Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of Historical Linguistics
Vol. 11:2 (2021) ► pp.248–298
Thematic section

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
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Alignment typology
  • 3.Morphosyntax in nena and Ṭuroyo
    • 3.1 nena morphosyntax
    • 3.2Alignment debates: Ergative > semantic > accusative?
    • 3.3Origin debates: Passive, possessive, experiencer?
  • 4.Versatility of resultatives
    • 4.1Resultative constructions
    • 4.2Agent-oriented resultatives: What it takes to be a ‘possessive’ resultative
    • 4.3Agent-oriented resultatives in Late Eastern Aramaic
    • 4.4From resultative to anterior in Western Aramaic
    • 4.5From resultative to anterior in nena
  • 5.Polyfunctional dative preposition l-
    • 5.1Functions of l-
    • 5.2Morphosyntax of ‘non-canonical’ subjects
    • 5.3Patient-orientations and inversion
    • 5.4Non-canonical subjects in rpcs
  • 6. tam-based marking and cross-system harmonization
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 23 July 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jhl.19046.noo
References (128)
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 121.225–260.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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 II1 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 561.111–143. DOI logoGoogle 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 511.59–101.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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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
Coghill, Eleanor. 2016. The Rise and Fall of Ergativity in Aramaic. Cycles of Alignment Change. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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 561.719–743. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008b. Remarks on Split Intransitivity and Fluid Intransitivity. Empirical Issues in Syntax and Semantics 71 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 1993. Case Marking and the Semantics of Mental Verbs. Semantics and the Lexicon ed. by James Pustejovksi, 55–72. Dordrecht: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Verbs: Aspect and Causal Structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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 551:59–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1994. Ergativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Donohue, Mark & Søren Wichmann. 2008. The Typology of Semantic Alignment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doron, Edith & Geoffrey Khan. 2010. The Debate on Ergativity in Neo-Aramaic. Proceedings of the Israel Association for Theoretical Linguistics 261.1–16.Google Scholar
. 2012. The Typology of Morphological Ergativity in Neo-Aramaic. Lingua 1221.225–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drinka, Bridget. 2017. Language Contact in Europe: The Periphrastic Perfect through History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Drower, E. S. & R. Macuch. 1963. Mandaic Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Fassberg, Steven. 2018. The Ethical Dative in Aramaic. Aramaic Studies 161.101–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gildea, Spike & Fernando Zúñiga. 2016. Referential Hierarchies: A New Look at Some Historical and Typological Patterns. Linguistics 54:3.483–529. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldenberg, Gideon. 1992. Aramaic Perfects. Israel Oriental Studies 121.113–137.Google Scholar
Greenblatt, Jared. 2011. The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Amədya. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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 451.60–104.Google Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 1990. The Grammaticalization of Passive Morphology. Studies in Language 14:1.25–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1994. Passive Participles across Languages. Voice: Form and Function ed. by Barbara Fox & Paul J. Hopper, 151–177. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hemmauer, R. & M. Waltisberg. 2006. Zum relationalen Verhalten der Verbalflexion im Ṭurojo. Folia Linguistica Historica 27:1–2.19–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 1997. Possession: Cognitive Sources, Forces and Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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 341.413–432. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 161.49–57.Google Scholar
Joosten, Jan. 1989. The Function of the So-called dativus ethicus in Classical Syriac. Orientalia 581.473–492.Google Scholar
Jügel, Thomas. 2015. Die Entwicklung der Eregativkonstruktion im Alt- und Mitteliranischen: Eine Korpusbasierte Untersuching zu Kasus, Kongruenz und Satzbau. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Qaraqosh. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004a. The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Sulemaniyya and Halabja. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle 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 521.1–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. The Jewish Neo-Aramaic Dialect of Urmi. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2016. The Neo-Aramaic Dialect of the Assyrian Christians of Urmi. I: Phonology and Morphology. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej. 2008. Split Intransitives, Experiencer Objects and ‘Transimpersonal’ Constructions: (Re-)establishing the Connection. In Donohue & Wichmann 2008: 76–100. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Morgenstern, Matthew. 2011. Studies in Jewish Babylonian Aramaic: Based upon Early Eastern Manuscripts. Winona Lake, IN: Brill. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Næss, Åshild. 2007. Prototypical Transitivity (=Typological Studies in Language 72). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nedjalkov, Vladimir P. 1988. Typology of Resultative Constructions (=Typological Studies in Language 12). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Payne, John R. 1980. The Decay of Ergativity in Pamir Languages. Lingua 511.147–186. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Polotsky, Hans Jacob. 1996. Notes on Neo-Syriac Grammar. Israel Oriental Studies 161.11–48.Google Scholar
Ritter, Helmut. 1967–1971. Ṭūrōyō: Die Volksprache der syrischen Christen des Ṭūr ʕAbdîn A. Texte I1: 1967, II1: 1969, III1: 1971. Beirut: Steiner.Google Scholar
Rubin, Aaron D. 2005. Studies in Semitic Grammaticalization (=Harvard Semitic Studies 57). Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siewierska, Anna. 2003. Person Agreement and the Determination of Alignment. Transactions of the Philological Society 101:2.339–370. DOI logoGoogle 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
. 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