Typically, the conjoined units are of two orders: the first presupposed (often a reiteration of

  The Typology of Connectivity and Complex Constructions 

389

immediately preceding verbalized content), the second new. In both NK and CK the construction often incorporates the focused conjunctive particle or clitic, respectively: (14) K-059 Kulp, Turkey, 34: em   jî     çû-n     wê derê, we too went-PL there hem  çû-n      wê derê, both went-PL there hem  jî      çû-n     Qulp-ê both too went-PL Kulp-OBL ‘We also went there, we went there and we also went to Kulp’ (15) S-045 Shaqlawa, Iraq, 2: Xesûw-ek-im            he-bû,      hem mother-in-law-IND-1SG exist-PST both dak-îş       bû    hem mother-too was both xesû-ş              bû mother-in-law-too was ‘I had a mother-in-law, She was both a mother and a mother-in-­law to me’

2.3 Alignment and Coreferentiality Matras (1997) describes coreferent deletion as optional in Kurmanji but constrained to some degree by the morphological marking of the agent and different agreement patterns in past tense transitive and intransitive clauses (ergativity). Overt pronominal marking is preferred when the clash in agreement and case marking is most pronounced. Thus, coreferent deletion is more likely to occur with third-person subjects where case marking is often blurred due to analogical levelling and agreement with the verb is in the default form, whereas with first person subjects coreferent deletion is avoided across predications with different alignment patterns. Also discussing Kurmanji, Haig (1998, pp. 161–162) remarks that coreferential subject deletion is common in literary texts regardless of the morphological marking of A (the transitive Agent) but that speaker consultants showed a preference for deletion when the subjects were in the

390 

Y. Matras

same morphological case. Discussing Zazaki, Paul (1998, p. 140) mentions a similar pattern to the one observed by Matras (1997), namely a tendency for the omission of coreferential subjects across different alignment patterns for third-person subjects while coreferential first- and second-­person subjects are repeated. Data from the free speech corpus appear to confirm these impressions: In NK, coreferential subjects tend to be expressed overtly through a pronoun in the second clause when the clauses differ in alignment (transitive-­ intransitive), but no such tendency is observed in CK, where instead A (the transitive agent) is marked by a clitic on the direct object of the transitive clause and S (the intransitive subject) is marked through agreement on the intransitive verb: (16) K-021 Mosul, Iraq, 106: me xilas kir û em hat-ne dereng we.OBL finish did and we.NOM came-PL.PRF late ‘We finished and we came late’. (17) S-051 Saqqez, Iran, 9: subḥ an-êk-man xuward û suwar-î qetar bûy-n breakfast-IDF-1PL ate and board-EZ train was-PL ‘We had breakfast and boarded the train’.

The elicitation data confirm these tendencies for the subordinated sentence ‘When I was young, I knew the town’ which contains a coreferential first person subject in a past tense intransitive and transitive clause. Across 37 samples in MDKD that contain the phrase, all NK samples but two show repetition of the pronoun while all CK samples appear to avoid an overt pronoun in the second clause (showing instead inflectional subject marking on the intransitive verb and enclitic subject marking on the direct object of the transitive clause), with an optional subject pronoun at the beginning of the construction: (18) K-009, Şırnak, Turkey: waxtê ez gênc bû-m min bajar nas-di-kir when I.NOM young was-1SG I.OBL town knew-PRG-did ‘When I was young, I knew the town’

  The Typology of Connectivity and Complex Constructions 

391

(19) S-012, Erbil, Iraq: men ke buçuk bû-m gund-eke-m de-nasî I when small was-1SG town-DEF-1SG PRG-knew ‘When I was young, I knew the town’

2.4 Disjunctive The free speech corpus contains relatively few instances of disjunctive coordination. Disjunction can be expressed by paratactic (asyndetic) means when the speaker presents a chain of options: (20) S-048 Baneh, Iran: 65: Kabra  xo   na-zan-ê        to    baş      î, man   REFL NEG-know-3SG you good are.2SG xirap  î,          çî-t bad   are.2SG what-2SG ‘The man doesn’t know if you are good, or you are bad, or what you are’.

In NK samples from Turkey, reduplication with sound substitution to /m/ is found, replicating a structure from Turkish to express an open alternative unit within a circumscribed general information category (in this case the participants in a wedding): (21) K-023 İmranlı, Turkey, 26: Zaṙ î   me,       t’abî        qicik  im, child am.1SG of course girl   am.1SG afêdersin  damat  mamat       kes-an           nas    na-k-im. excuse     groom (m)groom someone-­OBL.PL know NEG-do-1SG ‘I was a child, so of course I was small, excuse me I did not know the groom or anyone’.

Disjunctive coordinators are (y)an (mainly in NK) and ya (mainly CK and SK). The monosyndetic structure ‘co A’ is used to override a previous information unit and introduce an alternative realization of the same information category as part of the speaker’s unfolding plan for the utterance:

392 

Y. Matras

(22) K-021 Mosul, Iraq, 79: ẓ ava    jî    hema    nefs-ê    cil-ê     xwe groom too exactly self-OBL dress-M REFL li       xwe  di-k-e, on REFL PRG-do-3SG an  cil-ê       kurdî       li      xwe     di-k-ê or  dress-M Kurdish on REFL PRG-do-3SG ‘The groom wears his own dress, or he wears Kurdish garments’.

In NK the disjunctive coordinator is sometimes combined with the conjunctive focus marker jî to shift the focus away from the previous realization of the information category, emphasising the annulation of the previous information unit and its substitution by a new one: (23) K-027 Muradiye, Turkey, 22: ç’il    pêncî  metre  yan  jî       belkî forty fifty    metre or   too maybe şêst   ḥ eftê    metre  ani-n-e         dûr sixty seventy metre brought-PL-PRF far ‘They moved it away by forty to fifty or maybe sixty to seventy metres’.

The monosyndetic disjunctive coordinator can also be repeated in the chaining or listing of a series of optional information units as possible realizations of a single information category, within an unfolding plan for the utterance: (24) K-036 Duhok, Iraq, 23 kezaxe    b-it        yan  kolanê   b-it pruning be.SBJ-3SG or    digging be.SBJ-3SG yan  çinînê    b-itin or   picking be.SBJ-PL ‘Be it pruning or digging or picking’.

Disjunctive coordination can operate at the discourse level, as the speaker returns to the manner of presenting a proposition rather than to the content of the information category itself:

  The Typology of Connectivity and Complex Constructions 

393

(25) S-037 Bukan, Iran, 6 bûy-n-e     wekû  refîq-êk, was-PL-PRF  like     friend-IDF ya  wekû  be lay-î  ziman-î or like   in-EZ   language-EZ xo-man      bi-łê-m       wekû  dost-êk REFL-1PL SBJ-say-1SG like      lover-IDF ‘We were like friends, or as I would say in our language like lovers’.

The bisyndetic structure ‘co A co B’ is used as part of a pre-planned utterance structure to indicate contrasting information units as alternative realizations of the same information category: (26) S-039 Sardasht, Iran, 18: Meʕmûlen-îş  le   talar-ekan    ya  nehar usually-too   in hall-DEF.PL or  lunch de-de-n     êstakanê  ya  şam    de-de-n PRG-give-PL now      or dinner PRG-give-PL ‘And usually in the halls, now they either serve lunch or they serve dinner’.

The following example illustrates two different disjunctive structures: the first (monosyndetic) introduces an explanatory state of affairs as an enhancement rather than alternative realization of a preceding information category, while the second (bisyndetic) provides a pre-planned organization template for information units that constitute alternative realizations of an information category (indicating here that just one of the two families is grieving): (27) K-042 Zakho, Iraq, 16–17: ne  divêt  gele    qerebalix  çêb-it. not must   much noise       become.SBJ-3SG An  êk    carî  heger  an or     one time if       or mal-a    bîk-ê      an  mal-a   zava-yî house-F bride-OBL or   house-F groom-OBL tazi-yek       heb-it. mourning-IDF exist.SBJ-3SG ‘They don’t want much noise to be made. Or in case either the family of the bride or the family of the groom have a period of mourning’.

394 

Y. Matras

2.5 Adversative/Contrastive Like the other coordination types adversative meanings can be derived from a paratactic (asyndetic) structure, building on presuppositions and an anticipated causal chain that is broken: (28) K-025 Çukurca, 2: gund    bi    gund    ç’û-n-e, village on village went-PL-PRF kes-ê       qebûl   ne-kir-in-e. person-OBL accept NEG-did-PL-PRF ‘They went from village to village, but nobody accepted them’.

Explicit expression of adversative coordination relies on the prepositive monosyndetic structure ‘co A’, though sometimes we find combinations of coordinators, as in NK in Turkey lê ema. There are a variety of adversative coordinators in the corpus with apparent regional as well as individual preferences. The adversative belê occurs in NK samples from the Hakkari province in Turkey while its cognate bełam is found in CK and the related lê is found in some NK samples from Turkey and Syria, often alongside one of the other coordinators, apparently correlating with exposure to Kurmanji literacy, as far as our meta-data reveal. The coordinator ema/hema/ama coinciding with the Turkish adversative ama (a contrastive focus marker from Arabic) is found in NK samples from Turkey and some CK samples from Iran. The coordinator bes borrowed from Arabic appears in NK samples from Syria and Iraq and in some CK and SK samples from Iraq. The Persian borrowing welî is found in CK and SK samples from Iran. The contrastive-adversative is thus the most frequently borrowed coordinator, in line with predictions on the structural borrowing of connectors (Matras 1998, 2020). Adversatives indicate a broken causal chain at the ideational level, re-­ directing the hearer to correct an expectation that arises from an immediately preceding proposition:

  The Typology of Connectivity and Complex Constructions 

395

(29) K-090 Erzincan, Turkey, 3: beklemîș  dikin-ê     belkî      di-b-ê wait       see-OBL maybe PRG-become-3SG tene  goșt    bi-d-ine    me,     ema  ne-d-in only  meat SBJ-give-PL we.OBL but   neg-give-PL ‘We waited to see whether they might just give us meat, but they didn’t’. (30) S-057 Khanaqin, Iraq, 28: resmîyen  ʕaîd    Diyale-s,      muḥ afeze-y  Diyale, officially   belong Diyala-OBL province-EZ  Diyala bełam  mentiqe-y  Kurdî      ye, but     region-EZ   Kurdish is ḥ ukûmet-î        Kurdî-ș       yarmetî  de-t, government-EZ Kurdish-too help     give-3SG bes  ʕêraq  na-twan      yarmetî  bi-de-t but Iraq   NEG-can.3SG help     SBJ-give-3SG ‘Officially it belongs to Diyala, the Diyala province, but it is a Kurdish region, the Kurdish government helps, but Iraq doesn’t want to help’.

At the discourse level, the adversative returns to a previous position in the speaker’s turn, revising the hearer’s expectation in regard to the action that the speaker will deliver from that turn: (31) S-035 Kalar, Iraq, 2: Weła  çîrok  na-zan-im, EXC   story NEG-know-1SG bes   bas-î       jiyan-im  e-k-em but talk-EZ life-1SG  PRG-do-1SG ‘Well, I don’t know any stories, but I will talk about my life’.

2.6 Sequential Sequential chaining involves the ordering of propositions attributing to them a relationship of succession either in the reconstruction of events or in regard to their position in the speaker’s organization of utterances and turns, or both. The samples differ considerably in their inventories and distribution of sequential markers by dialect group, region, and contact language as well as by individual speaker.

396 

Y. Matras

Four types of function are discussed in connection with the sequential ordering of information units: (a) the temporal succession of reconstructed events in narrations and descriptions, (b) the sequential ordering of elements when taking an inventory in descriptions, (c) the consequential relationship between an event or state of affairs and a preceding event, and (d) the sequencing of utterances as turns or parts of turns in relation to the sharing of information and exchange of views between speaker and hearer through actions such as self-prompts and response initiation, re-­ affirmation of the hearer’s point of view, adding a perspective, and elucidation. The first three are tightly connected and we often find combinations of devices that bring about a layered or combined effect as well as overlap in the use of individual connectors to cover temporal ordering and inventory-taking, or temporal ordering and consequential reading. Turn-­ management devices are often borrowed discourse particles. Temporal succession of events can be expressed by means of a relational expression (adposition) or deictic temporal reference equivalent to ‘thereafter’ or ‘then’. In NK, we find combinations of the preposition piştî ‘after’ and the adverbs paşî ‘later on’ and hingî ‘then’, each of which can also appear on its own: (32) K-021 Mosul, Iraq, 6: ewilî  ez     dît-im, first    I.NOM  saw-1SG paşî     piştî  hingî  me      dît/ then after then   we.OBL saw hat-in    ez         xwast-im came-PL I.NOM wanted-1SG ‘First she saw me, then they came and asked for me’.

In CK, we find a corresponding use of the relational marker duway ‘after, finally’: (33) S-034 Sulaymaniyah, Iraq, 20: Șeș  mang    le  Erdin      bû-m, six     month in Jordan was-1SG duwayî  rroșt-im-ewe  bo  Kurdistan then       went-1SG-INT  to     Kurdistan ‘I was in Jordan for six months, Then I went back to Kurdistan’.

  The Typology of Connectivity and Complex Constructions 

397

In NK, the same device can be used to build descriptive inventories of routine events in generic descriptions as long as the information units appear in temporal succession: (34) K-042 Zakho, Iraq, 3–5 Ewilî  di-bêj-in     kurê/[..]  mi       girtî first   PRG-say-PL boy-OBL we.OBL took kiç-a    filan  kes-î           bi   dil-ê girl-F any  person-­OBL at heart-M me        ye, we.OBL is Piştî     hingî [..]  ç-in   mal-a    bab-ê after then        go-PL house-F father-M kiçik-ê, girl-OBL Piştî    hingî  yaʕnî    dê     êk after then    that.is FUT one û    du      nas    k-in       ewilî, and two know SBJ.do-PL first piştî   hingî  dê     kiçik  mi after then  FUT girl   we.OBL girtî   rism-ê         kurik-î      bîn-it took picture-M boy-OBL see.SBJ-3SG an  jî        hema     wusa  rû-bi-rûyî or  too exactly thus   face-to-­face êk     û    du     bi-bîn-in. one and two SBJ-see-PL Dê     piştî      hingê  qerar-a    xwe FUT after then   decision-F REFL d-in. give.SBJ-PL ‘First they say to the boy, we saw this particular girl that we liked Then, […] they go together to the girl’s father’s house, […] Then they will meet one another Then, the girl we saw will see a picture of the boy, or they will just see each other face-to-face. Then they will make their decision’.

In CK, the expression can also indicate succession in the delivery of information units at the level of the speaker’s organization of the utterance in descriptions, independently of temporal succession:

398 

Y. Matras

(35) S-031 Piranshahr, Iran, 17–19: Grranît   le  nawç-ekan-î       Pîranşar-u       Serdeşt granite in district-DEF.PL-EZ Piranshar-and Sardasht girranît-î    zor      benawbangî  he-ye granite-EZ much well-known  exist-3SG Duwaye  merrmerrî  he-ye,      wek  berd-î then      marble      exist-3SG like  rock-EZ mermerr  be  tsînî   heye. marble     in  layer exist.3SG Duwaye  êwe-ş/   deryatse-yeç-î  zor   benawbang then       that-too lake-IDF-EZ    very famous le  Zirêbarî  he-ye. in  Zeribar     exist-3SG ‘Granite in the districts of Piranshar, and Sardasht is well known for granite. Then it has marble, it has marble rocks in layers. Then it has a famous/ lake in Zeribar’.

Two further CK markers of successive ordering are îtir, which is widespread in CK samples from Iraq and also found in Saqqez and Baneh in Iran, and îdî which appears in the CK and SK dialects of Iran in Sahne, Sardasht, and Naqadeh as well as in neighbouring Choman in Iraq (its NK equivalent êdî ‘already’ is not found in the corpus in sequential function). Both assume a similar role in drawing a sequential inventory in descriptions: (36) S-056 Altun Kupri, Iraq, 19: Fełaḥ etî,  îtir      temate   bû,  îtir     bamye  bû, farming      then tomato was then okra   was îtir     zûrrat  bû,   kundzî       bû,    bîber       û     îtir then corn   was cucumber was pepper and then ‘Farming, then there was tomatoes, then there was okra, then there was corn, there were cucumbers, peppers, and so on’. (37) S-039 Sardasht, Iran, 26: îdî duwaya bûk-u zawa de-be-n-ewe małê then after bride-and groom PRG-bring-PL-INT home ‘And then they take the bride and the groom home’.

In a similar function, some NK samples from Turkey draw on the Turkish borrowing ondan sonra:

  The Typology of Connectivity and Complex Constructions 

399

(38) K-068 Kozluk, Turkey, 53–54 mesela       îşçî     ne,   li      xest-ê for example worker are in hospital-M Batman-ê     da  di-şiẋ ul-in,        memûr      in. Batman-OBL in  PRG-work-PL civil servant are Ondan   sonra  meʕlim   he-ne that.ABL after   teacher exist-PL ‘For instance there are workers, who work at the Batman hospital, they are civil servants, And then there are teachers’.

NK varieties in Syria and Iraq borrow the Arabic conjunctive connector fe which indicates consequence, inviting the hearer to process a new information unit explicitly against the background of a previous one that has been successfully completed: (39) K-021 Mosul, Iraq, 71–72: xelk-ê        di-ʕezimîn-in  gelek  ʕalem     t-ê             cem people-OBL PRG-invite-PL much   people PRG-come.3SG among wa, them.OBL Fe     t-ê-n,          keyf  û       xweşî      t-ê-n and PRG-come-3PL joy  and happiness PRG-come-3PL ‘They invite the people and many people come to their place. And so they come, they come in joy and happiness’.

In the CK samples, the markers îtir and îdî can be used to indicate a temporal sequence with consequential implication, marking the first state of affairs as the point of departure that enables and facilitates the one that follows (a function that is not covered in the corpus by the sequential marker duway): (40) S-048 Baneh, Iran, 22–24: Fêrî      döner   bû-m,       fêrî    pîtza  bû-m. learn kebab was-1SG learn pizza was-1SG Îtir      wirde  wirde  îş-eke      fêr   bû-m then step   step     work-DEF learn was-1SG û     îtir      daway  wereqe-y     îş-im        e-kird and then after   document-EZ work-1SG PRG-did ‘I learned to make döner kebab, I learnt to make pizza So I learned the job step by step, and so then I applied for a work permit’.

400 

Y. Matras

(41) S-054 Choman, Iraq, 2–4: wez-î         Kurdistan  be  ʕam     nexoj situation-EZ Kurdistan in   general bad bû,      xelik       feqîr  bû. was people poor was Îdî   eme  șînayîn        e-kir […] then we    green.space PRG-did Îdî    le  meziray-ê        șînayîn        e-kir, then in countryside-OBL green.space PRG-did pêwîst       bû    îdî    șînayî        aw necessary was then green.space water bi-dey-n SBJ-give-PL ‘The situation in Kurdistan was generally bad, the people were poor So we created green areas, […] So we created green areas in the countryside so we had to water the green areas’.

Note the flexible position of these sequential markers: They typically occur in utterance-initial position but are not restricted to that position, and they can be combined with other connectors like û ‘and’. This reflects the way they operate at the pragmatic level of organising and evaluating propositional units rather than as syntactic markers of clause connectivity. The marker îtir is also found in the corpus in a semi-grammaticalized function resembling that of a correlative in conditional and temporal constructions, where the subordinated clause sets out the pre-condition against which the successive event can take place: (42) S-055 Kirkuk, Iraq, 68: ew      minał-e     tozê    gewre  bû, this child-DET a little big    was îtir     sûnet         he-ye then circumcision exist-3SG ‘[when] This child has grown up a bit, then we have circumcision’.

A widespread marker that specializes in ordering events in a temporal as well as consequential sequence is înca/îca/îja/ewca (from ‘this time’) found in the corpus in both NK and CK samples. Here too, the state of affairs introduced by the marker is dependent on the fulfilment of the preceding state of affairs, hence the combination of temporal succession and consequential readings:

  The Typology of Connectivity and Complex Constructions 

401

(43) S-033 Sulaymaniyah, Iraq, 15: Pasport-î    êraqî-yan  derkird, passport-EZ Iraqi-3PL   obtained înca     ray-an      kird/  sefer-yan       kird  bo  Urdin then way-3PL did   travel-3PL did   to   Jordan ‘They obtained Iraqi passports, So then they left/they travelled to Jordan’. (44) K-059 Kulp, Turkey, 48: Yanî     şûn-a     wî     de   mekteb-ek  tezê  çêkir-in, that.is place-F it.OBL in  school-IDF  new constructed-PL îca     em  çû-n     mektev-ek  dinê. then we  went-PL school-IDF   other ‘They built a new school in its place, So then we went to the other school’.

In some NK samples, î(n)ca takes on additional functions at the level of the organization of actions of speech, introducing the speaker’s meta-­comment on the state of affairs that is described at the ideational or propositional level: (45) K-024 Tatvan, Turkey, 29–30: Piştê   sê      ç’ar    sał-an    me after three four year-PL we.OBL t’emaşê  kir  k’estane   girtîye. look     did chestnut grew Înca  ç’i     k’estanê    mezin  bî-n then what chestnut big     was-PL ç’i        k’estanê   xweş  bî-n. what chestnut nice   was-PL Me          wan        k’estan-an        ti-anîya, we.OBL these.OBL chestnut-OBL.PL PRG-brought da-tanîya      se   sûb-ê, PRG-brought on oven-OBL me      ji     xwe      re  ç’êtikir we.OBL from REFL to created.PRG me       ti-xwar. we.OBL PRG-ate Înca   ç’îrok-a  min-a    baxç-ê      ev     e. then story-F  I.OBL-F garden-OBL this is ‘After three or four years, we looked and saw that the chestnut had grown. And what big chestnuts, what delicious chestnuts they were! We would bring those chestnuts, put them in the oven, we would prepare them for ourselves and we would eat. So this is my story with the garden’.

402 

Y. Matras

For îtir we find a transition from temporal-consequential ordering and the marking of pre-conditions for the realization of states of affairs, to a device that is used for turn management. Here, it signals a return to a preceding position as the point of departure for the completion of an adjacency pair and the speaker’s self-prompt in response to the hearer’s question: (46) S-054 Choman, Iraq, 43–44: Interviewer: Çi,       çî-yan      e-kird,      çwan what what-3PL PRG-did how dest-yan  pê     e-kird? hand-3PL in.it PRG-did ‘What did they do, how would they start?’ Speaker: Îtir,    kiç  û        kurrek  lo   xo-yan then girl and boy     in REFL-3PL qise  e-kird-in    be  dizî,     pêștir, talk PRG-did-PL on secret earlier ‘So, first the boy and the girl would talk to each other secretly’.

The domain of turn management otherwise shows high susceptibility to borrowing as a result of which samples differ by region, contact language, and individual preference. In some samples we find wele or wiłłayî (of Arabic origin, also replicated from Turkish and Persian, respectively) in a role similar to that of îtir in the above example, processing the hearer’s question as a point of departure for completion of the adjacency pair but here signalling the possibility of non-compliance with expectations, that is, the likely introduction of a dispreferred second: (47) K-059 Kulp, Turkey, 14–15: Interviewer: Çima  jê       re  di-bê-n      Kanika? why    from.it to PRG-say-PL Kanika ‘Why do they call it Kanika?’ Speaker: Wele  e-jî        ni-za-m        çima  di-bêj-in EXC  I.NOM-too NEG-know-1SG why   PRG-say-PL ‘Well, I don’t know either why they call it that’.

  The Typology of Connectivity and Complex Constructions 

403

By contrast, îşte borrowed from Turkish into some of the NK samples signals re-affirmation of the shared point of departure as it introduces a preferred second in the completion of the adjacency pair: (48) K-068 Kozluk, Turkey, 8–9: Interviewer: Șîranî    peqlawa  meqlawa    tiștek           na-xwaz-in? sweet baklava  (m)baklava something NEG-want-PL ‘Don’t they ask for any sweets, baklava or similar things?’ Speaker: Ee      îşte,  ewil  tev  diyar     di-k-in DM DM  first  all  decide PRG-do-PL ‘Yes well, at the beginning they decide on everything’.

Internal to the speaker’s own turn, îşte serves to re-affirm a state of affairs that has been introduced while further elucidating it, using a preceding proposition as a shared anchor for the introduction of a new one: (49) K-028 Pertek, Turkey, 42: Yanî     ç’iqas       îşte  penir-ê       te that.is how much DM cheese-M you.SG.OBL he-b-e-jî           pez-ê       te          he-b-e-jî, exist-SBJ-3SG-too sheep-EZ.PL you.SG.OBL exist-SBJ-3SG-too îşte  disa-jî      feqîr-jî      he-bû        yanî. DM still-too poor-too exist-PST that.is ‘No matter what cheese you have, sheep you have, well, there was still poverty’.

Another Turkish borrowing, neyse, introduces an added or new perspective in a speaker-oriented manner, re-capitulating the presupposition or shared information but with no explicit activation of hearer-sided expectations: (50) K-023 İmranlı, Turkey, 8–9: Derk’et,  şev,      ‘va     hat,     vay   nîvan-î      me      Hat’. fell       evening they came these guest-EZ we.OBL came Neyse  nîvan  du     t’ene  sê    t’ene  mêr    ine. DM   guest   two time    three time   man are ‘He went out, at night, “they’ve arrived, our guests have arrived.” Anyway, the guests were two or three men’

404 

Y. Matras

Finally, all samples show the discourse particle yanî, originally Arabic (from ‘that means’) but part of the common stock of particles of all languages in the region. It is used as filler and tag, signalling mere elucidation (rather than adding a new perspective) of the speaker’s statement, again without explicitly processing hearer-sided expectations: (51) S-052 Kamyaran, Iran, 19: Zor    calib         e,  yanî   eslen        serinc very noteworthy is    that.is essentially attention na-dey-ne   ew     şit-ane. NEG-give-PL this thing-PL ‘It is interesting, that is, essentially we don’t pay attention to such things’. (52) K-037 Kobani, Syria, 23: Kobanê  di  vê        tișt-ê        da  pir     meșhûr  e, Kobani  in  this.OBL thing-OBL in   very famous is yanî      navdar   e    di  vê       șiẋ ul-ê       de. that.is famous is in   this.OBL work-OBL in ‘Kobani is very well known, that is, it is famous in this regard’.

2.7 Summary of Coordinators and Sequential Markers One of the striking features of the connectors and particles covered in this section is their strong tendency toward polyfunctionality—semantic and in particular pragmatic. A taxonomy of connectors must therefore take into consideration several simultaneously operating functional domains. First, we find a distinction between items that allow the speaker to order information units as part of a gradually unfolding plan for the utterance, contrasting with those that are used for pre-planned ordering in the shape of bisyndetic templates for conjunctive and disjunctive focus, respectively (hem .. hem ‘both … and’, yan … yan ‘either or’). Next, connectors and particles show different degrees of reliance on presupposed or shared information. These range from the lower side of intervention with hearer-sided processing, exhibited by items like conjunctive/additive connector û, the pre-planned focused connector hem, and the disjunctives ya (unfolding plan) and ya(n) … ya(n) (pre-planned),

  The Typology of Connectivity and Complex Constructions 

405

to more moderate intervention such as the conjunctive focus markers jî and -îș and the various temporal and consequential sequencing devices that re-focus hearer-sided expectations and shared information, and on to more explicit intervention with hearer-sided expectations through adversative connectors and turn-management particles. Finally we see the relevant elements operating at three different plains (cf. Schiffrin 1987): the internal organization of propositional content and relations between events; the ordering of the speaker’s actions of speech; and the organization of turns at the interactional level. A grammaticalization path presents itself in the transition between the latter two domains and we find devices of temporal ordering in reconstructed event chains assuming functions at the discourse level that process hearer expectations and turn-­ management strategies. The relationship between these levels must therefore be seen as a cline; this is well illustrated by the way in which markers of temporal ordering assume consequential meanings, and consequential markers indicate second-turns in adjacency pairs. The plurality of markers in the corpus is a reflection of these productive grammaticalization paths. The shared stock of connectors covers the primary coordinating functions conjunction (addition) and disjunction, including their focused or emphatic counterparts as well as to some extent contrast (adversative), subject to the impact of contact languages. These are widely shared not just across the Kurdish varieties but also with neighbouring languages, particularly Iranian and Turkic languages and in part also Arabic and Neo-Aramaic. We find on the other hand rather clear divisions between NK and CK in the form and distribution of many of the markers that convey temporal sequencing and consequential ordering, as well as different adversative connectors and turn-management particles, reflecting the high susceptibility to contact influence of markers that convey a high degree of intervention with hearer-sided processing of propositions and turns (cf. Matras 1998). The difference in morphological typology between NK and CK, which latter relies more heavily on clitics, is reflected in the nature of the focus markers NK jî compared to CK -îș as well as in referent tracking in the conjoining of past tense transitive and intransitive clauses.

406 

Y. Matras

3 Relative Clauses Relative clauses are subordinate clauses that function as modifiers of nouns. They are embedded into noun phrases, delimiting the reference to an NP by specifying its role as the state of affairs described in the relative clause (Andrews 2007; Givón 1990, pp. 645ff). Restrictive relative clauses involve two states of affairs, one of which is dependent and provides specification about a participant of the other, identifying it within a set of possible referents by means of a proposition that is known to the hearer; non-restrictive relative clauses provide additional information about a participant without identifying it within a set of possible referents (Cristofaro 2003, p. 195ff; Givón 1990 pp. 645ff). Drawing on the structural parameters described in these and other sources, Kurdish relative clauses can be described as external to and generally following the head NP. They are separated from that NP by a linker or relativizer that is also used in other subordinating functions and does not take nominal case. A coreferential NP within the relative clause is either omitted or expressed pronominally; resumptive pronouns are usually limited to positions that rank lower on the accessibility hierarchy as formulated by Keenan and Comrie (1977). The verb form in Kurdish relative clauses is finite and usually not de-ranked in the sense described by Cristofaro (2003). A distinctive trait of Kurdish relative clauses is the reliance on nominal attributive (ezafe) markers often in combination with the uninflected subordinator. For Standard Sorani, McCarus (2009, pp. 620–626) notes that relative clauses are introduced by the subordinator ke and that the relative connector (ezafe or nominal attributive marker) -î precedes it if the antecedent is definite and the relative clause is restrictive, while a resumptive pronoun in the form of an enclitic marker appears when the head noun is not the subject of the relative clause. Blau (1980, p. 156) notes that in Sorani the ezafe particle can function as relativizer without ke and that ke can follow the ezafe marker -y or the determiner -e. For Mukri, Öpengin (2016, pp. 114–116) names three relativizing elements: the particle ke for

  The Typology of Connectivity and Complex Constructions 

407

restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses, the ezafe suffix -î for restrictive relative clauses, and the oblique form of the third person pronoun ewî. The latter matches the form ewey recorded by MacKenzie (1961, pp. 131–133) for CK. For NK there is agreement that the relativizer ku follows the attributive (ezafe) particle, which is inflected for gender or number, while a relative clause that is not adjoined to the head noun is introduced by the independent attributive (ezafe) marker -yê etc. (MacKenzie 1961 pp. 203–204; Bedir Khan and Lescot 1970, pp. 335–339; Thackston (2006a, p. 75). In the MDKD free speech corpus we often find the pragmatic equivalent of relative clauses expressed by a paratactic structure: (53) S-055 Kirkuk, Iraq, 50: mesela ênca xelik he-bû pare-y da-ana for example then people exist-PST money-OBL PRG-brought ‘So for example there were people who would bring money’.

Non-restrictive relative clauses appear seldom in the corpus, and a paratactic elaboration strategy is preferred: (54) K-099 Ad Darbasiyah, Syria, 6: mezn-ê  wan      meselen     ti             kar-i     bê big-M    they.OBL for example you.SG.NOM can-2SG say.SBJ.2SG Abû  newaf ewî     xwe    kirîy-i     mezn-ê  azîza     anha he.OBL REFL made-PRF big-M    Aziza now ‘You can say that their head figure is Abu Nawaf who nowadays has nominated himself as the head of Aziza’.

Canonical non-restrictive relative clauses are rare: (55) S-040 Urmia, Iran, 13: Ewe-ș       dastan-î  çolek-eke-y    ke that-too story-EZ bird-DEF-EZ REL bab-im     bo-y        de-cêrra-m-ewe father-1SG to-3SG PRG-told-1SG-INT ‘That is the story about the bird that my father used to tell me’.

408 

Y. Matras

(56) K-033 Qamishli, Syria, 19: xuh-a    mi,   a  ḥ uqûq  di-xwend sister-F I.OBL F  law      PRG-­studied li    camiʕ-a    Ḥ eleb-ê, in university Aleppo-­OBL wêna       ez       qane     kiri-­bû-­m      ez she.OBL I.NOM convince did-PLU-­ 1SG I.NOM veger-im        xwendin-ê return.SBJ-1SG study-OBL ‘My sister, who was studying law at the university of Aleppo, she convinced me to return to studying’.

The majority of relative clauses in the corpus are restrictive; their NP is typically specified by a determiner: (57) S-039 Sardasht, Iran, 17: ew    xełk-e        ke    bang   de-krê-n this people-DET REL invite PRG-done-PL bo  xo-yan     şit-êk      d-ên-in for REFL-3PL thing-IDF PRG-bring-PL ‘The people who are invited bring something’. (58) K-048 Kanyder, Iraq, 26: Ez     yêkek      bû-m     ji     wa         pêșmerg-êd I.NOM one-IDF was-1SG from those.OBL fighter-EZ.PL ku  beșdarî  di  Șorriș-a      Gulan-ê    da  kirdi REL part    in uprising-F Gulan-OBL in  did ‘I was one of the soldiers who took part in the Gulan uprising’.

Relative clauses attached to a head noun indicating place or location are used to supplement information on location in connection with a main clause: (59) K-028 Pertek, Turkey, 26: der-ê       ku  çêre      lê    pirr     e, place-EZ.PL REL pasture in.it many is me      ew    te-bir-in      wan       der-an we.OBL that PRG-bring-PL those.OBL place-OBL.PL ‘The places where there are many pastures, we would bring them to such places’.

  The Typology of Connectivity and Complex Constructions 

409

Relative clauses can also encode a secondary state of affairs that is used to modify a principal state of affairs without being attached to a head NP. In NK, these are typically introduced by the independent attributive particle along with the subordinator ku. In CK they are typically introduced by the demonstrative with attributive particle ewe-y in conjunction with the subordinator ke: (60) K-078 Şemdinli, Turkey, 31: yêd ko wi zeman-i ez bîr ne-ke-m EZ.PL REL that.OBL time-OBL I.OBL mind NEG-do-1SG ‘Those things of that time I do not forget’. (61) K-068 Kozluk, Turkey, 65: A  ku  di-xwîn-e       û    derva    ye  ez       im, F   REL PRG-read-3SG and outside is  I.NOM 1SG navbera  wan      da among  they.OBL in ‘Among them the only one who studies and who is away is I’. (62) S-075 Khalakan, Iraq, 17: Ewe-y     ke    min  xo-m     be  bîr-im     d-ê, this-EZ REL I     REFL-1SG at   mind-1SG PRG-come.3SG car-êk     rûxêndr-awe time-IDF destroyed-INT ‘As far as I remember it has been destroyed once’.

The relativizer is in most cases the same linker or particle that serves as subordinator in complement clauses and often also as temporal and conditional subordinator and is almost invariably based on the deictic-­interrogative stem k-. NK varieties generally have ku/ko with the occasional variants ki and the voiced counterparts go (primarily in south-eastern Turkey and sporadically elsewhere) and gi (in Syria). Outliers are the NK varieties of the Aleppo region in Syria, which show han (a demonstrative particle). CK and SK varieties have ke (but SK in Iran shows ki). The MDKD elicitation corpus has the following phrases that contain relative clauses: ‘The woman we saw in the market was rich’ ‘The people we met at the market were poor’ ‘Yesterday I did not buy any of the books you told me about’ ‘That book that he had bought in Diyarbakir is lost’

410 

Y. Matras

Here, the most common relativization strategies for both NK and CK/ SK samples are (a) the independent attribute (ezafe) marker, and (b) the combination of attributive marker and relativizer: (63) ‘The woman we saw in the market was rich’. K-042 Zakho, Iraq ew jink-a me li bajêr-î dîtî zengîn e that woman-F we.OBL in town-OBL saw rich is S-034 Sulaymaniyah, Iraq ew jin-e-y bini-man le şar-eke dewłemen e that woman-DET-EZ saw-1PL in town-DEF rich is K-062 Kurtalan, Turkey ew jink-a ku me li bajêr dît zengîn bû that woman-F REL we.OBL in town.OBL saw rich was S-050 Qoshachay, Iran ew jin-e-y ke le şar-e dît-man pûłdar bû that woman-DET-EZ REL in town-DET saw-1PL rich was

The absence of a relativizer is widespread especially in the NK varieties of northern Iraq (Bahdini), in the neighbouring provinces of Hakkari in Turkey (Yüksekova, Şemdinli, and Çukurca) and Derik in Syria (Qesirdib, Dêrka Ber Avê, and Beroj) as well as in the geographically fairly proximate CK varieties of Shaqlawa in Iraq and Oshnaviyeh in Iran. It is otherwise found sporadically in NK varieties of Turkey and Syria and in CK in Iran. The choice of strategy tends to be consistent across the elicitation phrases for each sample/location. Mixtures occur where CK samples use the determiner -e in place of the attributive marker, accompanied by ke: (64) S-049 Marivan, Iran ew xelk-e-y le bazar bînî-man hejar bû-n that people-DET-EZ in market saw-1PL poor was-PL ‘The people we met at the market were poor’. (65) S-049 Marivan, Iran ew kitêb-e ke ew le Dîyarbekir-î kirrî win buwe that book-DET REL that in Diyarbekir-OBL bought lost was-PRF ‘That book that he had bought in Diyarbakir is lost’.

  The Typology of Connectivity and Complex Constructions 

411

Use of the relativizer with the determiner in place of the attributive marker is also found in SK samples: (66) G-001 Sahneh, Iran aw kitaw-e ki me ve dîyarbekr sen-üm gom bî that book-DET REL I at Diyarbekir bought-1SG lost was ‘That book that I had bought in Diyarbakir is lost’. (67) S-057 Khanaqin, Iraq ew jin-e ke dîm le şar-ege dewlemen e that woman-DET REL saw-1SG in town-DEF rich is ‘The woman I saw in the town is rich’.

NK samples in the free speech corpus show some instances of the uninflected, secondary attributive marker -î where the head NP of the relative clause is composed of two nouns in an attributive relation; note here the use of a subject correlative pronoun in the main clause: (68) K-058 Bismil, Turkey, 30: car-ek-ê    heval-ê    min-î    ku  gundiy-ê    me time-IDF-M friend-M I.OBL-EZ REL villager-M we.OBL bû,   ew  jî      di-çû was  he    too  PRG-went ‘Once my friend who was from our village also went along’.

A further relativization strategy appears in a series of NK samples from Syria and Iraq (Sersink, Zakho, Chiay Syan, Kanyder, Mosul, Basselhâya, Doda, Rajo, Xirbe Cihwa, Dêrka Ber Avê, Beroj, Sewîdiyê, Sabahiya, Kobane, as well as Suruç in Turkey, which is close to Kobane). Here, the relative clause follows the main clause, which also contains the head noun, and is introduced by the oblique demonstrative/pronoun ewê: (69) K-037 Kobane, Syria min     duhnî     ti   kîtab  ne-kirî-n I.OBL yesterday any book NEG-bought-PL ew-ê      te           ji      min    re  got-in that-OBL you.SG.OBL from I.OBL to said-PL ‘Yesterday I did not buy any of the books you told me about’.

412 

Y. Matras

Pronominal resumption through independent pronouns is exceptional in the phrase elicitation corpus, most samples showing head noun resumption for object NPs in the form of object agreement on the verb: (70) K-031 Dolunay, Turkey însan-ê go me li p’azar-ê dît-in feqîr bû-n people-EZ.PL REL we.OBL in market-OBL saw-PL poor was-PL ‘The people we met at the market were poor’. (71) S-076 Mawat, Iraq ew kes-ane-y ke bînî-man-in le bazarr hejar bû-n that person-PL-EZ REL saw-1PL-PL in market poor was-PL ‘The people we met at the market were poor’.

The exceptions all involve the same phrase cited above, in just four NK samples from Syria and Turkey, where the direct object head NP is resumed in the relative clause through the oblique pronoun wan. Note that Kozluk and Kurtalan in Turkey are in rather close geographical proximity while the sample collected in Raqqa represents a Kurdish-speaking community whose origins are in the Aleppo province, to which Basselhâya also belongs. Hence, we are dealing apparently with regional features, in this case of two separate regions: (72) ‘The people we met at the market were poor’. K-068 Kozluk, Turkey ew     kes-ê           ku   me       li   market-ê    wan that person-EZ.PL REL we.OBL in market-OBL they.OBL.PL nas    kir  feqîr  bû-n know did poor was-PL K-062 Kurtalan, Turkey ew     însan-ên       me       li   market-ê    wan that person-EZ.PL we.OBL in market-OBL they.OBL.PL nas    kir  feqîr  bû-n know did poor was-PL K-043 Basselhâya, Syria ew xelk-î me wan bazar da dîtî fuqara bû-n that people-EZ we.OBL they.OBL.PL market in saw poor.PL was-PL

  The Typology of Connectivity and Complex Constructions 

413

K-100 Raqqa, Syria ew     xelk-ê         han-ê  me        li    sûk-ê       wan          dît that people-M DET-M we.OBL in market-OBL they.OBL.PL saw feqîr  bû-n poor was-PL

Elicitation phrases for some NK samples from Turkey show evidence of Turkish contact influence: the modifying (relative) clause precedes the main clause, and within the relative clause, adverbial modifiers precede the head noun, resembling in those two aspects the structure of gerundial constructions that serve as relative clauses in Turkish: (73) K-023 İmranlı, Turkey dîyarbek’ir-ê k’îtab girt anda bû Diyarbekir-OBL book bought lost was ‘That book that he had bought in Diyarbakir is lost’. (74) K-067 Kağizman, Turkey market-ê meriv-ê em dît-in ewana feqîr bû-n market-OBL person-EZ.PL we.NOM saw-PL they poor was-PL ‘The people we met at the market were poor’. (75) K-072 Ergani, Turkey mi li bajêr jinik-ek dî zengîn bû I.OBL in town.OBL woman-IDF saw rich was ‘The woman I saw in the market was rich’.

Such constructions are rare even in the elicitation corpus and are not encountered in the free speech corpus. They might therefore be considered to be ad hoc emulations of the model phrases that were read out to the consultants in Turkish and are therefore not necessarily indications of ongoing structural change. Nonetheless, the free speech corpus does present us with a number of examples from NK varieties in Turkey where the same two features occur (preposed relative clause, and preposed adverbial modifiers), albeit introduced by an independent attributive particle following the model of canonical relative clauses in NK:

414 

Y. Matras

(76) K-063 Özalp, Turkey, 19: Lê  vê           gav-ê           yê       ku  li  gund    ma-n-e, but this.EZ.PL village-EZ.PL EZ.M REL in village stayed-PL-PRF gelek  kêm  kes very   few   person ‘But in this village those who have stayed in the village are just a few people’.

It is quite possible that constructions of this kind provide a bridge that facilitates the ad hoc replication of pivotal features of the Turkish model.

4 Complement Clauses A complement clause is defined as a notional sentence or predication that describes a proposition (fact, activity, or potential state) and is a core argument (subject or object) of a predicate (Noonan 2007 [1985], Dixon 2006). Like other subordinations, complement clauses display a cognitive asymmetry between the main clause, which for the speaker is the base, and the subordinated clause; it follows that the complement clause is pragmatically non-assertive and lacks its own illocutionary force (Cristofaro 2003; Langacker 1991). A principal difference to other subordinations (adverbial clauses) is that the set of verbs that can take a complement is restricted. Noonan (2007 [1985]) and Cristofaro (2003) identify as complement-taking predicates phasals (‘begin’), modals (‘must’, ‘can’), desideratives and manipulatives (‘want’, ‘tell’), verbs of perception (‘see’, ‘hear’), knowledge and acquisition of knowledge (‘know’, ‘learn’) and propositional attitude of various kinds including positive, commentative, assertive, and negative (‘try’, ‘regret’, ‘believe’, ‘doubt’), and verbs of utterance (‘say’). A general distinction is made between Fact-type and Potential-type complement clauses (Givón 1990; Dixon 2006, Kehayov and Boye 2016). Typological studies identify links between the semantics of the states of affairs involved in complementation, their conceptual status, and the structural encoding of the relations between them. Fact-type complements typically encode something that has taken place. They are therefore more likely to show tense aspect marking that is independent of the main

  The Typology of Connectivity and Complex Constructions 

415

clause. They are often introduced by a complementizer that typically also has other functions in the language such as a marker of a relative clause. Potential-type complements capture the potentiality of the involvement of the subject of the complement clause in an activity. They have less structural similarity to the main clause, tend to lack tense-aspect choices that are available in the main clause, and often have a special form of the verb (cf. Dixon 2006). Cristofaro (2003, pp. 124–125) identifies a hierarchy of semantic integration involving various types of de-ranking configurations such as the likelihood of restricted forms of the verb and coreferent deletion: phasals > modals > manipulatives > desideratives > perception > knowledge > propositional attitude > utterance. To the parameter of event independence (pertaining to the likelihood of occurrence of the event irrespective of the outcome of the main clause event) Givón (1990, pp. 515–562) adds the degree of active involvement of the subject/agent of the main clause in the activity/event portrayed in the complement clause, especially the degree of control that is exercised by the subject/agent of the main clause on the subject/agent of the complement clause. The stronger the control the more likely it is that the main clause event will affect the outcome of the complement event and so the more tightly integrated the two events are. The combination of factors gives rise to a continuum of structures expressing different degrees of semantic bonds and, following the iconicity principle, different degrees of syntactic integration. Thus, strong manipulative intent and agentivity or power over the manipulee implies greater control and hence tighter structural integration. Kehayov and Boye (2016) find that agent control can play a role in the presence or composition of complementizers, which cross-linguistically are likely to derive from interrogative/relative subordinators. For Kurmanji, Matras (2002) discusses the interplay of factuality (event independence) and control (including coreferentiality) in the gradient of event integration relating to manipulative success and agentivity in complement clauses. Modal complements, especially ‘can’, tend not to take a complementizer, though one appears when there is a need to emphasize agent control. The latter is linked to the difficulty in achieving the intended outcome, or the complexity of the volitional act (such as durativity in ‘to try repeatedly to do something’), the complexity of the goal, or the uncertain degree of control over the agent of the target action.

416 

Y. Matras

Complements of factual or epistemic verbs like ‘say’, ‘know’, and ‘see’ are generally introduced by a complementizer. Manipulation complements are generally lower on the hierarchy of control. But when the primary agent has control over a secondary agent (as in the example ‘the state doesn’t let us study’, Matras 2002, p. 58) then structural integration is tighter. Control and intensity of the effort are reflected in the likelihood of coreferential deletion in same-subject complements (see also Matras 1997). Matras (2002, pp. 60–62) points out that Kurmanji belongs to a linguistic area where finite complementation is common. That usually also entails a split between factual (epistemic or realis) and potential (irrealis or non-factual) complements, marked by the indicative and subjunctive moods respectively, and reliance on complementizers and the option of overt coreferential subject marking in the complement clause. Discussing Zazaki, Paul (1998, pp. 138–161) notes that complements of modal verbs can occur with or without the complementizer ki but that the verbs ‘say’ and ‘ask’ take a paratactic structure. For Mukri, Öpengin (2016, pp. 129–136) notes that complements of verbs of volition often occur without a complementizer. Other descriptions of Kurdish complementation tend to make do with reference to the complementizer and the availability of tense-aspect forms in the complement clause. The distribution of complementizers in the MDKD corpus resembles that of relativizers: NK generally has ku and its variant ki, with the voiced variants go mainly in south-eastern Turkey and gi in Syria. CK and SK varieties have ke. Two distinctive features stand out: In Syrian NK the borrowing of Arabic inû/ino is common for both factual and non-factual complements. A number of NK samples from Syria and south-eastern Turkey have a specialized complementizer qey that appears only after the verbs ‘say’ and ‘think’. In the following I review data from MDKD in regard to the hierarchy of verbs postulated by Noonan (2007 [1985]) and Cristofaro (2003), cited above. The relevant predicates that appear in the corpus are: ‘begin’ (phasals), ‘can/cannot’, ‘know how to’ (modals), ‘let’, ‘allow’ (manipulatives), ‘want’ (desiderative), ‘see’, ‘hear’ (perception), ‘know that’ (knowledge), ‘try’, ‘think’ (propositional attitude), and ‘say’ (utterance). Most are covered by the corpus of elicited phrases and for the others I supplement data from the free speech corpus.

  The Typology of Connectivity and Complex Constructions 

417

4.1 Phasals Free speech samples that contain the verb ‘begin’ do not show complementizers. In the following example the embedded verb appears in the infinitive. The subject of the complement is implied through the antecedent in the main clause and is not repeated: (77) K-078 Şemdinli, Turkey, 19: Tax-ê seri dest pê kir-in xanî çêkir-in area-M upper hand in.it did-PL house built-PL ‘The upper neighborhood started to build houses’.

The following example is a rare case in which the complement appears in a nominalized (infinitive) form; such constructions are apparently more common in the literary language (both Sorani and Kurmanji) but are rare in our corpus (but see below, on modals): (78) S-073 Halabja, Iraq, 16: Dîsan-ewe dest kir be awadankird-in-ewe again-INT hand did at build-INF-INT ‘They started to build houses again’.

4.2 Modals The elicitation corpus contains the phrases ‘I can open the door’ and ‘I cannot drink the water’, neither of which shows a complementizer in any of the samples. Both phrases always show the present subjunctive in the complement and no repetition of the coreferential subject through an overt pronoun (merely in the agreement on the complement verb): (79) S-073 Halabja, Iraq na-twan-im aw bi-xo-m NEG-can-1SG water SBJ-drink-1SG ‘I cannot drink the water’.

418 

Y. Matras

(80) K-044 Akre, Iraq e di-şê-m derk-î vek-im I PRG-can-1SG door-OBL open-1SG ‘I can open the door’.

The elicitation phrase ‘I know how to read’, also expressing ability, stands out in the corpus as the only phrase in which a nominalized complement appears, in altogether 13 from a total of 93 responses, all representing NK dialects from Anatolia; this might be a replication of the Turkish nominalized construction (okumayı biliyorum): (81) K-074 Doğubeyazıt, Turkey ez xwend-in-ê zan-im I.NOM read-INF-OBL know-1SG ‘I know how to read’.

Another type of response, covering 40 samples from Iran, Iraq, and Syria, shows the interrogative ‘how’ as complementizer and the complement verb in the subjunctive: (82) S-040 Urmia, Iran emin da-zan-im çon bi-xwên-m-ewe I PRG-know-1SG how SBJ-read-1SG-INT ‘I know how to read’. (83) K-020 Zakho, Iraq ez di-zan-im çawa bi-xwîn-im I.OBL PRG-know-1SG how SBJ-read-1SG ‘I know how to read’.

Given this distribution one cannot exclude the immediate influence of the elicitation languages. In the case of the nominalized response the model is Turkish, which has an infinitive for the complement predicate and similar word order as (81) above. In the other cases the models are Persian and Arabic, which employ the interrogative ‘how’ as complementizer. Of the remaining samples, 35 with no particular regional distribution showed the subjunctive with no complementizer, while five samples, all but one CK, showed the subjunctive with a complementizer:

  The Typology of Connectivity and Complex Constructions 

419

(84) K-065 Yüksekova, Turkey di-zan-im bi-xîn-im PRG-know-1SG SBJ-read-1SG ‘I know how to read’. (85) S-022 Sulaymaniyah, Iraq e-zan-im bi-xwên-im-ewe PRG-know-1SG SBJ-read-1SG-INT ‘I know how to read’.

4.3 Manipulatives Manipulatives are considered here to be those instances of complementation where the subject of the main clause performs an action that is intended to prompt or impact an action by a different subject that is conveyed by the complement clause (non-prototypical cases being those of self-prompt, as in ‘I allow myself to do something’, etc.). The structure employs the general template of non-factual or potential complements, with the complement verb in the present-subjunctive. The subject of the complement is either specified or derived from an antecedent through verb agreement: (86) K-030 Nusaybin, Turkey, 18: bav-ê mi ne-hişt ez bi-ç’-im-e sinav-ê father-M I.OBL NEG-let I.NOM SBJ-go-1SG-DIR exam-OBL ‘My father did not let me go to the exam’. (87) K-068 Kozluk, Turkey, 13: na-hêl-in bûk bi-ç-e NEG-let-PL bride SBJ-go-3SG ‘They don’t let the bride go’. (89) S-055 Kirkuk, Iraq, 37: kabira ḥ eta ew kiçe e-b-ête hełałișî man until that girl PRG-become-­3SG lawful qebûl    na-ka-n     derç-­ête  derewe  legełya. accept NEG-do-PL go-3SG  out       with.3SG ‘Until the girl becomes the man’s wife lawfully they do not accept that she should go out with him’.

420 

Y. Matras

Complementizers of the type ke/ku, for example, tend to appear where there is interruption of some kind and a need to re-focus the relationship between main and complement predicate, or when the potential for the realization of the goal action expressed by the complement is not taken for granted: (90) S-042 Khalifan, Iraq, 24: qibûl    bi-ke-n       le  min  ew     rrism-ey, accept SBJ-do-PL in I     that picture-OBL yaʕnî,   ke        lê   bi-gr-im         be-w      newʕ-ey that.is COMP in.it SBJ-take-1SG at-and way-OBL ‘You allow me to take this picture, I mean, in this way’. (91) S-039 Sardasht, Iran 6: Swênd-yan  de-d-en       ke       ew     kurr-e oath-3PL    PRG-give-PL COMP    that boy-DET aga-y     lew  kiçe-y    bê care-EZ  on     girl-OBL  be.SBJ.3SG ‘They take an oath that the boy will take care of the girl’.

Cases of ‘passive’ manipulation, where no agent control is purported, appear not to show explicit marking of the manipulative relation: (92) K-090 Erzincan, Turkey, 2: me beklemîș kir berxik-ê șerjêk-in we.OBL wait did lamb-OBL slaughter-PL ‘We waited for them to slaughter the lamb’.

4.4 Desiderative Phrases from the elicitation corpus that contain the verb ‘want’ in same-­ subject constructions—‘I wanted to go to Batman’, as well as ‘Azad wanted to sing at the wedding’, ‘The woman also wanted to sing’—show a tendency for the complement to appear in the subjunctive without a complementizer and with no overt marking of the coreferential subject: (93) S-042 Khalifan, Iraq wîst-im bi-ts-im-e Batman-ê wanted-1SG SBJ-go-1SG-DIR Batman-OBL

  The Typology of Connectivity and Complex Constructions 

421

An exception is the phrase ‘I wanted to go to Batman’, where in 33 of altogether 90 samples—all NK varieties from Syria and south-eastern Turkey as well as Mosul in Iraq—show repetition of the first person subject pronoun: (94) K-037 Kobane Syria min di-xast ez her-im Batman-ê I.OBL PRG-wanted I.NOM go.SBJ-1SG Batman-OBL

A further 5 samples (NK varieties from Turkey, and a SK sample from Iran) show a complementizer and no repetition of the coreferential subject, while one single NK sample from Turkey shows both: (95) K-090 Erzincan, Turkey ez di-xaz-im ku her-im-e Batman-ê I.NOM PRG-want-1SG COMP go.SBJ-1SG-DIR Batman-OBL (96) G-001 Sahne, Iran me e-twast-im ke bi-ç-im-e batman I PRG-wanted-1SG COMP SBJ-go-1SG-DIR Batman (97) K-061 Adilcevaz, Turkey min xwest kir ku ez her-im Batman-ê I.OBL want did COMP I.NOM go.SBJ-1SG-DIR Batman-OBL

The modal verb ‘want’ is considered transitive since it has a potential direct object, represented in the cases discussed here by the complement clause. In the first person singular, case marking clearly differentiates nominative ez from oblique mi(n). The complementizer acts as a supporting device, refocusing attention to the thematic-syntactic roles in the complement clause. By contrast, in the phrase ‘Azad wanted to sing at the wedding’, from a total of 91 samples only 12 employ a complementizer and none show pronominal repetition of the third person coreferential subject: (98) S-050 Qoshachay, Iran Azad de-yewîst ke le şayîda goranî bi-ł-e Azad PRG-wanted COMP in wedding song SBJ-say-3SG (99) K-062 Kurtalan, Turkey Azad xwest ku li deʕwet-ê strana bêj-e Azad wanted COMP in wedding-OBL song say-3SG

422 

Y. Matras

4.5 Perception Verbs of perception are factual or epistemic verbs and convey experience that is real and verifiable. Their complements are regarded as independent events. That independence is expressed by the flexibility of tense-­ aspect choices on the complement verb. In the free speech corpus, most relevant instances show a preference for paratactic linking: (100) S-054 Choman, Iraq, 27: çû wênder û dît-bû-y kes lewê nîye went there and saw-PLU-3SG person there is.not ‘He went there and he saw that there was nobody there’. (101) K-034 Sabahiya, Syria, 14: hege we dît agir vêk’et, mi zor/ wî kuştîye if you.OBL.PL saw fire lit I.OBL much he.OBL killed.3SG ‘If you see that the fire is lit, then I won/ I have killed him’.

The outlier is an NK variety from Syria, where there is a stronger preference for the (Arabic-derived) complementizer, possibly modelled on Arabic: (102) K-055 Rimêlan, Syria 46: pê di-ḥ is-in inû meşakil he-ne in.it PRG-hear-PL COMP problems exist-PL ‘We hear that there are problems’.

The elicitation corpus contains the phrase ‘I saw Ahmed arriving in his house’, which contains a co-temporal embedding with different subjects in the main and complement clauses. Various strategies are found: In a relatively small number of responses (13) the construction is rendered as a temporal adverbial clause (‘I saw Ahmed when he arrived…’). In altogether 40 samples, with no particular regional distribution, an asyndetic structure appears: (103) S-033 Sulaymaniyah, Iraq eḥ med-im bînî geyşte mał-î xo-y Ahmad-1SG saw entered house-EZ REFL-3SG (104) K-069 Siverek, Turkey mi dî Eḥ med gîha mal I.OBL saw Ahmas entered house

  The Typology of Connectivity and Complex Constructions 

423

Further 33 samples, again with no particular regional distribution, show a complementizer introducing the complement clause. (105) S-031 Piranshahr, Iran emin eḥ med-im dît ke geyşte mał-ê I Ahmad-1SG saw COMP entered house-OBL (106) K-025 Çukurca min dît ku ʕeḥ med gehişt mał-a xwe I.OBL saw COMP Ahmad entered house-F REFL

Note that with both options CK dialects place the subject of the complement clause within the main clause, preceding the main verb. In effect the CK structure presents a complete transitive main clause of which the subject of the complement clause is a direct object. The complement clause follows externally to the main clause, adding information on the activity undertaken by that direct object.

4.6 Knowledge Complements of verbs of knowledge are factual or epistemic complements that encode independent events. This is again reflected in the availability of choice of tense-aspect on the complement verb. In the free speech corpus, knowledge complements do not show complementizers: (107) K-062 Kurtalan, Turkey, 13: ez zani-bû-m ez-ê înê her-m-e mal-ê I.NOM know-PST-1SG I.NOM-FUT Friday go.SBJ-1SG-DIR house-OBL ‘I knew that I was going home on Friday’. (108) S-051 Saqqez, Iran, 7: E-m-zanî        bilêt-î     qetar  heta  Salonîk      be PRG-1SG-knew ticket-EZ train  till    Thessaloniki in sê    hezar     û       çuwar  ṣed       Diraxma    ye six thousand and four   hundred drachma is ‘I knew that train ticket to Thessaloniki was three thousand four hundred Drachmas’.

424 

Y. Matras

The elicitation corpus contains the phrase ‘I know that he understands Arabic’ with 77 samples showing no complementizer compared with 40 samples with a complementizer, with no obvious regional distribution: (109) K-010 Tunceli, Turkey ez di-zan-im ew erepçe famdik-e I.NOM PRG-know-1SG he Arabic understand.PRG-3SG (110) S-015 Sanandaj, Iran min e-zan-im ke ew arabî e-zan-ê I PRG-know-1SG COMP he Arabic PRG-know-3SG

For the phrase ‘I did not know that his father had died’ both options are attested, but here only 55 samples show no complementizer while in 37 a complementizer is present. Some samples thus show a preference for a complementizer in the second, negative phrase but not in the first: (111) K-031 Dolunay, Turkey ez zan-im ew ʕerebî zan-ê I.NOM know-1SG he Arabic know-3SG ‘I know that he understands Arabic’ (112) K-031 Dolunay, Turkey mi     ni-zani-bû       go      bav-ê      wî        ç’û-ye I.OBL NEG-knew-PST COMP father-M he.OBL went-3SG.PRF reḥ met-ê blessing-OBL ‘I did not know that his father had died’

That pattern is not universal across the corpus, however, and there are pairs that show the reverse preference; hence we must assume that the presence of the complementizer is optional in principle. With verbs of knowledge a semantically specialized complementizer can occur, derived from an interrogative, which specifies the ontological domain of the embedded predication. It can occur on its own or accompanying the generic complementizer:

  The Typology of Connectivity and Complex Constructions 

425

(113) S-051 Saqqez, Iran 18: na-zan-im çon hat-ûn ta ew-ê-ş. NEG-know-1SG how came-PL till that-OBL-too ‘I don’t know how they had even got there’. (114) S-051 Saqqez, Iran 68: ewa    agadar  bû-n      ke      min they aware   was-PL COMP I bo   çî      lewya  da-nîşt-ûm for what there   PRG-sat-1SG ‘They were aware why I was sitting there’.

4.7 Propositional Attitude For the elicitation phrase ‘I think that Canan is ill’, 61 samples in the corpus do not show a complementizer while 24 samples do show one, of which 22 are NK varieties mainly from Syria and south-eastern Turkey. In all cases the complement verbs take independent tense-aspect marking: (115) S-037 Bukan, Iran min fikir bi-k-im Canan nexoş e I think SBJ-do-1SG Canan ill is (116) K-086 Muş, Turkey ez di-fikir-im go Canan nexweş e I.NOM PRG-think-1SG COMP Canan ill is

Of the samples that take complements, eight are NK varieties from Syria and Turkey that use the specialized complementizer qey, which only appears in the corpus in this phrase, while three more are NK dialects from Syria that use Arabic-derived inû in this position: (117) K-069 Siverek, Turkey ez bê-m qey Canan nexweş e I.NOM think-1SG COMP Canan ill is (118) K-099 Ad-Darbasiyah, Syria e di-ḥ is-im inû kînan nesaẋ i I.NOM PRG-think-1SG COMP Canan ill is

426 

Y. Matras

A small number of NK samples (4) indicate propositional attitudes through the modal marker belkî ‘maybe’ while others employ modality particles borrowed from Turkish, which, in the case of İmranlı, is embedded into the Turkish clause configuration where the complement is preposed: (119) K-103 Rajo, Syria e di-bê-m belkî Kînan nexaş e I.NOM PRG-think-1SG maybe Canan ill is (120) K-074 Doğubeyazıt, Turkey Canan zankî nexweş e Canan suppose ill is (121) K-023 İmranlı, Turkey canan-ê nexweş e dîye ez di-zan-im Canan-M ill is saying I.NOM PRG-know-1SG

In the free speech corpus we find examples of an external state of affairs serving as expression of propositional attitude; here the complement is introduced by a (Arabic-derived) complementizer, possibly emulating an Arabic model construction, and the subject of the complement is expressed overtly by a pronoun despite the presence of an antecedent in the role of a possessor in the main clause: (122) K-055 Rimêlan, Syria, 9: ʕadet     û     teqalîd-ê          me       inû custom and tradition-EZ.PL we.OBL COMP em         ḥ ina       çêdik-in we.NOM henna create.PRG-PL ‘It is our custom and tradition to make henna’.

For ‘try’ we find a complementizer in one NK sample from Syria but not elsewhere; this may be attributed to contact with Arabic, though the example also presents an ambiguous case of potential agent control of the target action: (123) K-100 Raqqa, Syria, 7: ez     muḥ awele  di-k-im      inû I.NOM attempt    PRG-do-1SG COMP ez     alî      wa             bi-k-im I.NOM help they.OBL.PL SBJ-do-1SG ‘I try to help them’.

  The Typology of Connectivity and Complex Constructions 

427

(124) S-075 Khalakan, Iraq, 24: xełik miḥ ewele de-k-a xanû-y bi-k-a people attempt PRG-do-3 G house-OBL SBJ-do-3SG ‘People try to build houses’.

4.8 Utterance Complements of utterance verbs are factual and show independent tense-­ aspect assignment. Data from the free speech corpus suggest that use of the complementizer is optional and asyndentic or paratactic configurations are common: (125) S-073 Halabja, Iraq, 21: e-łê-n jîyan-man zor xoș bû PRG-say-PL life-1PL very nice was ‘They say that life was very pleasant’. (126) K-029 Kâhta, Turkey, 14: di-wê-n ki dijmin-ê ew-ê bî-ye PRG-say-PL COMP enemy-M this-OBL was-PRF.3SG ‘They say that he was the enemy of whatever’.

As with other factual complements, such as those of knowledge verbs, the generic complementizer can accompany a specialized complementizer derived from an interrogative that delineates the ontological domain of the complement state of affairs: (127) K-023 İmranlı, Turkey 3: deng na-k-e ki nîvan k’î-ye sound NEG-do-3SG COMP guest who-is ‘He did not say who the guests are’.

4.9 Summary of Complement Clauses Kurdish dialects share the same typology of complement clauses: Complements are overwhelmingly finite, with a distinction between fact-­ based and non-fact or potential complement predicates, with the present subjunctive mood in the latter. A general subordinator that also functions

428 

Y. Matras

as a relativizer appears optionally subject to information accessibility and agent control. With reference to the hierarchies of semantic domains and main clause predicates postulated by Noonan (2007 [1985]), Givón (1990), Cristofaro (2003) and Kehayov and Boye (2016) modals show the tightest structural integration, always with a de-ranked complement verb in the subjunctive and no complementizer or overt marking of the coreferential subject. For ‘know how’ the data show the impact of language contact in the choice of a nominalized complement or semantically specialized complementizer. Phasals rank lower due to the optional preference for overt coreferential subject marking and a complementizer while on the other hand some samples express the complement verb in a nominalized form. Manipulatives and desideratives assume a similar position. The presence of a complementizer is optional and subject to the speaker’s assessment of agentivity and control. In first-person coreferential subject constructions with ‘want’ NK varieties prefer overt pronominal marking of the subject in the complement clause and often a complementizer. The four domains of factual complements (perception, knowledge, propositional attitude, utterance) tend to rank together and show similar traits with choice of tense-aspect in the complement reflecting event independence. Complementizers are optional for perception and knowledge with some NK varieties showing a specialized complementizer for propositional attitude while for utterance there is an apparent preference for paratactic structuring.

5 Adverbial Subordination A subordinate clause is considered adverbial if it modifies another clause in the way that an adverb modifies a proposition and if it can be omitted without affecting the grammaticality of the main clause (Hengeveld 1998; Thompson et al. 2007). Thompson et al. (2007) distinguish between adverbial clauses that express time, location, and manner, which can be substituted by a single word, and those of purpose, reason, condition, concession, substitution, addition, and simultaneity, which cannot. Cristofaro (2003, pp. 248–272) considers syntagmatic economy and information recoverability as the principal factors that determine the encoding of adverbial subordinations. The need to reduce information

  The Typology of Connectivity and Complex Constructions 

429

complexity and redundancy can be manifested in similarities between the two parts of the construction. As in complement clauses we expect structural devices to reflect the degree of event independence and manipulative control (cf. Givón 1990, pp. 827–864). As types of adverbial subordinations Cristofaro (2003, p. 157ff.) lists purpose, temporal posteriority, temporal anteriority, temporal overlap, condition, and reason. While temporal clauses entail a predetermined time sequence in purpose clauses there is no logical entailment about the extent to which the performer of the main state of affairs can control the realization of the dependent one. Cristofaro (2003, p. 168) therefore postulates the ‘adverbial de-ranking hierarchy’: purpose > before, after, when > reality condition, reason. While concessive clauses are often included under adverbial subordinations, Crevels (2000) argues that they are only more likely to be expressed as adverbial clauses at the content and epistemic levels, where they express a contrast but where one event does not impede the realization of the other either in terms of its internal structure (content) or in regard to the speaker’s judgement of the contrast between the propositions (epistemic). For Hengeveld (1998) the relevant semantic dimensions of adverbial clauses are factuality, presuposedness, and dependent versus independent time reference. Adverbial subordinations can be classified along those dimensions as representing the semantic classes of cause, simultaneity, and reason (all factual and non-presupposed), addition, anteriority and concession (factual and presupposed), and purpose (non-factual, non-­ presupposed). The factuality hierarchy predicts that if a language uses a dependent verb form for a factual relation then it will also use one for non-factual relations of the same order (state of affairs, propositonal content, and speech act). Hengeveld (1998, pp. 360–361) identifies Kurmanji among a sample of (European) languages as minimal in regard to the presence of dependent verbs across 14 different adverbial relations, suggesting that a dependent verb form is only used for ‘means’ and ‘anteriority’ (but see discussion of purpose and conditional clauses below). In areal perspective, Kurmanji stands out in Hengeveld’s (1998) sample of languages in contrast to neighbouring languages of the Caucasus and Anatolia, broadly adhering to the types of adverbial clauses found in the Balkans as well as Lithuanian and Russian. Discussing adverbial subordinations descriptive accounts of Kurdish dialects make reference to the structural representation of event

430 

Y. Matras

dependency and to the composition of subordinators. For Kurmanji, Thackston (2006a, pp. 72 ff.) notes that verbs in posterior (‘after’) and co-temporal (‘when’) clauses take the indicative while those in anterior clauses (‘before’) and in purpose clauses (‘in order to’) take the subjunctive. Subordinating conjunctions generally consist of a preposition followed by ku while in Sorani (Thackston 2006b, p. 71) there is frequent reliance on a preposition and the deictic compositional ewey ke. MacKenzie (1961, pp. 131–132) notes that in CK ke is used both for relative and subordinate clauses while eger is used as both conditional and temporal subordinator. Also for Sorani, McCarus (2009, pp. 620–626) confirms that subordinators combine the generic subordinator ke with adpositions, the adverbial demonstrative ewe, and the relative connector -î, while temporal clauses are introduced by ke; purpose clauses are introduced by bo awaî or heta with the verb in the subjunctive. Also for Sorani, Blau (1980, pp. 149–156) notes that temporal adverbial clauses take the format of relative clauses, combining a temporal noun (roj ‘day’, sał ‘year’, wext ‘time’) with the suffix -ê followed by the general subordinator ke. For Zazaki, Paul (1998, pp. 138–161) notes that temporal adverbial clauses take ki or wexo ki, or a temporal noun with ki, while purpose clauses are introduced by ki. As in other varieties, specialized subordinators appear for causal clauses (çimki or mademki) and for conditional clauses (eger). For Gorani, Yusupova (2017, pp. 99–104) describes the general subordinator ke in temporal clauses often accompanied by wextê as well as the temporal use of çun ‘how’ and the specialized subordinators er/eger (conditional) and herçend (concessive). Considerable attention is given to conditional subordination. MacKenzie (1961, pp. 136–140) notes for CK that for possible conditions the present subjunctive appears in the protasis (condition) and the indicative in the apodosis (consequence) while for impossible conditions the past conditional is used in the protasis (bûmaya ‘if I had been’, îša-t bikirdaya ‘if you had done this work’) and the imperfect in the apodosis. For NK, MacKenzie (1961, pp. 203–213) notes that in possible conditions the protasis is marked by the present subjunctive or future tense while the apodosis has present indicative past tense; in impossible conditions the perfect conditional appears in the protasis (çûbama ‘if I had gone’) and the indicative present or imperfect appears in the apodosis. A similar distribution is described by McCarus (2009, pp. 620–626) for

  The Typology of Connectivity and Complex Constructions 

431

Strandard Sorani and by Öpengin (2016, pp. 135–136) for Mukri. For Zazaki, Paul (1998, pp. 138–161) notes borrowing of the Turkish conditional marker -se, which Haig (2019, p. 150) mentions for Western Kurmanji in Turkey.

5.1 Co-temporal The overall sentence configuration for temporal subordinations is similar across the corpus: The adverbial clause is introduced by a subordinator, usually but not obligatorily preceding the main clause. There is a tendency for matching tense-aspect marking in both clauses to reflect temporal co-occurrence of states of affairs. In NK varieties the co-temporal subordinator is usually the word for ‘time’ in the ezafe or attributive form—wextê, gava, dema, çaxa—optionally followed by the general subordinator ku, and so on. Here, adverbial subordination essentially takes on the configuration of a relative clause: (128) K-027 Muradiye, 1: wextê deprem bû, bav-ê mi Antalya bû when earthquake was father-M I.OBL Antalya was ‘When the earthquake happened, my father was in Antalya’. (129) K-063 Özalp, 30: Wext-a  ku      e      zarok  bû-m […],  havîn-an time-F  COMP I.NOM child    was-1SG   summer-OBL.PL ez       di-çû-m-e          gund I.NOM PRG-went-1SG-DIR village ‘When I was a child […], in the summer I would go to the village’.

In some samples, the subordinator ku, for example, appears on its own, without a modifying temporal noun, to express co-temporality: (130) K-059 Kulp, Turkey, 50: ku       e        mezin  bû-m,       sal-k-ê         me COMP I.NOM big       was-1SG year-IDF-OBL we.OBL go    em        her-in      Diyarbekir said we.NOM go.SBJ-PL Diyarbekir ‘When I grew up, one year we said we should go to Diyarbekir’.

432 

Y. Matras

For specialized time reference specific temporal nouns can be used: (131) K-024 Tatvan, 36: P’aşê,  sał-a     kû     ez          hat-im-e      dinyay-ê, later  year-F COMP I.NOM came-1SG.PRF world-OBL ḥ eştê  ḥ eşt-an       da  hat-in-e      Tetwan-ê. eighty eight-OBL.PL in  came-PL-PRF Tatvan-OBL ‘Later, the year I was born, in eighty-eight they came to Tatvan’.

In CK varieties, the general subordinator ke serves as co-temporal subordinator (sometimes in the combination ewey ke) while some CK varieties in Iran employ the conditional subordinator eger in co-temporal function: (132) S-059 Qalat Dizah, Iraq, 2: ême  ke     mindał  bûy-n we    COMP child     was-PL legeł/  legeł  brader-ekan  de-çûy-n with    with  friend-DEF.PL PRG-went-PL ‘When we were kids, we would go with/ with friends’. (133) S-047 Oshnaviyeh, Iran, 9: eger  le  Turkiy-ey     rra     hat-în,    teqrîben if     in   Turkey-OBL way came-PL around eme/  sêzde,     tsarde      nefer      bûy-n. we    thirteen fourteen person was-PL ‘When we came from Turkey, we were around thirteen, fourteen people’.

Combinations with the universal quantifier her ‘each, every’ express tight simultaneity or durative/repetitive and ‘open’ co-temporality, in the latter case triggering the subjunctive in the subordinated clause: (134) S-048 Baneh, Iran, 20: Min  her   le  Zirîndof   ke     hat-im I     every in Zirndorf COMP came-1SG çû-m-e         ser  îş      lêre went-1SG-PRF  on     work  there ‘Just as I came from Zirndorf, I started working here’.

  The Typology of Connectivity and Complex Constructions 

433

(135) S-042 Khalifan, Iraq, 33: eme  herçî     e-tsûy-ne     şwên-î we    every PRG-went-PL place-OBL hûha-yan    le  me  e-kirdê ‘huha’-3PL in we PRG-was.done ‘Whenever we went anywhere they were booing us’. (136) K-025 Çukurca, Turkey, 1: Heca      dem-a   murof  kom       b-in, each.time time-F man    assemble be.SBJ-PL mezin-êd  me,     beḥ s-a  gund      ti-k-in, big-EZ.PL we.OBL talk-F  village PRG-do-PL beḥ s-a  zeman-ê  bê    ti-k-in, talk-F   time-M    gone PRG-do-PL ‘Whenever the people gather together, our elderly people, they talk about the village, about the old times’.

5.2 Anterior and Posterior The verb in anterior adverbial clauses takes the subjunctive while the subordinator relies on the preposition ‘before’, optionally combined with the general subordinator: NK berî (ku), CK in combination with the deictic pêş ewey (ke): (137) K-056 Sheran, Syria, 4: berî         ku          mazoṭ   li   Sûrî     buha        bi-b-ê, before COMP diesel  in Syria expensive SBJ-be-3SG ʕerd-ê       avî        li  cem       me      he-bû land-EZ.PL irrigation in among we.OBL exist-PST.3SG ‘Before the cost of diesel became expensive in Syria, we had irrigated lands’. (138) S-076 Mawat, Iraq, 36: pêş     ewe-y     bi-gey-ne     ser  kanîy-eke before that-OBL SBJ-reach-PL on   spring-DEF seyr-im     e-kird   le  ser  kanîy-eke look-1SG PRG-did in on    spring-DEF piyaw-ek-î    gewre man-IDF-EZ big ‘Before we reached the spring I saw a big man at the spring’.

434 

Y. Matras

Posterior relations are expressed by subordinators based on the preposition ‘after’: NK piştî (ku), CK and SK duway ke. The subordinated verb carries independent tense-aspect: (139) K-030 Nusaybin, Turkey, 14: Mekt’eb-a  yatlî         p’iştî  go       mi    xilas  kir, school-F   boarding after COMP I.OBL finish did mi    fen lisesî    qezenc       kir. I.OBL ‘fen ‘school admission did ‘After I finished boarding school I was admitted to a sciences [‘Fen’] high school’. (140) S-057 Khanaqin, Iraq, 27: Duway  ki     rizgar    bî,     Sedam    ne-ma, after    COMP freedom was Saddam NEG-stayed hat-n-ew     yewaș   yewaș came-PL-INT slowly slowly ‘After it became free, Saddam was gone, they slowly returned’.

For posterior-durative relations (‘until’) the specialized subordinators ta, heta (ku), and heye are used: (141) S-048 Baneh, Iran, 4: fetre-yek-î zor naxoş bû ta lewê derçûy-n period-IDF-EZ very bad was till there left-PL ‘It was a very horrible time until we left there’. (142) K-062 Kurtalan, Turkey, 14: mi    go    hêja  du    roj     he-ye I.OBL said still   two day exist-3SG ez-ê          dî-ya      xwe     bi-bîn-im I.NOM-FUT mother-F REFL SBJ-see-1SG ‘I said there are still two days until I see my mother’.

When the posterior-durative adverbial clause is preposed it indicates absence of factuality and presuppositionality, triggering the subjunctive and often negation to mark the potential state of affairs in the subordinated predication:

  The Typology of Connectivity and Complex Constructions 

435

(143) K-059 Kulp, Turkey, 47: Yanî,    heta  ku       ewk  ne-b-ê […], that.is until COMP that NEG-be.SBJ-3SG em         ni-kar-in        her-in     gund-ê      xwe we.NOM NEG-can-PL go.SBJ-PL village-OBL REFL ‘Until this happens […], we cannot go to our village’.

A similar construction is used to express negative condition: (144) S-048 Baneh, Iran, 39: ta     to       îqame-kew  ne-b-êt, until  you.SG  permit-IDF      NEG-be.SBJ-3SG na-tuwan-î      hîş   şit-ê        bi-ke-y NEG-can-2SG any thing-OBL SBJ-do-2SG ‘Unless you have a permit you cannot do anything’.

5.3 Reason A generic connector indicating cause, reason and explanation is çun and its derivations (NK mostly çunkî, CK mostly çunke), which is shared with neighbouring Iranian and Turkic languages. Forms based on the preposition ‘in front’ are also used: NK ji ber ku, CK le ber ewe (ke). Some varieties show borrowings from contemporary contact languages: Arabic linû in Syrian NK, Turkish çünkü in NK varieties of Turkey and Persian çun in the SK sample from Sahne in Iran. Adverbial clauses of reason typically follow the main clause: (145) K-021 Mosul, Iraq, 97: me         kes-ek      ne-ʕezimand,  ç’ikû     hingî we.NOM person-IDF NEG-invited    because then mam-ê    min    ʕemr-ê  xud-ê        kiri-bî. uncle-M I.OBL age-M god-OBL done-PLU.3SG ‘We did not invite anyone, because my uncle had since died’. (146) K-060 Karlıova, Turkey, 42: ez     pir    tirsiya-m, I.NOM very feared-1SG çünkî    pez-ê       xelk-ê        ye because sheep-EZ.PL people-OBL is ‘I was very afraid, because they were somebody else’s sheep’.

436 

Y. Matras

(147) S-033 Sulaymaniyah, Iraq, 18: xo-y        le   bîdayet,   be   tema  bû-n REFL-3SG in beginning for plan  was-PL bi-ṛ o-n        bo  Brîtanya,  çunke      xał-ek-im,      biray-î SBJ-go-PL to   Britain   because uncle-IDF-1SG brother-EZ dayk-im         xo-y      le   Lenden  bû mother-1SG REFL-3SG in London was ‘They were first planning on going to Britain, because an uncle of mine, my mother’s brother was in London’. (148) S-034 Sulaymaniyah, Iraq, 12: Hemû  șit-ekan-im       win  e-b-ê        le  ber all      thing-DEF.PL-1SG lost  PRG-be-1SG in for ewe-y    e-y-xat-e          sûç-ewe this-EZ PRG-3SG-put-3SG room-INT ‘All my things get lost because he puts them in the corners of the room’. (149) G-001 Sahneh, Iran, 42: temîre  xob  bêhtir  ezanim         îdî    çun tamira well better PRG-know-1SG then because teqrîben  çwarde    punzde  sal      temîre   e-jen-im around     fourteen fifteen   year tamira PRG-play-1SG ‘Well I know the Tamira better because it has been almost fourteen fifteen years that I have been playing the Tamira’.

The state of affairs presented as a reason in the adverbial clause is independent and so factual but is introduced as new information that is not presupposed; this is reflected in its positioning after the main clause. The connector that introduces reason clauses can also be used in a paratactic arrangement where it typically offers an explanation for the speaker’s preceding assertion: (150) S-033 Sulaymaniyah, Iraq, 11: Êran-yan  be  dił     ne-bû,      çunke, Iran-3PL  on heart NEG-­was because Kurd-ekan      zor  rêkûpêk  bû-n,    bes Kurd-DEF.PL very orderly   was-PL but legeł  ḥ ukmet-î       Êran  rê   ne-e-­kewt-in. with   government-­EZ Iran    way NEG-PRG-fell-­ PL ‘They did not like Iran, because, the Kurds were very correct, but they did not get on well with the Iranian government’.

  The Typology of Connectivity and Complex Constructions 

437

(151) K-021 Mosul, Iraq, 37–38: ḥ eta   bray-ê      min     ê     kiçik until brother-M I.OBL M small bi-zewicîn-ê,     wê   wer-ê. SBJ-marry-3SG FUT come.SBJ-­ 3SG Çikû       ew  di-bêj-ê      ḥ eta  ez because he     PRG-say-3SG until I.NOM bi-zewicîn-im     da  go      murtaḥ SBJ-marry-1SG in     COMP comfortable b-ê          û        wê     d-ê. be.SBJ-3SG and FUT PRG-come.3SG ‘Until my younger brother gets married, [that’s when] she will come. Because she says not until I get him married, so that he is comfortable here and she will come’. (152) K-039 Sersink, Iraq, 14: ji     hemî  dewlet-êd     ʕalem-î     t-ê-tin, from all    country-EZ.PL world-OBL PRG-come-PL bo     dîtn-a  vê          şaneder-ê. for see-F  this.OBL Shanidar-OBL Çinkî       gelek  gelek  ya  binavûdeng  e. because very    very  F     famous      is ‘They come from all the countries in the world, in order to see this Shanidar (Cave), Because it is very famous’.

5.4 Purpose Purpose clauses are non-presupposed and non-factual. The verb in the subordinated purpose clause generally takes the subjunctive or in cases of counterfactual propositions the past subjunctive (conditional) and in some cases a nominalized form. The linker is usually a specialized subordinator derived from the preposition ‘for’: NK ji bo (ku), CK bo or bo ewey, alongside sewê ki. CK varieties in Iran often show the general subordinator ke in this function, as do some NK samples with ki. NK varieties in Iraq (Bahdini) and the neighbouring Hakkari province in Turkey have da (ku/ go) in this role. A subordinator is more likely to be absent when the intended outcome is within reasonable reach of the subject’s control. There are some attested examples of a paractic structure expressing goal or purpose:

438 

Y. Matras

(153) K-024 Tatvan, Turkey, 18: em-ê          t’am  biç’ûna          tê we.NOM-FUT just    SBJ-go.COND.PL FUT me       av-ê       degîş   kira we.OBL water-OBL change do.COND.3SG ‘We were about to go to change the water’.

In a small number of examples, a nominalized form of the verb is used to encode the outcome: (154) S-076 Mawat, Iraq, 32: Lem  kanîyeya  eʕtîyadî  rrawestay-n at   spring     usual    stopped-PL bo   aw         xuwardin-ewe for water drink-INF-INT ‘Usually we stopped at that spring to drink water’. (155) K-039 Sersink, Iraq, 14: ji     hemî  dewlet-êd      ʕalem-î     t-ê-tin, from all    country-EZ.PL world-OBL PRG-come-PL bo   dît-n-a       vê           şaneder-ê. for see-INF-F this.OBL Shanidar-OBL ‘They come from all the countries in the world, in order to see this Shanidar (Cave)’

A subordinator, sometimes reinforced by overt pronominal marking of the coreferential subject, captures an intention the outcome of which is not entirely obvious or expected: (156) S-051 Saqqez, Iran, 25: suwarî keştî bû-m ke bi-ç-im bo îtalya on ship was-1SG COMP SBJ-go-1SG to Italy ‘I went on board a ship to go to Italy’. (157) K-100 Raqqa, Syria, 10: ez          hat-im-i       ji bo  ez      zarok-ê I.NOM came-1SG-PRF for    I.NOM child-EZ.PL xwe    jî      bi-bîn-im REFL too SBJ-see-1SG ‘I came here so I can also see my children’.

  The Typology of Connectivity and Complex Constructions 

439

Overt reference to the subject of the purpose clause can be omitted when the outcome effect can be expected or else is so unpredictable that it cannot be linked to a tangible degree of control: (158) S-039 Sardasht, Iran, 26: bûk-u      zawa     de-be-n-ewe      małê-w bried-and groom PRG-bring-PL-INT home-and ke     be  xoşî-w     şadî       bi-jî-n COMP on joy-and happiness SBJ-live-PL ‘They take the bride and the groom home, to live happily’. (159) K-029 Kâhta, Turkey, 24: her   sal      jî      pê  rre every year too on way qurban-ek     kir-in-e      ki       ne-mir-e. sacrifice-IDF did-PL-PRF COMP NEG-die-3SG ‘Every year they sacrificed an animal so that he would not die’.

5.5 Concessive Concessive clauses are linked by the specialized subordinator her çend (derived from the quantifiers her ‘every’ and çend ‘some’) in combination with the conjunctive focus particle jî/−îș. The subordinated verb takes independent tense-aspect. There is a tendency for the contrast to be expressed as a correlative with the main clause introduced by the adversative coordinator (bes, ema, etc.): (160) K-078 Şemdinli, Turkey, 32: Her     çendan      jî    jiyan-a  hingî every few.OBL.PL too life-F   then pîçek     asteng  bî,     nexoş  bî, a little difficult was bad     was neriḥ etî            bî,      ema  dîsa  jî uncomfortable was but   still    too zor  xoj   bî very good was ‘Although life back then was a bit difficult, it was uneasy, it was not comfortable, but still it was also very pleasant’.

440 

Y. Matras

(161) K-048 Kanyder, Iraq, 26: her      çend    ʕemr-ê  min-îș      kiçke  bû, every some age-M I.OBL-too girl     was bes   ez         dige   di-çû-m,         dige  cemʕet-ê. but I.NOM with PRG-went-1SG with group-OBL ‘Although I was young, I would accompany them, the platoon’. (162) S-034 Sulaymaniyah, Iraq, 34: Her      çen    mîwey  tir-îș        hemûy  e-xw-a, every some fruit    other-too all-EX  PRG-eat-3SG ḥ ezî  zor   le  penîr    e like    much in cheese is ‘Although he eats some other fruits too, and he likes cheese a lot’

Paratactic constructions can also express concessive relationships: (163) K-058 Bismil, Turkey, 44: Ê   me      saẋ lem  bû     jî, M we.OBL sound    was too dîsa  bi    wa-re         em        șewitî-n. still     on they.OBL-TO we.NOM burned-PL ‘Although ours was sound, we were still negatively affected by them’.

5.6 Conditional Conditional clauses are distinctive among adverbial clauses in exhibiting a mutual dependency among the clauses such that the main clause presents a consequence that can be realized only if the condition is also realized. Two basic types of condition are distinguished: real (possible) and unreal (impossible or counterfactual). The distinction is expressed through particular combinations of tense-aspect-mood marking in the condition and consequence clause. NK and CK varieties only partly share the system of categories: The present indicative NK di-zan- ‘know’, CK e/de-zan; the present subjunctive bi-zan-; the conditional bi-zanî-ya (CK also in -aye, as in bi-çû-aye ‘was’; in some NK varieties of Iraq di-zanî-ya); and the past conditional (also labelled past subjunctive) bi-zanî-ba (in some NK varieties in Turkey and northern Syria bi-zanî-bûya; in some

  The Typology of Connectivity and Complex Constructions 

441

NK varieties of Iraq zanî-ba). NK also has a future tense (d/w/k)ê (bi)zanand future perfect ê (bi)zanî-ba or ê (bi)zanî-ya, in Bahdini varieties also dê (bi)zanî-ye. Conditional clauses are typically introduced by variants of the conjunction eger: In CK eger is consistent while in NK in south-eastern Anatolia and Syria we find aspirated variants heger, hiker, heke, hek and in Anatolia also the etymologically related Turkish borrowing eyer. Some NK dialects in Anatolia and Syria use the general subordinator ku, ko, gi, and so on in conditional clauses. Turkish -se accompanies the verb in conditional clauses in several NK samples from Anatolia (İmranlı, Ergani, Suruç, Erzincan): (164) K-090 Erzincan, Turkey eyer pir ne-şuxl-î se feqir di-mîn-î if much NEG.SBJ-work-2SG COND poor PRG-stay-2SG ‘If you don’t work much, you will remain poor’.

Real conditions specify a condition that is yet to be fulfilled and a consequence that can become a true state of affairs if that condition is fulfilled. They therefore have no truth-value since the truth-values of the state of affairs presented in the consequence depends on that of the condition, which has not yet been fulfilled (cf. Givón 1990, pp. 829–830). For the elicitation phrase ‘If you don’t work much, you will remain poor’ (and the parallel phrase ‘If the children go to sleep early their mother will give them candies’) real conditional clauses show a consistent structural pattern: The present subjunctive occurs in the condition. In the consequence, most NK varieties have the future tense (just five samples show the present indicative) while CK varieties have the present indicative. NK varieties tend to show an overt coreferential pronoun in the consequence clause, while CK varieties tend not to show one: (165) K-068 Kozluk, Turkey ku tu ne-şiẋ ul-î zêde t-ê feqîr bi-mên-î COMP you.SG NEG.SBJ-work-2SG much you.SG-FUT poor SBJ-stay-2SG (166) S-040 Urmia, Iran eger zor kar-ê ne-k-î feqir de-mên-î if much work-OBL NEG.SBJ-do-2SG poor PRG-stay-2SG

442 

Y. Matras

With unreal conditions, the condition can no longer be fulfilled. It is therefore counter-factual and in that respect it has truth-value (cf. Givón 1990, pp. 831–832). Counterfactual conditionals are represented in the elicitation corpus by the phrase ‘If I had known that you would not come to the wedding, I would not have gone there either’. Here we find the conditional or past-conditional mood in the condition clause and the imperfect in the consequence: (167) K-026 Uludere, Turkey hekî  mi       zanî-ba         tu             na-y-ê if    I.OBL knew-PST.COND you.SG.NOM NEG-come-2SG ez      jî   ne-d-ç’û-m         dawet-i I.NOM too NEG-PRG-went-1SG wedding-OBL (168) S-052 Kamyaran, Iran eger  zanî-ba-m            ke       to      na-ye-yt if     knew-PST.COND-1SG COMP you.SG NEG-come-2SG bo  zemawend,  min-îş  ne-d-hat-im to      wedding    I-too  NEG-PRG-came-1SG (169) K-108 Kelhê, Syria heger  mi    bi-zani-ya       tu             na-ç-i if      I.OBL SBJ-knew-COND you.SG.NOM NEG-go-2SG dawet-ê,      e      jî   ne-ti-cû-m wedding-OBL I.NOM too NEG-PRG-went-1SG (170) S-075 Khalakan, Iraq eger  bi-m-zany-aye         to       na-ts-î         bo if    SBJ-1SG-knew-COND you.SG NEG-go-2SG to hefla-y     zewac-eke     emin-îş  ne-de-çu-m party-EZ wedding-DEF I-too    NEG-PRG-went-1SG

In a number of CK and SK samples from Iran both parts of the construction show the imperfect; this is possibly attributable to the influence of Persian, which lacks a conditional tense/mood: (171) S-038 Naqadeh, Iran eger  de-m-zanî       to      na-y-ê if     PRG-1SG-knew you.SG NEG-come-2SG bo  şay-ê         min-îş  ne-d-hat-im to    wedding-OBL I-too  NEG-PRG-went-1SG

  The Typology of Connectivity and Complex Constructions 

443

(172) G-001 Sahneh, Iran eger  e-zanist-im      ke       to      na-t-îte if     PRG-knew-1SG COMP you.SG NEG-come-2SG aw    merasime  min-îş  na-çû-m-e            ûre that wedding  I-too    NEG-went-1SG-PRF there

All varieties in the sample show an overt coreferential pronoun in the consequence clause. In between the two conditional polarities, without and with truth-­ value, there are potentially intermediate positions where states of affairs can be judged to be unlikely but not altogether impossible (Givón 1990, p. 832). The relevant elicitation phrase is ‘If you had worked hard, you would have earned a lot of money’ (as well as ‘If it hadn’t rained yesterday, we would go to the park’). Here we find a split between NK and CK varieties drawing on their different inventories of tense-aspect-mood categories. As with other unreal conditions, most samples show the conditional or past-conditional tense in the condition clause. Here too some CK and SK varieties from Iran have the imperfect on both sides of the construction: (173) S-050 Qoshachay, Iran eger  be  sextî    kar-it       de-kird, if      in  effort work-2SG PRG-did puł-it        zyad   de-skewut    de-bû money-2SG much PRG-earned PRG-was (174) G-001 Sahneh, Iran er  firetir   kar    e-kird-î        pül-i if  harder work PRG-did-2SG money-EZ bîştir   ve  dest  e-tîawird-î more at   hand PRG-had-2SG

In the consequence clause, NK samples have the future perfect while CK samples have the imperfect. The intermediate category of ‘unlikely but potentially possible’ is thus represented separately in NK but not in CK:

444 

Y. Matras

(175) ‘If you had worked hard, you would have earned a lot of money’ K-024 Tatvan, Turkey ku     te           zehf    bi-xebit-î-ya            tê COMP you.SG.OBL much SBJ-work-2SG-COND FUT te           zehf  pere      qezenc  bi-kir-a you.SG.OBL much money earn      SBJ-did-COND K-051 Mosul, Iraq heger  te            zehf  şûl    kiri-ba if      you.SG.OBL gele  work did-PST.COND te           yê    gele    pare   wergirti-ba you.SG.OBL FUT much money earned-PST.COND S-075 Khalakan, Iraq eger  îş-it       zor   bi-kird-aye if    work-2SG much SBJ-did-PST.COND par-et       zor   peyda-de-kird money-2SG much find-PRG-DID S-047 Oshnaviyeh, Iran eger  zor   sext-it     kar     kirdi-ba if      much hard-2SG work did-PST.COND puł-êç-î        zor-it       be  dest    de-hê-n-a money-DEF-EZ much-2SG in   hand PRG-exist-PL-COND

NK varieties of Turkey and Syria as well as Mosul in Iraq show repetition of the subject pronoun (which agrees with the verb). CK varieties reference it through an enclitic subject particle that is attached to one of the non-verbal constituents of the consequence clause, ‘money’ or ‘much’. The Bahdini NK samples from northern Iraq show subject agreement on the verb but no overt pronoun. Bahdini thus takes up an intermediary position between the two dialect groups. Concessive conditionals are generally expressed as real conditional clauses, modified by the focus particle NK jî, CK -îş: (176) K-036 Duhok, Iraq, 17: Îca     çi       heke  tu l/             meselen then what if     you.SG.NOM in/ for example li   bajêr-î      bi-j-î           jî,      bes in town-OBL SBJ-LIVE-2SG too but her     car car  mirov     di-çî-te          gund-î. every time     person PRG-went-3SG village-OBL ‘Even if you live/ for example in the city, but one often goes to the village’.

  The Typology of Connectivity and Complex Constructions 

445

(177) S-050 Qoshachay, Iran, 38: Êstake  û/     eger  roj-êk-îş      bê now    and if      day-IDF-too is.SBJ xoşîy-eke,  îḥ tîmal  e    zahîrî       bê. joy-DEF   likely     is artificial is.SBJ ‘Now even if one day is joyful, it’s likely that it is artificial’.

5.7 Summary of Adverbial Clauses Event integration is represented in adverbial clauses through the de-­ ranking of the subordinated verb and marking of the relation through a subordinator, and potentially overt marking of coreferential subjects. Verb de-ranking generally takes the form of the subjunctive mood on the subordinated verb, which we find in anterior, reality condition and purpose clauses, the latter sometimes even showing a higher level of de-­ ranking or dependency in the form of a nominalized subordinated predicate. Purpose clauses are more likely than anterior or condition clauses to omit an explicit subordinator though this depends on the likelihood of the realization potential of the state of affairs designated as the goal. Real condition clauses appear more likely to show overt marking of the coreferential subject. Other adverbial clauses that rely on the subjunctive are negative condition and some posterior-durative clauses (but not others). Unreal conditions show a specialized verb form in the condition clause but the factuality of their non-truth value and tendency to overtly express coreferential subjects should lead us to position them lower on the event integration hierarchy. Co-temporal, posterior, and reason clauses show independent tense-aspect selection in the subordinated clause. Reason clauses rely invariably on a specialized subordinator and the evidence from the speech corpus shows an overwhelming tendency for them to take up a rigid position following the main clause, a constraint that we do not necessarily find for other adverbial clauses. Concessive constructions, finally, require greater complexity of structural marking, namely a specialist subordinator and the conjunctive focus particle as well as often a correlative adversative connector. The contrastive nature of the relationship between the states of affairs points to a lower

446 

Y. Matras

level of semantic integration. We can thus propose the following hierarchy, which bears strong resemblance to those postulated by Hengeveld (1998) and Cristofaro (2003) based on cross-linguistic samples: purpose > anterior, real condition, negative condition, concessive condition > posterior-durative > unreal and potential condition > co-temporal, posterior > reason > concessive. Various sources of adverbial subordinators can be identified: Specialized subordinators occur for anterior, posterior, posterior-durative, and concessive relations, but are less likely to occur for co-temporal, conditional, and purpose. Complex subordinators composed of several elements are more likely to be found for purpose, reason, concessive, negative condition, and concessive condition. Anterior, posterior, durative, purpose, and reason subordinators tend to draw on the prepositions ‘before’, after’, ‘until’, ‘for’, ‘in front of ’, respectively. Co-temporal forms (like location clauses) tend to draw on nouns bringing them typologically close to relative clauses, in line with predictions by Thompson et al. (2007) that they are distinct as they can be substituted by single words. Concessives draw on the quantifiers ‘every’ and ‘some’. We find greater uniformity in the origin of subordinators for reason, condition, and durative, where many of the forms are part of a pool of resources shared across the wider region with other Iranian and with Turkic languages, while contemporary borrowings are found for reason (from Arabic and Turkish) and condition (from Turkish). CK relies strongly on the deictic ewey in a structure closely resembling relative clauses. Differences in the inventory of tense-aspect-modality categories are responsible for different configurations of the consequence clause in conditional constructions as well as the distinctions between types of conditional constructions on the ‘real’ vs. ‘unreal’ continuum. Some CK and SK varieties in Iran show evidence of convergence (with Persian or potentially other languages) in the distribution of tense-aspect categories in conditional constructions. The group of Bahdini and some neighbouring varieties—those designated as South Eastern Kurmanji by Öpengin and Haig (2014)—stand out through a distinctive purpose subordinator and lower likelihood of overt coreferential pronouns in the consequence clause of conditional constructions.

  The Typology of Connectivity and Complex Constructions 

447

6 Discussion A comparative perspective on the distribution of features can be taken at several levels: The macro-level takes into consideration the broader areal dimension of historical cross-linguistic contacts in eastern Anatolia, northern Iraq and Iran and the southern Caucasus. Then, within the MDKD corpus, some patterns divide NK from CK (and SK, to the extent that its representation in the corpus allows such statements). Finally, micro-level developments characterize regional groups of samples and those in contemporary contact with particular languages. Starting with the macro-areal a key feature is the predominance of finiteness and the split in the marking of factual and non-factual predicates (indicative vs. subjunctive). This split appears in many of the historical contact languages including Persian and its dialects, Armenian, Azeri, Arabic, and dispersed minority languages like Neo-Aramaic, Anatolian Greek, and Domari. A pool of connecting particles are shared among some of the languages. They include the conjunctive connector û/ we, disjunctive ya, contrastive ama, the focused conjunctive construction hem … hem, the discourse markers yanî and wele, the generic subordinator of the type ki, the conditional subordinator of the type eger, the reason subordinator çun and the posterior-durative particle (he)ta, the quantifier her that is involved in some subordinating devices and the particle belê with a range of affirmative-contrasting meanings. The combination of predominance of finiteness in clause combining, the fact/potential distinction in the verbal system and its distribution across similar hierarchies of event integration, and the shared pool of connectors, necessarily gives rise to considerable similarities in the structural configuration of connectivity in Kurdish and other languages of the region (cf. Matras 2002). A number of general traits of Kurdish emerge from an examination of the sample. While finiteness prevails, there are instances where embedded predications rely on nominal structures, notably in phasal complements and purpose clauses. The reliance on the general subordinator of the type ki, for example, to convey a range of semantic relations stands out. It is most conspicuous in factual complements and relative clauses but in

448 

Y. Matras

some samples it extends to co-temporal, manipulative, desiderative, purpose and conditional clauses (in that tentative hierarchical order of frequency or prominence). This might be regarded as a process of grammaticalization both in the sense of an extension of meaning and syntactic environment, and of semantic bleaching as the particle loses its link to presupposition and extends to introduce potential or non-factual states of affairs. The fact that the presence of the complementizer is optional in manipulation and purpose clauses and that it is linked to agent control and realization potential is a further feature of that grammaticalization process. This is in line with observations on other languages where finiteness prevails in complement clauses (cf. Matras and Tenser 2016), and with the grammaticalization pathways noted by Heine and Kuteva (2002) from relativizer to complementizer, from complementizer to purpose, and from temporal to conditional. Noteworthy is the ‘wrapping’ structure whereby the generic complementizer accompanies an ontological subordinator (lit. ‘I asked that what he wanted …’), a strategy that is also found in Persian and other languages. Relative clauses rely on the ezafe attributive marker and potentially also a relativizer or deictic linker. This hierarchical relationship suggests that it is the nominal attributive marker that is the primary linker and so relative clauses might be said to occupy an intermediate position between complex NPs and complement clauses. There is a tendency for temporal adverbial clauses to contain presuppositions and to be preposed to the main clause while those of reason contain new information and tend to follow the main clause. Morphological alignment plays a role in connecting clauses through both paratactic and syndetic constructions subject to speaker’s choices and the substantially different systems of participant tracking devices in NK and CK (see below). Isolating the impact of alignment is not a simple task as there is an interplay with other factors involved in participant tracking, notably accessibility of information (antecedent retrievability), realization potential and control in non-factual predications, as well as the ambiguity vs. distinctiveness of person-specific indexical forms (cf. Matras 1997; Haig 1998). Connectors generally take the monosyndetic prepositive format A co-B, in both coordination and complementation, or co-B A where adverbial

  The Typology of Connectivity and Complex Constructions 

449

subordinations precede the main clause. Focused conjunctives are the exception with the postpositive format A B-co (while pre-planned focused constructions have the bisyndetic format co-A co-B). Focused conjunctives figure in a number of compositional devices, namely in disjunctive, concessive and concessive conditional constructions. Other typical compositional connectors are based on the prepositions ‘before’, ‘after’, ‘on/in front of ’ and ‘for’ for anterior, posterior, reason and purpose, respectively, and the combination of quantifiers ‘every’ and ‘some’ for concessive. The only shared connector is the temporal-consequential particle îca, a composition of a deictic and temporal component (‘this-time’). We now turn to relevant differences between the two major Kurdish dialect groups, for which MacKenzie (1961) coined the denominations North and South and which are separated by a rather dense cluster of isoglosses or Great Divide (Matras 2019). These relate on the one hand to the role of different morphological types and categories, and on the other to different patterns of grammaticalization of connectors. NK favours overt pronominal marking of coreferential subjects in the first person across alignment boundaries, owing to differences in case representation, while CK makes use of subject clitics in different positions in intransitive and transitive clauses. CK places the subject of co-temporal perception complements as the direct object of the main clause, while NK positions it as the subject of the complement clause. NK varieties use the future tense in consequence clauses of real conditionals and draw on the future perfect to distinguish the consequence clause of potential conditional constructions. In the absence of a future tense, CK varieties rely on the present-indicative for the consequence of real conditional constructions and have no device to indicate an intermediate position between real and unreal conditional constructions. In the inventory of particles the groups tend to differ in the shape of the general subordinator/relativizer, which is usually ke and sometimes ki in CK and takes on a variety of forms including ku, ko, kû, ki, go, gi in NK. The focus particle is generally jî in NK and -îş in CK though there are cases of ‘crossovers’ in regions alongside the Great Divide. For the adversative (also affirmative) CK has bełam while the NK cognate is belê. A major difference in the structure of subordinators is the reliance in CK on the deictic ewey, which combines with prepositional material (and

450 

Y. Matras

optionally the general subordinator) in a configuration that resembles that of relative clauses; a parallel form is absent in NK. On the other hand, for co-temporal subordinators, NK relies on a combination of temporal nouns in the attributive (ezafe) construction (and optionally the general subordinator), mirroring the structure of relative clauses, while CK relies on the general subordinator. The two groups show different forms of anteriority markers –NK berî and CK pêş—and different markers of temporal sequencing ‘(and) then’—NK paşî, (piştî) hingî, CK îtir, îdî, duway. The discussion offers a number of insights into regional sub-­groupings within the main dialect groups. The Bahdini NK dialects of northern Iraq and neighbouring dialects in the Hakkari province in Turkey, which Öpengin and Haig (2014) designate as South East Kurmanji (SEK), stand out as a relatively coherent group with distinctive features, some of which are shared with neighbouring dialects of the Derik region in northeastern Syria (cf. Matras 2019). Characteristic features include the frequent absence of a relativizer in relative clauses and reliance instead on the attributive marker and in some cases on the deictic linker ewê (the latter also found in NK dialects of Syria and resembling the strategy of some CK varieties). There is some evidence that Bahdini occupies an intermediary position in participant tracking with a lower tendency than other NK samples to use overt pronouns for coreferential subjects, relying instead on person agreement, resembling the reliance in CK on enclitic marking of participants. Distinctive connectors include da ku for purpose and, shared with CK, the enclitic focus particle -îş as well as the Arabic adversative borrowing bes. The CK dialects of Iran show eger in co-temporal clauses and ke in purpose clauses, and favour the sequential marker îdî. They show the imperfect tense in both sides of unreal conditional constructions, apparently converging with Persian or other related regional varieties, and the Persian borrowings adversative welî and reason çun. NK varieties of Syria stand out through use of the deictic linker ewê in relative clauses, shared with Bahdini, and of a specialized complementizer qey for propositional attitude (shared with neighbouring dialects in Turkey) and otherwise through the form of relativizers in gi and han and the Arabic borrowings adversative bes, the complementizer inû, reason linû, and consequential-conjunctive fe. The comparatively large number of NK varieties from Turkey and the extent of their geographical distribution and variation do not allow for an easy

  The Typology of Connectivity and Complex Constructions 

451

sub-classification other than the high density of Turkish borrowings in the domain of discourse particles including diye, neyse, işte, (ondan) sonra, as well as the conditional particle -se and conditional subordinator eyer. There is some evidence to suggest an incipient tendency towards preposed relative and complement clauses.

Abbreviations ABL ablative (Turkish) COMP complementizer COND conditional DEF definite article DET determiner DIR directional DM discourse marker EXC exclamation EZ ezafe (nominal attribution) F ezafe feminine FUT future particle IDF indefinite INF infinitive INT intensifier aspect M ezafe masculine NEG negation NOM nominative OBL oblique PL plural PLU pluperfect PRF perfect tense PRG progressive aspect PST.COND past conditional REFL reflexive REL relativizer SBJ subjunctive SG singular

452 

Y. Matras

References Andrews, Avery D. 2007. Relative clauses. In Language typology and syntactic description. Volume II: Complex constructions, ed. Timothy Shopen, 2nd ed., 206–236. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Blau, Joyce. 1980. Manuel de kurde. Dialecte Sorani. Dialecte Sorani. Paris: Klincksieck. Crevels, Mily. 2000. Concession. A typological study. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam. Cristofaro, Sonia. 2003. Subordination. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dixon, R.M.W. 2006. Complement clauses and complementation strategies in typological perspective. In Complementation, ed. R.M.W. Dixon and Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, 1–48. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Ehlich, Konrad, and Jochen Rehbein. 1986. Muster und Institution. Untersuchungen zur schulischen Kommunikation. Tübinge: Narr. Fattah, Ismail Kamandâr. 2000. Les dialects kurdes méridionaux. Étude linguistique et dialectologique. Leuven: Peeters. Givón, T. 1990. Syntax. Benjamins: A functional-typological introduction. Volume II. Amsterdam. Haig, Geoffrey. 1998. On the interaction of morphological and syntactic ergativity: Lessons from Kurdish. Lingua 105: 149–173. ———. 2019. Northern Kurdish (Kurmanji). In The languages and linguistics of Western Asia. An areal perspective, ed. Geoffrey Haig and Geoffrey Khan, 106–158. Berlin: De Gruyter. Haspelmath, Martin. 2007. Coordination. In Language typology and syntactic description. Volume II: Complex constructions, ed. Timothy Shopen, 2nd ed., 1–51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heine, Bernd, and Tania Kuteva. 2002. World lexicon of grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hengeveld, Kees. 1998. Adverbial clauses in the languages of Europe. In Adverbial constructions in the languages of Europe, ed. Johan Van der Auwera, 335–419. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Keenan, Edward L., and Bernard Comrie. 1977. Noun phrase accessibility and Universal Grammar. Linguistic Inquiry 8: 63–99. Kehayov, Peter, and Kasper Boye. 2016. Complementizer semantics in European languages: Overview and generalizations. In Complementizer semantics in European languages, ed. Kasper Boye and Peter Kehayov, 809–878. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.

  The Typology of Connectivity and Complex Constructions 

453

Khan, Bedir, Emir Djeladet, and Roger Lescot. 1970. Grammaire kurde, Dialects kurmandji. Paris: Maisonneuve. Kurdoev, Kanat K. 1957. Grammatika kurdskogo jayka (kurmandži). Moscow: Akademiya Nauk. Langacker, Roger W. 1991. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Volume II: Descriptive applications. Stanford: Stanford University Press. MacKenzie, D.N. 1961. Kurdish dialect studies. London: Oxford University Press. Mahmoudveysi, Parvin, Denise Bailey, Ludwig Paul, and Haig Geoffrey. 2012. The Gorani language of Gawrajˇu ¯, a village of West Iran. Texts, grammar, and lexicon. Wiesbaden: Reichert. Matras, Yaron. 1997. Clause combining, ergativity, and coreferent deletion in Kurmanji. Studies in Language 21 (3): 613–653. ———. 1998. Utterance modifiers and universals of grammatical borrowing. Linguistics 36-2: 281–331. ———. 2002. Kurmanji complementation. Semantic-typological aspects in an areal perspective. In Kurdish Linguistics, Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 54–3, ed. Geoffrey Haig and Yaron Matras, 49–63. Berlin: Akademie. ———. 2019. Revisiting Kurdish dialect geography: Findings from the Manchester database. In Current issues in Kurdish linguistics, ed. Geoffrey Haig, Ergin Öpengin, and Songül Gundoğdu, 225–241. Bamberg: Bamberg University Press. ———. 2020 [2009]. Language contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Matras, Yaron, and Anton Tenser. 2016. Complementizers in Romani. In Semantic functions of complementizers in European languages, ed. Kasper Boye and Petar Kehayov, 341–375. Berlin: De Gruyter. McCarus, Ernest M. 1958. A Kurdish grammar. Descriptive analysis of the Kurdish of Sulaimaniya, Iraq. New York: American Council of Learned Societies. ———. 2009. Kurdish. In The Iranian languages, ed. Gernot Windfuhr, 587–633. London: Routledge. Noonan, Michael. [1985] 2007. Complementation. In Language typology and syntactic description. Volume II: Complex constructions, ed. Shopen, Timothy, 2nd ed., 52–150. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Öpengin, Ergin. 2016. The Mukri variety of Central Kurdish. Grammar, texts, and lexicon. Weisbaden: Reichert. Öpengin, Ergin, and Geoffrey Haig. 2014. Regional variation in Kurmanji: A preliminary classification of dialects. Kurdish Studies 2 (2): 143–176. Paul, Ludwig. 1998. Zazaki. Weisbaden: Reichert.

454 

Y. Matras

Redder, Angelika. 1989. Konjunktionen, Partikeln und Modalverben s Sequenzierungsmittel im Unterrichtsdiskurs. In Dialoganalyse II, ed. Edda Weigend and Franz Hundsnuscher, 393–407. Tübingen: Niemeyer. Rudolph, Elisabeth. 1996. Contrast. Adversative and concessive expressions on sentence and text level. Berlin: De Gruyter. Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Thackston, W. M. 2006a. Kurmanji Kurdish. A reference grammar with selected readings. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. ———. 2006b. Sorani Kurdish. A reference grammar with selected readings. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Thompson, Sandra A., Robert E. Longacre, and Shin Ja J. Hwang. 2007. Adverbial clauses. In Language typology and syntactic description. Volume II: Complex constructions, ed. Timothy Shopen, 2nd ed., 237–300. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Yusupova, Zare. 2017. The Kurdish dialect Gorani. Saarbrücken: Lambert.

Index1

A

Ablative, 321–324, 328 Absolute adposition, 293, 299–301, 315–321, 328 Accusative, 111–113, 164, 181, 222, 223, 231 Addressee, 8, 113, 130, 144, 149, 157, 172, 300, 310, 321, 325–326, 328, 330n12, 336, 338, 342, 344, 345, 354–362, 364, 367, 369, 372, 373 Adjacency pair, 402, 403, 405 Affricate, 33, 68, 80, 86–89, 104 Agent, 20, 112, 113, 182, 186, 190, 223, 225, 226, 228, 229, 319, 389, 390, 415, 416, 420, 426, 428, 448

Agreement, 112, 164, 175n5, 182, 189, 190, 198, 199, 201, 202, 204, 205, 208–212, 214, 218, 223, 225, 231, 234n4, 244–246, 248, 249, 254, 266–269, 275, 276, 286n38, 341, 389, 390, 407, 412, 417, 419, 444, 450 Alignment, 5, 67, 69, 162–164, 182, 188, 199, 214, 225, 231, 243–245, 248, 340, 380, 381, 389–391, 448, 449 Allative, 297, 310, 311, 321, 325–328, 330n12 Allophone, 30, 39, 40, 70, 73, 80, 83, 84, 89 Alveolar, 7, 24, 68, 86, 87, 92–99

 Note: Page numbers followed by ‘n’ refer to notes.

1

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 Y. Matras et al. (eds.), Structural and Typological Variation in the Dialects of Kurdish, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-78837-7

455

456 Index

Approximant, 86 Arabic, 4, 16, 17, 21, 27, 28, 36, 44, 45, 47, 49, 72, 84, 96–100, 104, 121, 264, 279, 295, 308, 309, 329n2, 330n9, 337, 372, 383, 394, 399, 402, 404, 405, 416, 418, 422, 424, 426, 435, 446, 447, 450 Areal, 7, 8, 27, 31, 33, 39, 65, 79, 96, 104, 105, 171, 181–232, 311, 328, 335, 336, 345–355, 359, 372, 381, 429, 447 Aspect, 8, 18, 50, 67, 69, 71, 74, 80, 105, 182, 230, 240, 242–245, 253, 260, 264, 268, 280, 282n7, 283n9, 293, 294, 363, 381, 413, 414 Aspirated, 7, 68, 70, 83, 86, 87, 89–92, 103, 104, 107n24, 441 B

Benefactive, beneficiary, 321, 325–328 Bilingualism, 49, 225, 227 Borrowing, 17, 20, 40, 48–50, 92, 97–100, 107n13, 189, 394, 398, 402, 403, 416, 431, 435, 441, 446, 450, 451 See also Loan C

Causative, 192, 214, 227, 343 Change of state, 112, 282n7, 338 Circumposition, 148, 149, 170, 171, 173, 178n23, 293, 294, 298, 299, 303, 305, 310,

313–315, 321–323, 326, 327, 356, 357 Clitic, 7, 8, 113, 119, 126, 158–160, 162, 163, 178n25, 181–232, 249, 257, 258, 265–269, 286n40, 287n51, 294, 296, 297, 299, 318, 319, 327, 338, 339, 341–344, 353, 354, 384, 386–390, 405, 449 Comitative, 111, 113, 114, 168, 170, 171, 173, 175n8, 176n12, 299, 304, 306, 314, 321, 322, 328, 345, 347, 383 Complement, 8, 13, 67, 130, 148–154, 157, 172, 176n12, 187, 189, 194, 195, 197, 207, 208, 216–218, 225, 226, 228, 229, 292–294, 298–300, 311, 313, 315, 318–321, 325, 327, 342–344, 360, 364, 366, 367, 370, 371, 373, 379–381, 409, 414–429, 447–449, 451 Complementizer, 215, 227, 231, 361, 415–418, 420–428, 448, 450 Concessive, 381, 383, 429, 430, 439–440, 444–446, 449 Conditional, 253, 261, 380, 381, 400, 409, 429–432, 437, 440–451 Conjunctive, 381–389, 392, 399, 404, 405, 439, 445, 447, 449 Construct, 22, 49, 175n6, 269 Contact, 2, 8, 18, 67, 104, 121, 189, 221, 227, 230, 231, 283n10, 285n31, 370, 372, 380, 395, 402, 405, 413, 426, 428, 435, 447

 Index 

Contrast, 8, 16, 42, 47, 70, 83, 84, 86–92, 97, 102–104, 116, 119, 123, 130, 145, 146, 155, 157, 158, 162, 167, 252, 263, 280, 294, 314, 330n9, 345, 354, 369, 379, 382, 383, 388, 403, 405, 421, 429, 439 Coordination, 381–405, 448 Copula (COP), 245, 265–269, 274–276, 286n36, 286n38, 286n39, 286n40, 286n46, 287n51, 342, 346, 349, 371 Coreferent, coreferential, 160, 186, 189, 199, 203, 223, 227, 389, 390, 406, 415–417, 420, 421, 428, 438, 441, 443, 445, 446, 449, 450

E

D

F

Dative, 181, 211, 222, 223, 368 Definiteness, 114, 115 Deictic, 396, 430, 433, 446, 448–450 Dental, 283n15 Directional (DIRC, DRCT, DIR), 286n40, 286n42, 297, 298, 300, 302, 310, 314, 316–318, 325, 328, 338, 341–344, 356, 369, 374n4 Direct object, 8, 112–114, 137, 158–168, 172, 173, 178n24, 181, 196–199, 201, 202, 217, 225, 226, 335, 340, 345, 361, 365, 366, 371, 390, 412, 421, 423, 449 Disjunctive, 381–383, 391–394, 404, 447, 449

457

Emphatic, 7, 67, 68, 80, 86, 87, 92–99, 103, 104, 107n26, 107n28, 383, 388, 405 Ergative, ergativity, 164, 188, 205, 211, 214, 225, 226, 231, 240, 243, 246, 249, 340, 389 Existential, 200, 213, 227, 234n4 Experiencer, 113, 159, 200, 205, 227 External possession, 189, 196, 197, 208, 219, 229 Ezafe (EZ), 118, 119, 126, 128, 130, 153–158, 172, 175n6, 175n7, 175n9, 234n3, 269, 299, 304, 306, 308, 313, 330n8, 343, 406, 407, 410, 431, 448, 450

Farsi, 17, 21, 29–31, 36, 37, 42–45, 47, 49, 51n1 See also Persian Focus, 1, 15–19, 66–70, 86, 101, 106n3, 106n8, 114, 158, 240, 241, 293, 321, 339, 363, 371, 388, 392, 394, 404, 405, 439, 444, 445, 449, 450 G

Gender, 19–21, 28, 115, 117, 118, 131, 141, 145, 158, 175n7, 211, 407 Genitive, 111, 113, 181, 211, 222, 223, 368 GIS, 22 Glide, 78, 246, 257, 286n36, 374n4

458 Index

Goal, 8, 15, 113, 118–121, 123–125, 128–130, 144–148, 157, 169, 172, 175n8, 175n10, 176n12, 177n21, 240, 336, 338–341, 343, 345, 349–355, 357, 359, 360, 367–370, 372, 382, 415, 420, 437, 445 Gorani, 2, 7, 13, 17, 28, 68, 182–184, 206, 210–223, 225–231, 244, 257, 263, 292, 295, 308, 324, 338, 380, 383, 384, 430 Great Divide, 18, 449 H

Hawrami, 13, 15, 17, 23, 27, 28, 31, 35, 37, 39, 42, 47, 68, 183, 207, 211–214, 217–221, 223, 227–229, 244, 282n6, 324

246, 249, 266, 267, 269, 275, 344, 345, 361, 365, 389, 390, 405, 449 Irrealis, 240, 416 Isogloss, 2, 4, 7, 22, 24, 26, 46, 47, 87, 103, 211, 222, 228, 244, 354, 372, 449 L

Labial, 68, 86–88 Laki, 27, 36, 69, 182–184, 202–210, 213, 215, 220, 221, 223, 225–231, 244, 245, 257, 315 Lateral, 94, 103, 104 Light verb, 18, 338, 343–344, 370, 373 Liquids, 67, 92 Literary Kurdish, 15, 16 Loan, 295, 301, 308–309, 326, 327 See also Borrowing Locative, 111, 168, 169, 171, 173, 259, 301, 321–324, 327

I

Imperfect, 8, 240, 242, 245, 252–265, 277–280, 282n6, 283n13, 284n21, 284n23, 285n26, 285n27, 285n28, 430, 442, 443, 450 Inchoative, 342–343, 370 Indefinite, 114, 115, 155, 157, 158, 166, 172, 176n15 Instrument, 113, 171, 175n8, 176n12, 314, 321–323, 326, 327, 330n11, 345 Intransitive, 165, 174n1, 176–177n17, 194, 225, 244,

M

Manipulative, 381, 414–416, 419–420, 428, 429, 448 Middle Persian, 211, 222, 257, 295, 298, 301, 368 Modal, 83, 90, 94, 259, 261, 269, 277, 278, 280, 381, 414–419, 421, 426, 428 Motion, 119–121, 123, 124, 128, 144, 172, 175n8, 286n42, 336–341, 344, 350–353, 355, 360, 361, 364, 367, 368, 372

 Index 

Mukri, 21, 23, 25, 26, 28–30, 32, 33, 35–37, 40–42, 47, 117, 118, 129, 175n7, 185, 189, 191, 195, 196, 198, 219, 222, 225, 228, 286n38, 303, 306, 310, 318, 319, 354, 358, 369, 383, 384, 406, 416, 431 N

Nasal, 24 Negation, 207, 215, 231, 245, 247, 249, 256, 257, 382, 434 Neo-Aramaic, 405, 447 O

Obstruent, 7, 84, 86, 92, 93, 96, 99, 104 Old Iranian, 113, 181, 211, 222, 223, 243, 367, 368 Onomasiology, onomasiological, 19, 39 P

Paratactic, 383, 391, 394, 407, 416, 422, 427, 428, 436, 440, 448 Parthian, 211, 222, 295, 296, 301 Participle, 242, 243, 245, 265, 266, 268, 269, 274, 275, 286n36, 367 Perfect, 240, 245, 252, 253, 260, 265–280, 282n1, 282n4, 286n43, 430, 441, 443, 449 Persian, 16, 44, 83, 84, 121, 199, 210, 211, 225, 227, 257, 263, 264, 272, 274, 279, 309,

459

329n2, 335–337, 353, 363, 370, 371, 383, 394, 402, 418, 435, 442, 446–448, 450 See also Farsi Pharyngeal, 7, 67, 68, 70, 80, 87, 92, 93, 99–104 Phasal, 284n20, 381, 414–417, 428, 447 Pluperfect, 240, 245, 264, 269, 273–278, 280, 283n11, 287n47, 374n2 Possessor, 114, 118, 119, 126–128, 130, 154–158, 172, 176n12, 176n13, 181, 183, 185, 187, 190, 195–197, 199, 200, 203, 208, 212, 217, 218, 226, 229, 235n6, 366, 426 Postposition, 8, 149, 178n23, 293–297, 299, 300, 302, 304, 305, 308, 312–315, 321–323, 326–328, 361 Preposition, 8, 148, 153, 169–171, 173, 188, 194, 195, 197, 202, 207, 216–218, 226, 234n2, 293–310, 312–320, 322–328, 330n6, 330n11, 338, 342, 343, 356, 358, 361, 368, 374n4, 396, 430, 433–435, 437, 446, 449 Preterit, 8, 240, 245–255, 258, 259, 261–265, 271, 273, 276, 278–280, 283n11, 283n14 Progressive, 259, 260, 264–265, 270, 279, 285n34, 343 Proto-Iranian, 31, 42, 295, 296, 324, 330n4 Purpose clause, 429, 430, 437, 439, 445, 447, 448, 450

460 Index R

Realis, 416 Recipient, 8, 113, 130, 144, 148, 157, 172, 286n40, 300, 310, 321, 325–328, 330n12, 336, 338, 341–342, 344, 345, 353–355, 359, 360, 366, 368–370, 372, 374n4 Relative clause, 339, 341, 379, 381, 406–415, 430, 431, 446–448, 450 Relativizer, 406, 407, 409–411, 416, 428, 448–450 Resumptive, 231, 406 Rhotic, 93 S

Semasiology, semasiological, 19, 28, 29, 50 Standard Kurdish, 21, 44 See also Literary Kurdish Subject, 7, 18, 111–114, 158–168, 171, 173, 174n1, 175n5, 177n17, 178n27, 186, 187, 189, 192, 194–197, 199–201, 204, 207–210, 212, 215, 217, 220, 225, 227, 228, 231, 240, 243, 244, 275, 280, 304, 307, 374n3, 389, 390, 405, 406, 411, 414–417, 419–423, 426, 428, 437–439, 444, 445, 448–450 Subjunctive, 240, 259, 416–418, 420, 427, 428, 430, 432–434, 437, 440

Subordinator, 406, 409, 415, 427, 430–434, 437–439, 441, 445–451 T

Temporal, 243, 249, 250, 261, 269, 271, 272, 280, 283n15, 384, 385, 396, 397, 399, 400, 405, 409, 422, 429–432, 448–450 Transcription, 4–6, 23, 24, 29, 36, 51n1, 68, 70–72, 74, 75, 77, 80–84, 86, 90–99, 106n3, 106n8, 107n24, 107n25, 107n28, 183, 232, 239–240 Transitive, 162–164, 166, 174n1, 176–177n17, 178n24, 186, 188–190, 195, 197–199, 201, 204, 205, 207–209, 212, 213, 217, 219, 220, 223, 225, 228, 243, 244, 246, 249, 266, 267, 269, 275, 319, 320, 340, 344, 345, 361, 365, 389, 390, 405, 421, 423, 449 Turkish, 4, 16, 17, 26, 28, 32, 35, 40, 44, 47, 107n13, 308, 391, 394, 398, 402, 403, 413, 414, 418, 426, 431, 435, 441, 446, 451 U

Uvular, 7, 67, 68, 84, 86, 88, 92, 103, 107n23

 Index 

461

V

W

Voiced, 24, 39, 80, 84, 86, 88, 98, 100, 103, 409, 416 Voiceless, 67, 70, 83, 84, 88, 90, 96, 97, 99, 100 Vowel, 7, 33, 67, 70–80, 84, 87, 102–104, 107n13, 139, 145, 203, 211, 246, 258, 259, 266, 268, 275, 276, 286n36, 358

Word order, 177n18, 335–337, 340, 353–358, 361, 362, 365, 367–372, 418 Z

Zazaki, 2, 6, 13, 28, 31, 37, 42, 69, 181, 284n21, 286n43, 292, 380, 390, 416, 430, 431