Abstract

This paper presents a description of the case marking systems in Amharic and Tigrinya. The case system is fully retained in the pronominal and determiner systems of both languages. Nominal case markings are, however, observed only in definite objects. The languages are nominative-accusative in their case system as can be seen from the pronouns, the definite article, and pronominal affixes which are attached to the verb to show agreement with subjects and definite objects. There is also interaction between the semantic notion of definiteness and object marking, which takes two forms: an object marker attached to the nominal object and an object marking verbal affix. In both cases, it is only if the object is definite that these object markings appear. This is an instance of split P. The two related object-marking phenomena always coexist in both languages. In this paper, an attempt will be made to give a description of the case marking systems in Tigrinya and Amharic, closely related Ethiopian Semitic languages. Two languages have been considered instead of just one for comparative reasons. Amharic and Tigrinya exhibit a nominative-accusative case system. Nevertheless, it is important to point out that the languages do not have typical nominal case marking except in objects which are definite. The case system is fully retained in the pronominal and determiner (specifically definite article) system. In addition, verbal affixes which show agreement in person, number and gender with subjects and objects help in giving an idea of what the case systems in the languages look like (Amanuel, 1998; Leslau, 1995; Getahun, 1990; and Baye, 1987; among others). As a background, it will be shown why the languages have are said to have a nominative-accusative system starting with the pronominal and determiner (definite article) system of the languages. Following this, an attempt will be made to demonstrate how verbal affixes are used to show agreement with subjects and objects in transitive sentences involving verbs with typical transitivity features (Hopper and Thompson, 1980). This is done in order to demonstrate the interaction between object marking and the semantic notion of definiteness which is one of the major objects of this paper. According to Hopper and Thompson, “Transitivity involves a number of components, only one of which is the presence of an object of the verb. These components are all concerned with the effectiveness with which an action takes place” (1980: 251). In the overall discussion, reference will be made to Hopper and Thompson (1980) since the issues they raised are central to this paper. Hopper and Thompson identified the * My sincere thanks are due to Professor Regina Pustet, my typology instructor, not only for introducing me to the subject matter of typology in the best possible way, but also for her critical comments in the course of writing this paper. My thanks are also due for the editors of CRIL for her their helpful comments.

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.