Article published in:
Journal of Historical Linguistics
Vol. 11:2 (2021) ► pp. 248–298

Source constructions as a key to alignment change

The case of Aramaic

| Leiden University | University of Cambridge
Alignment patterns in the Eastern varieties of modern Aramaic varieties are generally said to originate in an ergative source construction based on the so-called ‘passive’ participle qṭīl- ‘killed’ and the preposition l- where ergative person markers gradually extended to all intransitive predicates. While various source constructions have been suggested, this article demonstrates that most explanatory power and scope for the complex historical background of the alignment microvariation in Neo-Aramaic is offered by the typology of resultatives. There was instability from the beginning due to the versatile nature of resultatives and the increasing polyfunctionality of the preposition l-. This, in turn, indicates that the suggested source constructions for ergative alignment need not be mutually exclusive. Moreover, this also points to ergativity as merely one among several outcomes rather than the original source.
Keywords: ergativity, dative, resultative participle, alignment change, Semitic
Published online: 23 July 2021
https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.19046.noo
References

References

Primary sources

Act.Thom . = Wright, William
1871 Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles I: Syriac Texts. London: Williams & Norgate.Google Scholar
Anon.Abr . = Brock, Sebastian P.
1981 An anonymous Syriac homily on Abraham. Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 12.225–260.Google Scholar
Aphr . = Wright, William
1869 The Homilies of Aphraates, the Persian Sage. London: Williams & Norgate.Google Scholar
BLC = Drijvers, H. J. W.
1964 Book of the Laws of the Countries: Dialogue on Fate of Bardaisan of Edessa (Semitic Texts with Translations 3). Assen: Van Gorcum & Comp.Google Scholar
Curet . = Kiraz, George A.
1996 Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Joh.Eph.LES = John of Ephesus
1924 Lives of the Eastern Saints II (=Patrologia Orientalis XVIII) ed. by Ernest W. Brooks. Paris: Firmin-Didot.Google Scholar
Sinait . = Kiraz, George A.
1996 Comparative Edition of the Syriac Gospels. Leiden: BrillGoogle Scholar
Jul.Rom . = Hoffmann, Johann G. R.
1880 Iulianos der Abtruennige. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

Uncited data come from the author’s fieldwork

Secondary sources

Adams, James Noel
2013 Social Variation and the Latin Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Andrews, Avery D.
2007 The Major Functions of the Noun Phrase. Language Typology and Syntactic Description I: Clause Structure ed. by T. Shopen, 132–223. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 292 ]
Arnold, Werner
1990 Das Neuwestaramäische. V. Grammatik (Semitica Viva 4/5). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Aro, Jussi
1965 Parallels to the Akkadian Stative in West Semitic Languages. Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger on His Seventy-fifth Birthday, April 21, 1965 (= Assyriological Studies 16) ed. by Hans G. Güterbock & Thorkild Jacobsen, 407–411. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bar-Asher, Elitzur A.
2008 The Origin and the Typology of the Pattern qtil li in Syriac and Babylonian Aramaic. Sha’arey Lashon. Studies in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Jewish Languages in Honor of Moshe Bar-Asher II ed. by A. Mamman, S. Fassberg & Y. Breuer, 360–392. Jerusalem: Hebrew University. [in Hebrew]Google Scholar
(Siegal) 2011 On the Passiveness of one Pattern in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic: A Linguistic and Philological Discussion. Journal of Semitic Studies 56.111–143. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(Siegal) 2014 From a Non-argument-dative to an Argument-dative. The Character and Origin of the qtīl lī Construction in Syriac and Jewish Babylonian Aramaic. Folia Orientalia 51.59–101.Google Scholar
Barotto, Alessandra
2014 Typology of Case Alignments in NENA Dialects. RiCOGNIZIONI. Revista di lingue, literature e culture moderne 2:1.83–94.Google Scholar
2015 Split Ergativity in NENA Dialects. Neo-Aramaic in its Linguistic Context ed. by Geoffrey Khan & Lidia Napiorkowska, 232–249. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Barsky, Eugene & Sergey Loesov
2021 A History of the Intransitive Preterite of Ṭuroyo: From a Property Adjective to a Finite Tense. Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic (=Cambridge Semitic Languages and Cultures IV) ed. by Geoffrey Khan & Paul M. Noorlander. Cambridge, UK: Open Book Publishers. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Benveniste, Emile
1966 [1952] La construction passive du parfait transitif. Problèmes de linguistique générale I ed. by Emile Benveniste, 176–186. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Bergsträsser, Gotthelf
1915 Neuaramäische Märchen: und andere Texte aus Ma’lūla: hauptsächlich aus der Sammlung E. Prym s und A. Socin. Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus.Google Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar, Giorgio Iemmolo, Taras Zakharko & Alena Witzlack-Makarevich
2013 Patterns of Alignment in Verb Agreement. Languages across Boundaries: Studies in Memory of Anna Siewierska ed. by Dik Bakker & Martin Haspelmath, 15–36. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bickel, Balthasar
2008 On the Scope of the Referential Hierarchy in the Typology of Grammatical Relations. Case and Grammatical Relations. Papers in Honor of Bernard Comrie ed. by Greville G. Corbett & Michael Noonan, 191–210. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bossong, Georg
1998 Le marquage de l’expérient dans les langues d’Europe. Actance et Valence dans les Langues de I’Europe ed. by J. Feuillet, 259–294. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brockelmann, Carl
1913 Grundriss der vergleichende Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen. II: Syntax. Berlin: Reuther & Reichard.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. & Östen Dahl
1989 The Creation of Tense and Aspect Systems in Languages of the World. Studies in Language 13:1.51–103. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L., Revere D. Perkins & William Pagliuca
1994 The Evolution of Grammar. Tense, Aspect and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
[ p. 293 ]
Coghill, Eleanor
2016 The Rise and Fall of Ergativity in Aramaic. Cycles of Alignment Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, David
1984 La phrase nominale et l’évolution du système verbal sémitique: Études de syntaxe historique. Paris.Google Scholar
Cole, Peter, Harbert, Wayne, Hermon, Gabriella Hermon & S. N. Sridhar
1980 The Acquisition of Subjecthood. Language 56.719–743. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard
1978 Ergativity. Syntactic Typology: Studies in the Phenomenology of Language ed. by W. P. Lehmann, 329–393. Sussex: Harvester Press.Google Scholar
1989 Language Universals and Linguistic Typology: Syntax and Morphology. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
2005 Alignment of Case Marking. In The World Atlas of Language Structures ed. by Martin Haspelmath, Mathew S. Dryer, D. Gil & Bernard Comrie, 398–404. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Contini, Riccardo
1998 Considerazione sul presunto « dativo etico » in aramaico pre-cristiano. Etudes sémitiques et samaritaines offertes à Jean Margain. ed. by C.-B. Amphoux, Albert Frey & Ursula Schattner-Rieser, 83–94. Lausanne: Editions du Zèbre.Google Scholar
Creissels, Denis
2008a Direct and Indirect Explanations of Typological Regularities: The Case of Alignment Variations. Folia Linguistica 42:1.1–38. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008b Remarks on Split Intransitivity and Fluid Intransitivity. Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 7 ed. by Olivier Bonami & Patricia Cabredo Hofherr, 139–168. Paris: Colloque de syntaxe et sémantique.Google Scholar
Cristofaro, Sonia
2013 The Referential Hierarchy. Reviewing the Evidence in Diachronic Perspective. Languages across Boundaries. Studies in Memory of Anna Siewierska ed. by Dik Bakker & Martin Haspelmath, 69–93. Berlin & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Croft, William
1993 Case Marking and the Semantics of Mental Verbs. Semantics and the Lexicon ed. by James Pustejovksi, 55–72. Dordrecht: Kluwer. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012 Verbs: Aspect and Causal Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Diem, Werner
2012 Vom Status pendens zum Satzsubjekt: Studien zur Topikalisierung in neueren semitischen Sprachen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W.
1979 Ergativity. Language 55:59–138. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1994 Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Donohue, Mark & Søren Wichmann
2008 The Typology of Semantic Alignment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Doron, Edith & Geoffrey Khan
2010 The Debate on Ergativity in Neo-Aramaic. Proceedings of the Israel Association for Theoretical Linguistics 26.1–16.Google Scholar
2012 The Typology of Morphological Ergativity in Neo-Aramaic. Lingua 122.225–240. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Drinka, Bridget
2017 Language Contact in Europe: The Periphrastic Perfect through History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Drower, E. S. & R. Macuch
1963 Mandaic Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Fassberg, Steven
2018 The Ethical Dative in Aramaic. Aramaic Studies 16.101–116. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 294 ]
Folmer, Margaretha
1995 The Aramaic Language in the Achaemenid Period: A Study in Linguistic Variation. Leuven: Peeters Publishers.Google Scholar
Fox, Samuel E.
2009 The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Bohtan (=Gorgias Neo-Aramaic Studies 9). Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gildea, Spike & Fernando Zúñiga
2016 Referential Hierarchies: A New Look at Some Historical and Typological Patterns. Linguistics 54:3.483–529. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Givón, Talmy
1984 Direct Object and Dative Shifting: Semantic and Pragmatic Case. Objects: Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations ed. by F. Plank, 151–182. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goetze, Albrecht
1942 The So-Called Intensive of the Semitic Languages. Journal of the American Oriental Society 62:1.1–8. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldenberg, Gideon
1992 Aramaic Perfects. Israel Oriental Studies 12.113–137.Google Scholar
Greenblatt, Jared
2011 The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Amədya. Leiden: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gzella, Holger
2004 Tempus, Aspekt und Modalität im Reichsaramäischen. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Haig, Geoffrey
2008a The Emergence of Ergativity in Iranian: Reanalysis or Extension? Aspects of Iranian Linguistics ed. by Simin Karimi, Don Stilo & Vida Samiian, 113–112. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
2008b Alignment Change in Iranian Languages: A Construction Grammar Approach (=Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 37). Berlin & New York: De Gruyter Mouton. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017 Deconstructing Iranian Ergativity. The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity ed. by Jessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa deMena Travis, 465–500. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
2018 The Grammaticalization of Object Pronouns: Why Differential Object Indexing is an Attractor State. Linguistics 56:4.781–818. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Halevy, Rivka
2008 Grammaticalization ‘Chains’ of the Subject Coreferential Dative in Semitic and Elsewhere. New Re-flections on Grammaticalization, Leuven 17–19 July 2008 Conference presentation.Google Scholar
Happ, Heinz
1967 Die lateinische Umgangssprache und die Kunstsprache des Plautus. Glotta 45.60–104.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin
1990 The Grammaticalization of Passive Morphology. Studies in Language 14:1.25–72. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1994 Passive Participles across Languages. Voice: Form and Function ed. by Barbara Fox & Paul J. Hopper, 151–177. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hemmauer, R. & M. Waltisberg
2006 Zum relationalen Verhalten der Verbalflexion im Ṭurojo. Folia Linguistica Historica 27:1–2.19–59. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd
1997 Possession: Cognitive Sources, Forces and Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hoberman, Robert D.
1983 Verb Inflection in Modern Aramaic: Morphosyntax and Semantics. Doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Hopkins, Simon
1989 Neo-Aramaic Dialects and the Formation of the Preterite. Journal of Semitic Studies 34.413–432. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 295 ]
Jastrow, Otto
1985 Laut- und Formenlehre des neuaramäischen Dialekts von Mīdin im Ṭur ʕAbdīn. 3rd ed. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
1988 Der neuaramäische Dialekt von Hertevin (Province Siirt) (Semitica Viva 3). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
1994 Der neuaramäische Dialekt von Mlaḥsô (Semitica Viva 14). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
1996 Passive Formation in Ṭuroyo and Mlaḥsô. Israel Oriental Studies 16.49–57.Google Scholar
Joosten, Jan
1989 The Function of the So-called dativus ethicus in Classical Syriac. Orientalia 58.473–492.Google Scholar
Jügel, Thomas
2015 Die Entwicklung der Eregativkonstruktion im Alt- und Mitteliranischen: Eine Korpusbasierte Untersuching zu Kasus, Kongruenz und Satzbau. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kapeliuk, Olga
2008 Between Nouns and Verbs in Neo-Aramaic. Neo-Aramaic in its Linguistic Context ed. by Geoffrey Khan & Lidia Napiorkowska, 131–147. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Keenan, Edward L.
1976 Towards a Universal Definition of Subject. Subject and Topic ed. by C. N. Li, 303–333. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Khan, Geoffrey
1999 A Grammar of Neo-Aramaic: The Dialect of the Jews of Arbel. Leiden: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002 The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Qaraqosh. Leiden: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004a The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Sulemaniyya and Halabja. Leiden: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004b Aramaic and the Impact of Languages in Contact With it Through the Ages. Lenguas en Contacto: el testimonio escrito ed. by Pedro Bádenas de la Peña, Eugenio R. Luján, María Angeles Gallego & Sofía Torallas Tovar, 87–108. Madrid: Consejo superiores de investigaciones científicas.Google Scholar
2007a Grammatical Borrowing in North Eastern Neo-Aramaic. Grammatical Borrowing in Cross-Linguistic Perspective ed. by Yaron Matras & Jeanette Sakel, 197–214. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2007b The North Eastern Neo-Aramaic dialects. Journal of Semitic Studies 52.1–20. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008 The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Urmi. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2013 Some Historical Developments of the Verb in Neo-Aramaic. Diachronic and Typological Perspectives on Verbs ed. by Folke Josephson, 425–435. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016 The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of the Assyrian Christians of Urmi. I: Phonology and Morphology. Leiden: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017 Ergativity in Neo-Aramaic. The Oxford Handbook of Ergativity ed. by Jessica Coon, Diane Massam & Lisa deMena Travis, 873–899. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kutscher, E. Y.
1969 Two ‘Passive’ Constructions in Aramaic in the Light of Persian. Proceedings of the International Conference on Semitic Studies held in Jerusalem, 19–23 July 1965, 132–151. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.Google Scholar
Ledgeway, Adam
2012 From Latin to Romance: Morphosyntactic Typology. Oxford (etc.): Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 296 ]
Loesov, Sergey
2012 A New Attempt at Reconstructing Proto-Aramaic. Babel und Bibel 6: Annual of Ancient Near Eastern, Old Testament and Semitic Studies ed. by Leonid E. Kogan, Natalia V. Koslova, Sergey Loesov & Sergey V. Tishchenko, 421–456. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej
2008 Split Intransitives, Experiencer Objects and ‘Transimpersonal’ Constructions: (Re-)establishing the Connection. In Donohue & Wichmann 2008: 76–100. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mengozzi, Alessandro
2002a Israel of Alqosh and Joseph of Telkepe: A Story in a Truthful Language Religious Poems in Vernacular Syriac (North Iraq, 17th Century) I: An Anthology. Leuven: Éditions Peeters.Google Scholar
2002b Israel of Alqosh and Joseph of Telkepe: A Story in a Truthful Language Religious Poems in Vernacular Syriac (North Iraq, 17th Century) II: Introduction and Translation. Leuven: Éditions Peeters.Google Scholar
2005 Neo-Aramaic and the So-called ‘Decay of Ergativity’ in Kurdish. Proceedings of the 10th Meeting of Hamito–Semitic (Afroasiatic) Linguistics ed. by Pelio Fronzaroli & Paolo Marassini, 239–256. Florence: Dipartimento di linguistica, Università di Firenze.Google Scholar
Molin, Dorota
2021 The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Dohok: A Comparative Grammar. Doctoral dissertation, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Mor, Uri & Na’ama Pat-El
2016 The Development of Predicates with Prepositional Subjects in Hebrew. Journal of Semitic Studies 61:2.327–346. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Morgenstern, Matthew
2011 Studies in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic: Based upon Early Eastern Manuscripts. Winona Lake, IN: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mutzafi, Hezy
2004 The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Koy Sanjaq (Iraqi Kurdistan), (=Semitica Viva 32). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
2008 Trans-Zab Jewish Neo-Aramaic. Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 1(3): 409–431. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Næss, Åshild
2007 Prototypical Transitivity (=Typological Studies in Language 72). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P.
1988 Typology of Resultative Constructions (=Typological Studies in Language 12). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2001 Resultative Constructions. Language Typology and Language Universals (=Handbooks of Linguistics and Communication Science 20) ed. by Martin Haspelmath, 928–940. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. & Sergej J. Jaxontov
1988 The Typology of Resultative Constructions. In Nedjalkov 1988, 3–62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nöldeke, Theodor
1868 Grammatik der neusyrischen Sprache am Urmia-See und in Kurdistan. Leipzig: T.O. Weigel.Google Scholar
1875 [1964] Mandäische Grammatik. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Noorlander, Paul M.
2012 Neo-Aramaic Alignment in a Historical Perspective: Some Preliminary Remarks. Semitics Philology Seminar 3 December 2012 Cambridge. Conference presentation.Google Scholar
2014 Diversity in Convergence: Kurdish and Aramaic Variation Entangled. Journal of Kurdish Studies 2:1.201–224. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
[ p. 297 ]
2017 The Proximative and its Correlatives in North Eastern Neo-Aramaic. Prospective and Proximative in Turkic, Iranian and Beyond ed. by Agnes Korn & Irina Nevskaya, 187–210. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag.Google Scholar
2018a Me Likes the Subject-Subject-like Properties of Experiencers in Aramaic. Neo-Aramaic Languages across Space and Time 5–7 October 2018 Uppsala. Conference presentation.Google Scholar
2018b Alignment in Eastern Neo-Aramaic Languages from a Typological Perspective. Doctoral dissertation, Leiden University.Google Scholar
2019 One Way of Becoming Perfect? ‘Possessive’ Resultatives in Semitic and Aramaic in Particular. Semitics Philology Seminar 14 October 2019 Cambridge. Conference presentation.Google Scholar
2021a Towards a Typology of Possessors and Experiencers in Neo-Aramaic: Non-canonical Subjects as Relics of a Former Dative Case. Studies in the Grammar and Lexicon of Neo-Aramaic (=Cambridge Semitic Languages and Cultures IV) ed. by Geoffrey Khan & Paul M. Noorlander, 29–93. Cambridge, UK: Open Book Publishers. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2021b Ergativity and Other Alignment Types in Neo-Aramaic: Investigating Morphosyntactic Variation. To appear in Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics 103. Leiden: Brill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Noorlander, Paul M. & Dorota Molin
Forthcoming. Word Order Typology in North Eastern Neo-Aramaic: Towards a Corpus-Based Approach. Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung 75. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
Onishi, Masayuki
2001 Non-canonically Marked Subjects and Objects: Parameters and Properties. Non-canonical Marking of Subjects and Objects (= Typological Studies in Language 46) by Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald, R. M. W. Dixon & Masayuki Onishi, 1–51. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Payne, John R.
1980 The Decay of Ergativity in Pamir Languages. Lingua 51.147–186. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pinkster, Harm
1987 The Strategy and Chronology of the Development of Future and Perfect Tense Auxiliaries in Latin. The Historical Development of Auxiliaries ed. by Martin Harris & Paolo Ramat, 193–233. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Polotsky, Hans Jacob
1996 Notes on Neo-Syriac Grammar. Israel Oriental Studies 16.11–48.Google Scholar
Ritter, Helmut
1967–1971 Ṭūrōyō: Die Volksprache der syrischen Christen des Ṭūr ʕAbdîn A. Texte I: 1967, II: 1969, III: 1971 Beirut: Steiner.Google Scholar
Rubin, Aaron D.
2005 Studies in Semitic Grammaticalization (=Harvard Semitic Studies 57). Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Siewierska, Anna
2003 Person Agreement and the Determination of Alignment. Transactions of the Philological Society 101:2.339–370. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2005 Alignment of Verbal Person Marking. World Atlas of Language Structures ed. by Martin Haspelmath, Matthew S. Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie, 406–409. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sokoloff, Michael
1992 A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic. 2nd ed. Ramat–Gan: Bar Ilan University Press / Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
2002 A Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic. Ramat–Gan: Bar Ilan University Press / Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
[ p. 298 ]
2009 A Syriac Lexicon. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns & Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press.Google Scholar
2014 A Dictionary of Christian Palestinian Aramaic. Leuven: Peeters Publishers.Google Scholar
Stassen, Leon
2009 Predicative Possession. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Trask, R. L.
1979 On the Origins of Ergativity. Ergativity: Towards a Theory of Grammatical Relations ed. by F. Plank, 385–404. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Van Rompay, Lucas
1999 Les versions syriaque. La chaîne sur l’Exode I: Fragments de severe d’Antioche: Texte grec établi et traduit ed. by Françoise Petit. Louvain: In Aedibus Peeters.Google Scholar
Waltisberg, Michael
2016 Syntax des Ṭuroyo (=Semitica Viva 55). Wiesbaden: Harrassowiz.Google Scholar