Cover not available
Part of
Perfects in Indo-European Languages and Beyond
Edited by Robert Crellin and Thomas Jügel
[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 352] 2020
► pp. 311–350

Chapter 9
The perfect in North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic

 | University of Cambridge
This paper describes the form and function of the perfect in the North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic (NENA) dialects, a highly diverse subgroup of Neo-Aramaic originally spoken east of the Tigris river. After a short description of the expression of the perfective in § 1, a detailed classification of the various forms of the perfect is presented in § 2. Many of these forms have developed under the influence of the verbal system of Iranian languages of the area (§ 3). The perfect in NENA has a wide range of functions, some of them not commonly documented elsewhere, such as the use of the perfect to express the remote past and its use in presuppositional contexts (§ 4). Some of these functions have parallels in the function of the perfect in Iranian languages in contact with NENA (§ 5). Finally, an analysis is given of the NENA perfect within a Reichenbachian framework (§ 6). The common denominator of the diverse functions of the NENA perfect is the fact that the event is viewed from an indirect reference point and as a result the event is defocalized. The separation between the event and the reference point (e < r), which is the hallmark of the perfect, need not be temporal distance, but may be cognitive distance from the focus of attention due to the presuppositional information status of the event.
Keywords: Aramaic, Semitic, Iranian, Kurdish, ergative, defocalization, contact
Article outline
  • 1.Expression of the perfective
  • 2.Classification of perfect forms
    • 2.1Type 1: Copula placed before the perfective form
    • 2.2Type 2: Past stem inflected with D-suffixes
    • 2.3Type 3: Resultative participle and copula
    • 2.4Perfects with addition of invariable copula
    • 2.5Asymmetries
  • 3.Historical development and language contact
  • 4.Function of the perfect
    • 4.1Resultative state
    • 4.2Anterior
    • 4.3Existential
    • 4.4Evidential
    • 4.5Presuppositional
    • 4.6Remote past
  • 5.Function of the perfect in contact languages
  • 6.Analysis of temporal structure
    • 6.1Resultative state
    • 6.2Anterior
    • 6.3Existential
    • 6.4Evidential
    • 6.5Presuppositional
    • 6.6Remote past
  • 7.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 23 September 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.352.09dah
References (45)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Arnold, Werner. 2011. Western Neo-Aramaic. In Weninger et al. (eds.), 685–696.Google Scholar
Bulut, Christiane. 2000. Indirectivity in Kurmanji. In Johanson & Utas (eds.), 147–184.Google Scholar
Coghill, Eleanor. 2016. The rise & fall of ergativity in Aramaic: Cycles of alignment change (Oxford Studies in Diachronic and Historical Linguistics 21). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, Bernard. 1976. Aspect. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 1985. Tense and aspect systems. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dehghani, Yavar. 2000. A grammar of Iranian Azari (LINCOM Studies in Asian Linguistics 30). München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. 1994. Ergativity (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 69). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Doron, Edit & Geoffrey Khan. 2012. The typology of morphological ergativity in Neo-Aramaic. Lingua 122. 225–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fleischman, Suzanne. 1990. Tense and narrativity: From medieval performance to modern fiction. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Fox, Samuel E. 2009. The Neo-Aramaic dialect of Bohtan (Gorgias Neo-Aramaic Studies 9). Piscataway: Gorgias. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldenberg, Gideon. 1992. Aramaic perfects. Israel Oriental Studies 12. 113–137.Google Scholar
Häberl, Charles G. 2011. Neo-Mandaic. In Weninger et al. (eds.), 725–737.Google Scholar
Haig, Geoffrey. 2011. Linker, relativizer, nominalizer, tense-particle. On the Ezafe in West Iranian. In Foong Ha Yap, Karen Grunow-Hårsta, & Janick Wrona (eds.), Nominalization in Asian languages: Diachronic and typological perspectives (Typological Studies in Language 96), 363–390. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jastrow, Otto. 1978. Die mesopotamisch-arabischen Qəltu-Dialekte. Vol. 1. (Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes 43/4). Wiesbaden: Steiner.Google Scholar
. 1988. Der neuaramäische Dialekt von Hertevin (Provinz Siirt) (Semitica Viva 3). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
. 1990. Der arabische Dialekt der Juden von ’Aqra und Arbīl (Semitica Viva 5). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
. 2011. Ṭuroyo and Mlaḥsô. In Weninger et al. (eds.), 697–707.Google Scholar
Johanson, Lars. 1996. On Bulgarian and Turkic indirectives. In Norbert Boretzky, Werner Enninger & Thomas Stolz (eds.), Areale, Kontakte, Dialekte: Sprache und ihre Dynamik in mehrsprachigen Situationen: Beiträge zum 10. Bochum-Essener Symposium “Areale, Kontakte, Dialekte, Sprache und ihre Dynamik in mehrsprachigen Situationen” (Bochum-Essener Beiträge zur Sprachwandelforschung 24), 84–94. Bochum: Brockmeyer.Google Scholar
. 2000. Turkic indirectives. In Johanson & Utas (eds.), 61–87.Google Scholar
. 2003. Evidentiality in Turkic. In Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & Robert M. W. Dixon (eds.), Studies in evidentiality (Typological Studies in Language 54), 273–290. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johanson, Lars & Bo Utas (eds.). 2000. Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian and neighbouring languages (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 24). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Khan, Geoffrey. 1999. A grammar of Neo-Aramaic: The dialect of the Jews of Arbel (Handbook of Oriental Studies Section 1: The Near and Middle East 47). Boston, MA: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002a. The Neo-Aramaic dialect of Qaraqosh (Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics 36). Boston, MA: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002b. The Neo-Aramaic dialect of the Jews of Rustaqa. In Werner Arnold & Hartmut Bobzin (eds.), “Sprich doch mit deinen Knechten Aramäisch, wir verstehen es!” 60 Beiträge zur Semitistik, Festschrift für Otto Jastrow zum 60. Geburtstag, 395–410. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
. 2004. The Jewish Neo-Aramaic dialect of Sulemaniyya and Ḥalabja (Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics 44). Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008a. The Jewish Neo-Aramaic dialect of Urmi (Gorgias Neo-Aramaic Studies 2). Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008b. The Neo-Aramaic dialect of Barwar. 3 vols. (Handbook of Oriental Studies Section 1: The Near and Middle East 96). Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. The Jewish Neo-Aramaic dialect of Sanandaj (Gorgias Neo-Aramaic Studies 10). Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press.Google Scholar
. 2011. North-Eastern Neo-Aramaic. In Weninger et al. (eds.), 708–724.Google Scholar
. 2016. The Neo-Aramaic dialect of the Assyrian Christians of Urmi. 4 vols. (Studies in Semitic Languages and Linguistics 86). Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. Ergativity in Neo-Aramaic. In Jessica Coon, Diane Massam, & Lisa Demena Travis (eds.), Oxford handbook of ergativity, 873–899. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kiparsky, Paul. 2002. Event structure and the perfect. In David I. Beaver, Luis D. Casillas Martínez, Bardy Z. Clark & Stefan Kaufmann (eds.), The Construction of meaning, 113–136. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Kuty, Renaud. 2008. Remarks on the syntax of the participle in Targum Jonathan on Samuel. In Holger Gzella & Margaretha L. Folmer (eds.), Aramaic in its historical and linguistic setting, 207–220. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
MacKenzie, David N. 1961. Kurdish dialect studies (London Oriental Series 9). London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McCoard, Robert W. 1978. The English perfect: Tense-choice and pragmatic inferences (North Holland Linguistic Series 38). Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Mengozzi, Alessandro. 2002. Israel of Alqosh and Joseph of TelKepe. 2 vols. (Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium 589–590). Louvain: Peeters.Google Scholar
Mutzafi, Hezy. 2004. The Jewish Neo-Aramaic dialect of Koy Sanjaq (Iraqi Kurdistan) (Semitica Viva 32). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
. 2008. The Jewish Neo-Aramaic dialect of Betanure (Province of Dihok) (Semitica Viva 43). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Nedyalkov, Vladimir P. & Sergej J. Jaxontov. 1988. The typology of resultative constructions. In Vladimir P. Nedyalkov (ed.), Typology of resultative constructions (Typological Studies in Language 12), 3–62. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Portner, Paul. 2003. The (temporal) semantics and (modal) pragmatics of the perfect. Linguistics and Philosophy 26. 459–510. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sabar, Yona. 1984. Homilies in the Neo-Aramaic of the Jews of Kurdistan for the Biblical portions of Wayhi (Genesis), Beshallah and Yitro (Exodus). Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.Google Scholar
Thackston, W. M. 2006. Kurmanji Kurdish: A reference grammar with selected readings. Teaching materials. Available online at [URL]. (Accessed March 6, 2017.)
Weninger, Stefan, Geoffrey Khan, Michael P. Streck, & Janet C. E. Watson (eds.). 2011. The Semitic languages: An international handbook (Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 36). Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar