Cover not available
Part of
Argument Realisation in Complex Predicates and Complex Events: Verb-verb constructions at the syntax-semantic interface
Edited by Brian Nolan and Elke Diedrichsen
[Studies in Language Companion Series 180] 2017
► pp. 213–244

Chapter 8
Complex verbs in Bohairic Coptic

Language contact and valency

 | University of Amsterdam
This chapter discusses second argument markers in Bohairic Coptic complex verbs constructed with the light verbs er‑ ‘do, make’ and ti- ‘give’ and typically used to integrate verbal borrowings from Greek. The question is examined if Coptic argument marking can be considered a replica of Greek valency patterns. Enhancement of already existing marking strategies seems more plausible, however, whereby the rise of complex verbs has contributed to a radical restructuring of the transitivity system in Coptic. Two competing subsystems of transitivity are distinguished: a recessive one characterized by head marking and emphasis on the discriminating function of case and a productive one in which the characterizing function of case becomes prominent thanks to dependent marking by means of a preposition.
Article outline
  • 1.Subject and aims of the present chapter
  • 2.Structure of the chapter
  • 3.Introduction
    • 3.1Basic information about Egyptian-Coptic and the corpus examined
    • 3.2Egyptian and Greek in contact
    • 3.3Case: some preliminaries
      • 3.3.1Case, its marking and its functions
      • 3.3.2Case and language contact
      • 3.3.3Case in Ancient Greek
  • 4.Complex verbs and their arguments in Bohairic Coptic
    • 4.1Formation strategies of complex verbs
    • 4.2Complex verbs and their valency: An overview
    • 4.3Greek valency patterns in Coptic?
    • 4.4Discussion
  • 5.Conclusions: Two subsystems of transitivity in Bohairic Coptic
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 26 January 2017
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.180.08zak
References (88)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2006. Grammars in contact: A cross-linguistic perspective. In Grammars in Contact: A Cross-Linguistic Typology, Alexandra Y. Aikhenvald & Robert M.W. Dixon (eds), 1–66. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Almond, Mathew. 2010. Language change in Greek loaned words. Lingua Aegyptia 18: 19–31.Google Scholar
Bagnall, Roger S. 1993. Egypt in Late Antiquity. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bauer, Walter. 1988. Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der frühchristlichen Literatur, 6th edn, Kurt Aland & Barbara Aland (eds). Berlin: de Gruyter. (English language version: A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, 2nd edn revised and augmented by F. Wilbur Gingrich and Frederick W. Danker from Walter Bauer’s fifth edition, 1958. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press, 1979). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blake, Barry J. 1994. Case. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Blass, Friedrich & Debrunner, Albert. 1979. Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch. 15th rev. edn, Friedrich Rehkopf (ed.). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Bortone, Pietro. 2010. Greek Prepositions: From Antiquity to the Present. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Broden, Thomas. 2006. Paradigm versus syntagm. In The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2nd rev. edn, Vol. 9, Keith Brown (ed.), 173–175. Oxford: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chanet, Anne-Marie. 1994. Sème négatif et génitif grec. In Cas et prépositions en grec ancien: contraintes syntaxiques et interprétations sémantiques: Actes du colloque international de Saint-Étienne (3–5 juin 1993), Bernard Jacquinod (ed.), 45–62. Saint-Étienne: Publications de l’Université de Saint-Étienne.Google Scholar
Crum, Walter Ewing. 1939. A Coptic Dictionary. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Dąbrowska, Ewa. 1997. Cognitive Semantics and the Polish Dative. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delbecque, Nicole. 2002. A construction grammar approach to transitivity in Spanish. In The Nominative & Accusative and Their Counterparts [Case and Grammatical Relations 4], Kristin Davidse & Béatrice Lamiroy (eds), 81–130. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Depuydt, Leo. 1993. For the sake of ⲟⲩⲱϣ ‘love’: an exception to the Stern-Jernstedt Rule and its history. The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 79: 282–286. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dik, Simon. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar, Vols 1–2, Kees Hengeveld. Berlin: Mouton de Gryuter.Google Scholar
Dimmendaal, Gerrit J. 2005. Head marking, dependent marking and constituent order in the Nilotic area. In Studies in African Linguistic Typology [Typological Studies in Language 64], F.K. Erhard Voeltz (ed.), 71–92. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Engsheden, Åke. 2006. Über die Markierung des direkten Objekts im Koptischen. Lingua Aegyptia 14: 199–222.Google Scholar
. 2008. Differential object marking in Sahidic Coptic. In Interdependence of Diachronic and Synchronic Analyses [Studies in Language Companion Series 103], Folke Josephson & Ingmar Söhrman (eds), 323–344. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gardner, Iain (ed.). 1996–2007. Kellis Literary Texts, Part 1–2. Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
Gardner, Iain, Alcock, Anthony & Funk, Wolf-Peter (eds). 1997. Coptic Documentary Texts from Kellis, Part 1. Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar
Hagège, Claude. 2010. Adpositions. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haspelmath, Martin. 2009. Terminology of case. In Malchukov & Spencer (eds), 505–517.Google Scholar
Hasselbach, Rebecca. 2013. Case in Semitic: Roles, Relations and Reconstruction. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2009. Grammaticalization of cases. In Malchukov & Spencer (eds), 458–469.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania. 2005. Language Contact and Grammatical Change. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Holvoet, Axel. 1991. Transitivity and Clause Structure in Polish: A Study in Case Marking. Warszawa: Slawistyczny Ośrodek Wydawniczy.Google Scholar
Holvoet, Axel & Nau, Nicole. 2014. Argument marking and grammatical relations in Baltic. In Grammatical Relations and their Non-Canonical Encoding in Baltic, Axel Holvoet & Nicole Nau (eds), 1–41. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Thompson, Sandra A. 1980. Transitivity in grammar and discourse. Language 56(2): 251–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hornberger, Nancy H. 2003. Introduction. In Continua of Biliteracy: An Ecological Framework for Educational Policy, Research, and Practice in Multilingual Settings, Nancy H. Hornberger (ed.), i-xxix. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Horrocks, Geoffrey. 2010. Greek: A History of the Language and its Speakers. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Humbert, Jean. 1930. La disparition du datif en grec (du Ie au Xe siècle). Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Hyvernat, Henri. 1886[1977]. Les Actes des martyrs de l’Égypte. Paris. Reprint Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
Jannaris, Antonius, A. 1897[1968]. An Historical Grammar Chiefly of the Attic Dialect as Written and Spoken from Classical Antiquity down to the Present Time: Founded upon the Ancient Texts, Inscriptions, Papyri and Present Popular Greek. Reprint Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
Johanson, Lars. 2009. Case and contact linguistics. In Malchukov & Spencer (eds), 494–501.Google Scholar
. 2013. Written language intertwining. In Contact Languages: A Comprehensive Guide, Peter Bakker & Yaron Matras (eds), 273–33. Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kittilä, Seppo. 2008. Animacy effects on differential goal marking. Linguistic Typology 12(2): 245–268. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Case and typology of transitivity. In Malchukov & Spencer (eds), 356–367.Google Scholar
Kühner, Raphael, Blass, Friedrich W. & Gerth, Bernhard. 1890–1904[1963–1966]. Ausführliche Grammatik der griechischen Sprache. Reprint 3rd edn, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.Google Scholar
Lander, Yury A. 2009. Varieties of genitive. In Malchukov & Spencer (eds), 581–592.Google Scholar
Lavidas, Nicolaos. 2009. Transitivity Alternations in Diachrony: Changes in Argument Structure and Voice Morphology. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Layton, Bentley. 2004. A Coptic Grammar: With Chrestomathy and Glossary; Sahidic Dialect, 2nd edn, revised and expanded. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.Google Scholar
Levin, Beth Carol & Rappaport Hovav, Malka. 2005. Argument Realization. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Loprieno, Antonio. 2001. From ancient Egyptian to Coptic. In Language Typology and Language Universals: An International handbook [Handbücher zur Sprach- und Kommunikationswissenschaft 20], Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard König, Wulf Oesterreicher & Wolfgang Raible (eds), 1742–1761. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
. 2004. Egyptian and Coptic. In The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the World’s Ancient Languages, Roger D. Woodard (ed.), 160–217. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Loprieno, Antonio & Müller, Matthias. 2012. Ancient Egyptian and Coptic. In The Afroasiatic Languages, Zygmunt Frajzyngier & Erin Shay (eds), 102–144. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia. 2003. On the Meaning of Prepositions and Cases: The Expression of Semantic Roles in Ancient Greek [Studies in Language Companion Series 67]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luraghi, Silvia & Narrog, Heiko. 2014. Perspectives on semantic roles: an introduction. In Perspectives on Semantic Roles [Typological Studies in Language 106], Silvia Luraghi & Heiko Narrog (eds), 1–21. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej L. 2005. Case pattern splits, verb types and construction competition. In Competition and Variation in Natural Languages: The Case for Case, Mengistu Amberber & Helen de Hoop (eds), 73–117. Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej L. & de Swart, Peter. 2009. Differential case marking and actancy variations. In Malchukov & Spencer (eds), 339–355.Google Scholar
Malchukov, Andrej L. & Spencer, Andrew (eds). 2009. The Oxford Handbook of Case. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Mallon, Alexis. 1956. Grammaire copte: Bibliographie, chrestomathie et vocabulaire, 4me éd., revue par Michel Malinine. Beyrouth: Imprimerie Catholique.Google Scholar
Matras, Yaron. 2007. The borrowability of structural categories. In Matras & Sakel (eds), 31–73.Google Scholar
. 2009. Language Contact. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matras, Yaron & Sakel, Jeanette (eds). 2007. Grammatical Borrowing in Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mayser, Edwin. 1926–1934. Grammatik der griechischen Papyri aus der Ptolemäerzeit. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Merlier, Octave. 1931. Le remplacement du datif par le génitif en grec moderne. Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique 55(1): 207–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Muysken, Pieter. 2000. Bilingual Speech: A Typology of Code-Mixing. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
. 2007. Mixed codes. In Handbook of Multilingualism and Multilingual Communication, Peter Auer & Li Wei (eds), 325–340. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Myers-Scotton, Carol. 2006. Multiple Voices: An Introduction to Bilingualism. Malden MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Næss, Åshild. 2007. Prototypical Transitivity [Typological Studies in Language 72]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. Varieties of dative. In Malchukov & Spencer (eds), 572–580.Google Scholar
Nichols, Johanna. 1986. Head-marking and dependent-marking grammar. Language 62: 56–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Panagl, Oswald. 2006. Zur verbaler Konstruktion deverbativer Nomina. In Word Classes and Related Topics in Ancient Greek: Proceedings of the Conference on ‘Greek Syntax and Word Classes’ Held in Madrid on 18–21, June 2003, Emilio Crespo, Jesús De la Villa & A.R. Revuelta (eds), 47–57. Louvain-la-Neuve: Peeters.Google Scholar
Panévová, Jarmila. 2014. Contribution of valency to the analysis of language. In Spevak (ed.), 1–17.Google Scholar
Reintges, Chris H. 2001. Aspects of the morphosyntax of subjects and objects in Coptic Egyptian. Linguistics in the Netherlands 18: 177–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004. Coptic Egyptian (Sahidic Dialect): A Learner’s Grammar. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.Google Scholar
Rice, Susan & Kabata, Kaori. 2007. Crosslinguistic grammaticalization patterns of the ALLATIVE. Linguistic Typology 11(3): 451–514. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Richter, Tonio Sebastian. 2014. Neue koptische medizinische Rezepte. Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache und Altertumskunde 141(2): 154–194.Google Scholar
Roegiest, Eugeen. 2007. Transitivity and referentiality in Spanish and Rumanian. In On Interpreting Constructions Schemas: From Action and Motion to Transitivity and Causality, Nicole Delbecque & Bert Cornillie (eds), 39–59. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sakel, Jeanette. 2007. Types of loan: Matter and pattern. In Matras & Sakel (eds), 15–29.Google Scholar
Siewierska, Anna & Bakker, Dik. 2009. Case and alternative strategies: Word order and agreement marking. In Malchukov & Spencer (eds), 290–303.Google Scholar
Simpson, R.S. 1996. Demotic Grammar in the Ptolemaic Sacerdotal Decrees. Oxford: Griffith Institute, Ashmolean Museum.Google Scholar
Spevak, Olga. 2014. Noun valency in Latin. In Spevak (ed.), 183–210.Google Scholar
(ed.). 2014. Noun Valency [Studies in Language Companion Series 158]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spiegelberg, Wilhelm. 1925. Demotische Grammatik. Heidelberg: Carl Winter Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
Stern, Ludwig. 1880[1971]. Koptische Grammatik. Leipzig. Reprint Osnabrück: Biblio Verlag.Google Scholar
Tadmor, Uri. 2009. Loanwords in the world’s languages: Findings and results. In Loanwords in the World’s Languages: A Comparative Handbook, Martin Haspelmath & Uri Tadmor (eds), 55–75. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Till, Walter C. 1946–1947. Koptische Rezepte. Bulletin de la Société d’Archéologie Copte 12: 43–55.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1988. The Semantics of Grammar [Studies in Language Companion Series 18]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wohlgemuth, Jan. 2009. A Typology of Verbal Borrowings. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vierros, Marja. 2012. Bilingual Notaries in Hellenistic Egypt: A Study of Greek as a Second Language. Brussel: KVAB.Google Scholar
Worp, Klaas A. 2011–2012. (Dia)phylassō + DAT.: A linguistic regionalism in inscription from Christian Egypt? Analecta Papyrologica 23–24: 237–239.Google Scholar
Zakrzewska, Ewa D. 2006. The hero, the villain and the mob: Topicality and focality in Bohairic narrative discourse. Lingua Aegyptia 14: 325–346.Google Scholar
2011. Masterplots and martyrs: Narrative techniques in Bohairic hagiography. In Narratives of Egypt and the Ancient Near East: Literary and Linguistic Approaches [Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 189], Fredrik Hagen, John Johnstone, Wendy Monkhouse, Kathryn Piquette, John Tait & Martin Worthington (eds), 499–523. Leuven: Peeters.Google Scholar
2015a. GIVE and its arguments in Bohairic Coptic. In Causation, Permission and Transfer: Argument Realisation in GET, TAKE, PUT, GIVE and LET Verbs [Studies in Language Companion Series 167], Brian Nolan, Gudrun Rawoens & Elke Diedrichsen (eds), 227–252. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
2015b. L* as a secret language: Social functions of early Coptic. In Christianity and Monasticism in Middle Egypt: Al-Minya and Asyut, Gawdat Gabra and Hany N. Takla (eds), 185–198. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forthcoming 1. A ‘bilingual language variety’ or ‘the language of the pharaohs’? Coptic from the perspective of contact linguistic. In Language Contact and Bilingualism in Antiquity: What Linguistic Borrowing into Coptic Can Tell Us about it. Papers Read at the Inaugural Conference of the DDGLC Project, Sächsische Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig, April 2010 [Lingua Aegyptia Studia Monographica], Peter Dils, Eitan Grossman, Tonio Sebastian Richter & Wolfgang Schenkel (eds). Hamburg: Widmaier Verlag.
Fortcoming 2. Why did Egyptians write Coptic? The rise of Coptic as a literary language. In Copts and Society: Documentary-historical Studies. Proceedings of the First International Coptic Studies Conference “Life in Egypt during the Coptic Period:Towns and Villages, Laymen and Clergy, Bishops and Dioceses”, Alexandria 21–23 September 2010, Ahmed Mansour (ed.), 227–236. Alexandria: Bibliotheca Alexandrina.
Zanchi, Chiara, Sausa, Eleonora & Luraghi, Silvia (eds). 2015. The Homeric Dependency Lexicon (HoDeL). <[URL]> (23 December 2015).
Cited by (17)

Cited by 17 other publications

Fendel, Victoria Beatrix
2023. Support‐Verb Constructions with Objects:Greek‐CopticInterference in the Documentary Papyri?1. Transactions of the Philological Society 121:3 ► pp. 382 ff. DOI logo
Fendel, Victoria Beatrix Maria
2022. Introduction. In Coptic Interference in the Syntax of Greek Letters from Egypt, ► pp. 3 ff. DOI logo
Fendel, Victoria Beatrix Maria
2022. Summary and Conclusion. In Coptic Interference in the Syntax of Greek Letters from Egypt, ► pp. 445 ff. DOI logo
Fendel, Victoria Beatrix Maria
2022. Coptic Interference in the Syntax of Greek Letters from Egypt, DOI logo
Fendel, Victoria Beatrix Maria
2022. Concepts, Contexts, Corpora. In Coptic Interference in the Syntax of Greek Letters from Egypt, ► pp. 23 ff. DOI logo
Fendel, Victoria Beatrix Maria
2022. Copyright Page. In Coptic Interference in the Syntax of Greek Letters from Egypt, ► pp. iv ff. DOI logo
Fendel, Victoria Beatrix Maria
2022. Discourse Markers. In Coptic Interference in the Syntax of Greek Letters from Egypt, ► pp. 323 ff. DOI logo
Fendel, Victoria Beatrix Maria
2022. List of Abbreviations. In Coptic Interference in the Syntax of Greek Letters from Egypt, ► pp. xi ff. DOI logo
Fendel, Victoria Beatrix Maria
2022. Formulaic Language. In Coptic Interference in the Syntax of Greek Letters from Egypt, ► pp. 365 ff. DOI logo
Fendel, Victoria Beatrix Maria
2022. Semi-formulaic Phrases. In Coptic Interference in the Syntax of Greek Letters from Egypt, ► pp. 413 ff. DOI logo
Fendel, Victoria Beatrix Maria
2022. Sigla. In Coptic Interference in the Syntax of Greek Letters from Egypt, ► pp. xiii ff. DOI logo
Fendel, Victoria Beatrix Maria
2022. Verb Phrases. In Coptic Interference in the Syntax of Greek Letters from Egypt, ► pp. 237 ff. DOI logo
Fendel, Victoria Beatrix Maria
2022. The Basics of Coptic Grammar. In Coptic Interference in the Syntax of Greek Letters from Egypt, ► pp. 99 ff. DOI logo
Fendel, Victoria Beatrix Maria
2022. Adverbial Phrases. In Coptic Interference in the Syntax of Greek Letters from Egypt, ► pp. 295 ff. DOI logo
Fendel, Victoria Beatrix Maria
2022. Dedication. In Coptic Interference in the Syntax of Greek Letters from Egypt, ► pp. v ff. DOI logo
Fendel, Victoria Beatrix Maria
2022. The Grammar of the Corpus (Standard and Variation). In Coptic Interference in the Syntax of Greek Letters from Egypt, ► pp. 131 ff. DOI logo
Fendel, Victoria Beatrix Maria
2022.  Corpus of Texts. In Coptic Interference in the Syntax of Greek Letters from Egypt, ► pp. 485 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 november 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.